This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The arguments before the Supreme Court this week over a case challenging the Biden administration's collusion with tech companies to censor the ideas and messages that he doesn't like has revealed one justice holding a stunning perspective.
She's worried that the First Amendment, which was written to hamstring the government from censoring ideas, messages, and speech, hamstrings the government's agenda to censor ideas, messages, and speech.
"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important periods," Ketanji Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, told lawyers representing plaintiffs who sued over the censorship scheme that involved the Biden administration working with tech companies to silence some information.
She continued, "And so I guess some might say that the government has 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."
The issue arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lethal virus that most likely emerged from a Chinese lab that was experimenting on how to make viruses more lethal and more transmissible.
It killed millions around the globe.
However, there were multiple controversies over government-mandated shots and alternative treatments. The Biden administration worked to suppress any criticism of the shots, which have since proven to have triggered hundreds of thousands of cases of side effects that ranged up to death.
Further, it demanded the suppression of alternative treatments that have proven in many cases to be effective.
Jackson told lawyers representing those whose ideas were censored: "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."
A report at Fox News reported, "Social media users were shocked and slightly bemused" at her perspective on the First Amendment, which specifically bans the government from censoring ideas and speech.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, has plaintiffs challenging Biden's administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech to censor certain messages.
Fox reported the case stemmed from a lawsuit "brought by Republican-led states Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with social media companies 'under the guise of combating misinformation' that ultimately led to censoring speech on topics that included Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks — which the states argued was a First Amendment violation."
One problem is that some of what the Biden administration claimed was "misinformation" actually was accurate, and some of what it claimed was accurate was "misinformation."
The report said Jackson appeared to suggest the government can violate the First Amendment in some circumstances.
Fox and Friends Weekends co-host Will Cain confirmed, "Hamstringing the government is THE POINT of the First Amendment!"
And California state Rep. Bill Essayli, in the report, confirmed, "That’s the point of the Bill of Rights. The government’s powers derive from, and are subservient to, the rights of the People."
"I would be more concerned if the First Amendment did not hamstring the government in significant ways," said Reason senior editor Robby Soave.
And, Fox said, podcaster Tim Pool turned blunt: "This is not funny This lady is dangerous."
"WOW. The person who doesn’t know what a woman is also doesn’t know what the First Amendment is," The Libs of TikTok account posted on social media. The social media influencer cited Jackson's refusal to answer, during her confirmation hearing, what a woman is.
The report noted, that Tim Young, a comedian, explained, "The same justice who doesn't know what a woman is ... doesn't understand what the First Amendment was written for...Does this come as a shock to anyone?"
"Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Fox News Digital Jackson was 'right' about the First Amendment restricting the government," the report said.
"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.
