During a Supreme Court debate on Monday, a notable discussion unfolded regarding the Biden administration’s purported collaboration with major tech companies to regulate certain online content. The conversation was sparked by a lawsuit initiated by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Republican officials. These states leveled accusations against top government officials for allegedly partnering with key social media platforms under the pretext of combating misinformation, a move they argue infringes upon First Amendment rights. The lawsuit highlighted instances of censorship related to various topics such as the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop, the origins of COVID-19, and the effectiveness of face masks.
Throughout the nearly two-hour-long oral arguments, the justices deliberated on whether the Biden administration’s engagement with these private entities crossed constitutional boundaries, distinguishing between lawful encouragement and unlawful coercion or threats.
Justice Samuel Alito voiced concerns about the government wielding undue influence over these platforms, likening their interaction to a hierarchical relationship. However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson presented a contrasting viewpoint. “Your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson remarked to the attorney representing the challenging states and private plaintiffs. She further argued, “The government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country… by encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”
This perspective, as interpreted by constitutional attorney John Shu, suggests that Jackson believes the opposing argument might unduly restrict the government’s ability to communicate vital information or correct misconceptions in times of crisis, especially when public safety is at stake.
Missouri’s Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, concurred with Jackson’s assessment, acknowledging that such limitations are intentional and foundational to safeguarding citizens from potential government overreach, emphasizing the protective purpose of the Constitution.
The lawsuit specifically accuses numerous federal agencies and officials of pressuring platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X to censor individual posts, particularly those questioning COVID-19 policies and the 2020 election outcomes. Following a temporary injunction by U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty, which cited probable First Amendment violations by the government, the case has escalated to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department, in its appeal, defended the presidential prerogative to influence public and corporate action in service of the public good, encompassing areas such as public health and national security.
During the session, conservative justices expressed skepticism towards the government’s tactics, with Justice Clarence Thomas pondering the subtleties of federal collaboration with tech companies. The deliberations also touched upon potential risks of overly restricting governmental dialogue with tech platforms, considering scenarios like public health emergencies or national security threats where swift communication with social media companies could be crucial.
Justice Elena Kagan, for instance, raised the dilemma of online terrorist recruitment, questioning the implications of barring government officials from alerting platforms to such dangers. As the court continues to weigh these complex issues, the outcome of this case could have profound implications for the balance between free speech and governmental responsibility in the digital age.
HOW… did the good and normal German Citizens, fall in line with Hitler’s Germany?
Well how about a little history lesson… JUST THE FACTS, ehhh?
German Nazi Party member Joseph Goebbels became Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister in 1933, which gave him power over ALL German radio, press, cinema and theater.
By exploiting mob emotions and by employing all modern methods of propaganda Goebbels helped Hitler to gain power.
His work as a propagandist materially aided Hitler’s rise to power in 1933.
When Hitler seized power in 1933, Goebbels was appointed Reichsminister for propaganda and national ENLIGHTENMENT…
AKA: Hillary Clinton: “MAGA ‘cult members’ NEED ‘deprogramming’”
From then until death, Goebbels used all media of education and communication to further Nazi propagandistic aims, instilling in the Germans the concept of their leader as a veritable god and of their destiny as the rulers of the world.
So someone please explain how Government controlled media — is a good thing…
Clearly it is the WORST thing…
Goebbels was bad enough…
His was a solo mission to begin with…
Then a Department… and SIX short years after Goebbels became minister…
Sep 1, 1939… the invasion of Poland happened and the start of WW2.
Hasn’t the DNC Biden administration attempted 2 or 3 times already, to establish an OFFICIAL Propaganda Dept?
Answer is… yes!
This administration has desperately attempted to make a Minister of Goebbels…
They just gave it a REALLY cute name… “Disinformation Governance Board”.
Spending millions on artificial intelligence research designed to make anti “misinformation” tools which could then be passed to social media giants…
Solution is:
Deprogram the DNC Leadership… because Good and Normal NM Democrats don’t need to learn how to Goosestep… and the Independents, Libertarians and Republicans, will never fall for this ruse… and the Dem’s in NM are waking up Bigly too…
So many that have signed the Six Bad Bills are DEMOCRAT CARD CARRIERS!!
How do you deprogram DNC Leadership?
Simple, vote them all out… THIS YEAR!
And let COMMON SENSE THRIVE!!
Very well-stated! Anything that doesn’t agree with the left’s thinking/plan is what they call misinformation/disinformation and have been nipping it in the bud. The DemocRAT party has become the least tolerant creature who abhors independent thinking by anyone else. We are now being ruled by tyrants. Time for some serious action on our part.
Well stated!
Censorship is especially dangerous when you take out the critical thinkers and the people warning what the government is doing in the name of `safety’. Ketanji refused to define what a woman is, so you do have to questions what her agenda is.
Another of Biden’s diversity hire, less qualified than a lot of candidates that weren’t black females
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Our founding Fathers had such deep concerns for our Country and the its future that these sacred words are the foundation of our Constitution.
Life: from conception to natural death.
Liberty: free from tyranny.
Happiness: all inclusive in the Constitution.
When you use other than “the best possible candidate” you get less for the US citizenry. I do not care what color, or what sex, or who they go home to, I want the best qualified person to be my Doctor, to be my Childs teacher, to be running our military, to drive our school busses, drive trucks, to be our banker, to make our food, to be our judges. The best, the best trained the best driving record, the best understanding of our children, the best at anything they do. If you are cutting on me, when you are deciding our laws your color does not matter, your skill matters. The fact that you are a judge and do not know what a women is, tells me you are not the best, you are there because you are black and a female and as a proud black woman you should have not taken the job as you know you are an equity hire and not the best and you know it.
Robert… wish I could say this is hokey, but unfortunately this history lesson seems to be long forgotten. Been to “Facebook jail” more than once – shame Americans have such a short term memory. I can only pray The Truth Will Set Us Free…