Ketanji Brown Jackson Misses Entire Point Of The First Amendment: Matt Taibbi On SCOTUS Case [19:13 | Mar 19 2024 | The Hill]
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/13312183
Journalist Matt Taibbi weighs in on free speech being on the balance in the Supreme Court.
Edit:
- fixed format error with summary
- fixed misspelled name on point 2 of summary
Short Summary
- During a Supreme Court oral argument for the case of [Murthy] v. Missouri, the issue of whether the First Amendment restricts the government from censoring speech was discussed.
- Liberal Justice [Ketanji] Brown Jackson expressed concerns that the First Amendment limits government actions during critical times and questioned what actions the government should take to protect citizens.
- Conservative Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about government officials controlling media content and mentioned Section 230 and antitrust laws.
- Journalist Matt [Taibbi] discussed the case and highlighted the importance of the First Amendment in preventing the government from suppressing dissenting opinions.
- The discussion also touched on the pressure the government exerted on social media companies to censor content, referencing the National Rifle Association case and the government’s direct coercion tactics.
- The case involves the Biden Administration’s efforts to pressure social media companies to remove content deemed false.
- Various instances were discussed where government officials, including the White House Press Secretary and the Surgeon General, called for regulatory measures in response to misinformation.
- The conversation also mentioned using Section 230 to hold companies accountable and described internal correspondence at Twitter regarding regulatory changes.
- The government’s public threats towards companies are seen as a strong message to both companies and the public.
- The speaker emphasizes the difference between public pressure and regulatory threats, highlighting the inappropriate nature of private threats coupled with requests.
