4 ms·

You're talking about Murthy vs. Missouri (23-411). Justice Jackson poses a hypothetical on page 94 about "a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out

by o-90 2y ago

You're talking about Murthy vs. Missouri (23-411). Justice Jackson poses a hypothetical on page 94 about "a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations" and then asks respondents' council if "is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?" There are several back and forths on the following pages where respondents respond to the hypothetical and follow up questions are asked. Then Justice Jackson re-broaches the topic on page 116 and continues: "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 -- what would you have the government do? 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. 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. So can you help me? Because I'm really -- I'm really worried about that because you've got 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." His response continues to page 119. Someone is cherry-picking quotes and serving them to you so you will think "liberal Justices are against the first Amendment." https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-411_o759.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...

gavinhoward 2y ago
You quoted the relevant bit yourself: > So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. That is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to do, and she should know that. So if she's concerned about it, she doesn't support the First Amendment and its very purpose.
- o-90 2y ago
  You're making my point for me. You read one sentence she said, and made a determination about the entire context of the argument, which , pointing this out, was the purpose of my original post. The relevant part is the entire oral argument. Respondents council is in making an argument that suggests the government can NEVER have a compelling interest to suppress speech, which no one on the Supreme Court would agree with, and is what she is asking him to elaborate on. He clarifies this in his response from 115-119 that the government will always have compelling state interests arguments narrowly taylored to specific circumstances "on the back end".
  - gavinhoward 2y ago
    Tell me you don't know history without telling me you don't know history. If the government has the power to override the First Amendment by declaring an emergency, we'll always have "emergencies." IOW, even if state interests are "narrowly tailored," the government will always tailor the situation to match. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. She knows this. She is still "concerned." And this is about a pandemic where the government lied and censored people.
    - o-90 2y ago
      > If the government has the power to override the First Amendment by declaring an emergency, we'll always have "emergencies." If you simply listened to the oral arguments in this case, you would know that is not what is being discussed or suggested should happen in this case. They are debating what constitutes government coercion. The government can asks, suggest, encourage, etc, but it cannot coerce. Facebook as a private entity can censor posts however it wishes (editorial discretion / freedom of the press). If the government asks Facebook to censor posts it is already censoring anyways, is that coercion? That's what this case is debating. The nuance of this case is being stripped away, and being served to you as "conservative voices are being silenced" and "liberal justices don't want you to have 1st Amendment protections" when nothing could be further from the truth. > even if state interests are "narrowly tailored," the government will always tailor the situation to match. The opposite of this is also a perverse incentive: anytime anyone says anything and they receive push back, they can simply claim a 1st amendment violation and ALWAYS win, as though nuance and context somehow don't matter. What if the slight suppression of one persons' 1st amendment rights would alleviate the suppression of millions of other peoples' 1st amendment rights? > Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Its interesting that you chose this quote because, the same way that you clearly haven't read the minutes of this case, you probably haven't read 1984 either, but are just cherry-picking quotes from it. Winston remembers being at war with Eurasia and not Eastasia. But if the propaganda machine just gives people short snippets like "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" then that becomes truth. Just like if the propaganda machine feeds you that "this is about a pandemic where the government lied and censored people" then you don't have to actually read the minutes of specific court cases. --- Another point is that you're implying that the pandemic was the "emergency". But the emergency for you is that "the government lied and censored people" during the pandemic. But by your logic, this can be used to "override the first Amendment". Which is what seems to be happening in NetChoice vs Paxton (22-555) and Moody vs NetChoice (22-277). These are being presented in the media that users' 1st Amendment rights on these platforms are being violated but what is really happening is there are interest groups in the government that are trying to force social media companies to host content the companies do not agree with. This is a 1st Amendment violation, namely, a violation of the freedom of the press. You are being convinced to participate in and argue for the thing that you are telling me you are the most worried about.

by o-90 2y ago

gavinhoward 2y ago

You quoted the relevant bit yourself: > So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. That is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to do, and she should know that. So if she's concerned about it, she doesn't support the First Amendment and its very purpose.

o-90 2y ago
You're making my point for me. You read one sentence she said, and made a determination about the entire context of the argument, which , pointing this out, was the purpose of my original post. The relevant part is the entire oral argument. Respondents council is in making an argument that suggests the government can NEVER have a compelling interest to suppress speech, which no one on the Supreme Court would agree with, and is what she is asking him to elaborate on. He clarifies this in his response from 115-119 that the government will always have compelling state interests arguments narrowly taylored to specific circumstances "on the back end".
- gavinhoward 2y ago
  Tell me you don't know history without telling me you don't know history. If the government has the power to override the First Amendment by declaring an emergency, we'll always have "emergencies." IOW, even if state interests are "narrowly tailored," the government will always tailor the situation to match. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. She knows this. She is still "concerned." And this is about a pandemic where the government lied and censored people.
  - o-90 2y ago
    > If the government has the power to override the First Amendment by declaring an emergency, we'll always have "emergencies." If you simply listened to the oral arguments in this case, you would know that is not what is being discussed or suggested should happen in this case. They are debating what constitutes government coercion. The government can asks, suggest, encourage, etc, but it cannot coerce. Facebook as a private entity can censor posts however it wishes (editorial discretion / freedom of the press). If the government asks Facebook to censor posts it is already censoring anyways, is that coercion? That's what this case is debating. The nuance of this case is being stripped away, and being served to you as "conservative voices are being silenced" and "liberal justices don't want you to have 1st Amendment protections" when nothing could be further from the truth. > even if state interests are "narrowly tailored," the government will always tailor the situation to match. The opposite of this is also a perverse incentive: anytime anyone says anything and they receive push back, they can simply claim a 1st amendment violation and ALWAYS win, as though nuance and context somehow don't matter. What if the slight suppression of one persons' 1st amendment rights would alleviate the suppression of millions of other peoples' 1st amendment rights? > Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Its interesting that you chose this quote because, the same way that you clearly haven't read the minutes of this case, you probably haven't read 1984 either, but are just cherry-picking quotes from it. Winston remembers being at war with Eurasia and not Eastasia. But if the propaganda machine just gives people short snippets like "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" then that becomes truth. Just like if the propaganda machine feeds you that "this is about a pandemic where the government lied and censored people" then you don't have to actually read the minutes of specific court cases. --- Another point is that you're implying that the pandemic was the "emergency". But the emergency for you is that "the government lied and censored people" during the pandemic. But by your logic, this can be used to "override the first Amendment". Which is what seems to be happening in NetChoice vs Paxton (22-555) and Moody vs NetChoice (22-277). These are being presented in the media that users' 1st Amendment rights on these platforms are being violated but what is really happening is there are interest groups in the government that are trying to force social media companies to host content the companies do not agree with. This is a 1st Amendment violation, namely, a violation of the freedom of the press. You are being convinced to participate in and argue for the thing that you are telling me you are the most worried about.