KBJ Falsely Claims First Amendment “Hamstrings” Government in “Environment of Threatening Circumstances”
On March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments for the pending case Murthy vs Missouri, a case exploring whether the Biden Administration violated the first amendment by pressuring social media platforms to censor certain content online. During the course of a recent hearing, Associate Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson (KBJ) questioned Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing “my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” expressing, “Some might say the government has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. You’ve got the first amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective and you’re saying the government can’t interact with the source of those problems,” she concluded.
KBJ’s comments directly ignore precedent established in cases like US v Alverez, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined a court “had never held that the government may prohibit speech simply because it is knowingly false and that some knowingly false speech could have affirmative constitutional value.” According to the Congressional Review Service, the New York Times Company v. Sullivan also “suggested the government may not regulate false ideas, and even false factual statements receive some constitutional protection.” Further, the Congressional Review Service also explains how “the Supreme Court has recognized that false statements may not add much value to the marketplace of ideas.” The same report also notes “One federal appeals court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting reckless false statements about candidates in campaign materials, emphasizing that the law too broadly swept in non-material statements and intermediaries who merely transmitted others’ statements.”
KBJ also ignores the inherent values enshrined in the bill of rights. The initial lack of a bill of rights in the constitution significantly delayed its ratification in the late 1700s. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “the American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures,” which is why Thomas Jefferson argued “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
Ultimately, given prior court rulings and by virtue of the bill of rights, KBJ grossly inverts the integrity of the first amendment to falsely argue the government has a responsibility to protect the citizenry from poorly-defined threats rather than ensure their freedoms.
Read More:
