It is easy to dismiss Ketanji Brown Jackson as a dim-witted DEI hire, but she must be smarter than she seems, having figured out the purpose of the Constitution. She complains that it has been “hamstringing” government attempts to repress us:

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Lousiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga during oral arguments Monday on Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) when the federal government should be allowed to “compel or encourage” social media platforms to censor speech that is “threatening… from the government’s perspective.”

Compelling or encouraging the suppression of speech that the government finds threatening is the definition of censorship. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect us from it.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty can not manifest itself in encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”

Who decides when information is “harmful”? Authoritarian apparatchiks like Ketanji Brown Jackson. Harmful to whom? Them, not us.

On tips from Bluto and Htos1av.

Comments are closed.