Ketanji Brown Jackson Raises Eyebrows With Chilling Comment On First Amendment

During a debate Monday at the Supreme Court challenging the Biden Administration’s collusion with big tech companies to censor speech on COVID-19, election results and other politically inconvenient topics for the left, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised eyebrows by questioning the basis of the First Amendment.

The case stems from a lawsuit brought by Missouri and Louisiana that accused the Biden Administration of colluding with companies such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and others “under the guise of combating misinformation” that led to censorship of a number of topics. This included the New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 information and questions about the 2020 election results.

The state’s argued that the administration’s conduct violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

During arguments on Monday, Justice Jackson raised concerns that the First Amendment is “hamstringing the government” when it comes to their ability to censor inconvenient information. “So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do?” Justice Jackson asked a lawyer representing the states.

“I’ve heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don’t do it, is not going to get it done,” she continued. “And so I guess 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 cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”

She then communicated her fear over “the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Fox News that Jackson is “absolutely right,” only not for the reasons she would likely believe.

“It is hamstringing, and it’s supposed to. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the government, and the government exists to protect our rights. But here, the federal government is ignoring our First Amendment protections and weaponizing the federal government to silence our voices,” Bailey said.

“And she’s right. It limits what the federal government can and can’t do. And that’s a good thing,” he added.

In a court order last July, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty imposed a temporary injunction that prevented the federal government from coordinating with big tech companies. The judge argued that the government’s past actions “likely” amounted to First Amendment violations.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that “a central dimension of presidential power is the use of the Office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest.” The government argued that such matters would include public health, national security and election integrity.