The American judicial system has made legal opinions and decisions in recent years that could impact the God-given rights of U.S. citizens. Foundational rights guaranteed under the Constitution are under attack, and some judges are leaning far into anti-freedom opinions.

This way of thinking has spread even to the highest court in the country. Some justices on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have made comments recently that are leaving everyone from regular citizens to legal scholars shaking their heads in disbelief.

The person who may prove to be the most radical, liberal justice in SCOTUS history made a shocking comment regarding your First Amendment rights. She waded into the argument on whether the government should censor free speech in the age of internet technology.

From the Washington Examiner:
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the First Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.

In Monday’s oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in “the most important time periods.”

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga.

This is a person who arguably doesn’t understand the intent of the U.S. Constitution. Citizens’ freedoms are not open to suspension by the government under special circumstances that they decide.

Jackson’s opinion that shows she is willing to weaken First Amendment rights was met with harsh backlash. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said her words were scary because the First Amendment is meant to hamstring the government and not allow oppression of the people.

“That is frightening,” Jordan posted on X. “Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading.”

The case before SCOTUS dealt with the U.S. government, under the direction of the Biden administration, working behind the scenes with technology companies to cut off free speech on social media platforms. Jackson said that a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.

The problem is that it is the government and powerful technology companies deciding what is “misinformation.” Even when the “facts” of the government narrative aren’t accurate, free speech that is factual can be shut down for “emergencies.”

“Understand what took place here,” Jordan continued. “This was censorship by surrogate. This was big government telling big tech to take down speech that they disagreed with, and it was the most fundamental kind of speech. It was political speech.”

Americans should be very concerned about the outcome of this case. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the government, a Pandora’s box of censorship could be unleashed. With the stroke of a pen, whoever is in the White House could declare an emergency and shut down opposition speech.

This would effectively eliminate the First Amendment at times when free, open, uncensored dialogue among citizens is necessary for the continuation of democracy in the republic.

Key Takeaways:

• SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown revealed her openness to hamstringing free speech.
• Brown argued during oral presentations that the government may need censorship.
• Her argument focused on safety during emergencies and not the First Amendment.

Source: Washington Examiner