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.
“You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson said. “So, can you help me? Because 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.”
Aguiñaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following the First Amendment.
“Our position is not that the government can’t interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people,” Aguiñaga said in response. “But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that.”
Jackson said a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.
“I’m interested in your view that the context doesn’t change the First Amendment principles,” she said. “I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you’re talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.”
Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was “literally one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen.”
“That you could have a Supreme Court Justice say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening,” he added. “Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading.”