JUST IN: US Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson Just Defended The US Government Violating the 1st Amendment During Arguments in Case Sen Rand Paul Calls “the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history”

This afternoon, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted about today’s US Supreme Court case (Murthy v. Missouri) that involves several plaintiffs, including The Gateway Pundit, who have been harmed by censorship by the government and big tech.

In his tweet, Senator Rand Paul wrote:

Today, SCOTUS heard Murthy v. Missouri, the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history. This isn’t just about social media companies; it’s a critical examination of government overreach. The Biden administration and FBI’s efforts to influence Big Tech into silencing dissent tramples on the 1st Amendment. Our focus must be on preventing government censorship, not compelling private entities to act as censors. This case could redefine our free speech.

Joe Biden’s latest addition to the US Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, had a different take on the significance of the free speech case. Some might say that Justice Ketanji Brown, during oral arguments, dismissed the First Amendment as a roadblock for the government and big tech in their efforts to collude against Americans to censor their free speech.

In stark contrast, US Justice Alito argued that the US government and big tech should not be colluding to censor the speech simply because they don’t agree with it.

Justice Alito to the defense lawyer: “When I see the White House and Federal officials repeatedly saying that Facebook and the Federal government should be partners… regular meetings, constant pestering… Wow, I cannot imagine Federal officials taking that approach to print media.”

And then, Kentaji-Brown Jackson dropped a stunning First Amendment bomb…

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways at the most important time. I mean, what would you have the government do? she asked the Lousiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga.

I’ve heard you say a couple of 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 gonna get it done. 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.

Elon Musk recently weighed in the censorship of individuals on social media.

“Free speech is meaningless unless you allow people you don’t like to say things you don’t like. Otherwise, it’s irrelevant.” He warned, “And at the point at which you lose free speech—it doesn’t come back.”


Thanks for sharing!