Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson LOST On What The First Amendment Even IS: SCOTUS Speech Case

42

Journalist Matt Taibbi weighs in on free speech being on the balance in the Supreme Court. #SCOTUS #speech

About Rising:
Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day’s political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day’s political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country’s most important political newsmakers.

Follow Rising on social media:

Website: Hill.TV

Facebook: facebook.com/HillTVLive/

Instagram: @HillTVLive

Twitter: @HillTVLive

source

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

42 COMMENTS

  3. It never ceases to amaze me how Bri can see bad intentions where there are none, but when shown blatant bad intentions from the most powerful and punitive entity on earth, she is completely blind and can't see how dangerous this is.

  5. Taibbi completely defangs Bri's pathetic "what if" and she just moves on and doesn't even acknowledge that he proved by the gov't own actions that it is even worse than it first appears.

  9. These so called people do that to the US media. Guess what, that's what all tyrannical regimes do. They hate Putin, because he is exactly like them. Only he doesn't need elections to stay in power. Wow Americans! We have been owned.

  10. If the government can not or will not follow the law then they cant expect the rest of us to follow it either. And it deminishes their legit authority. The fact that they force you to do something they refuse to do then they are by definition a tyranical government. They are a dictator. So electing Trump will actually save the democratic republic.

  13. Notice how there’s never any concern when trump says the media is lying and he warns to shut them down and jail the journalists he doesn’t like? He’s constantly calling out the media for negative stories about him, even as President, but there’s nothing about how he’s censoring or impacting free speech.

    Nope, what Rising is concerned with is that the government, without coercion, pointed out TOS violations to media companies. They never required or forced the take down of anything.

    The government is allowed to talk with the media. They are allowed to share thier viewpoint. They cannot demand, coerce, or media if they don’t comply. And there’s no evidence the government did anything like that. The proof is that twitter and other media were more likely than not to ignore the government.

  15. Interesting that Matt Taibi only rears his head to go after figures on the left. He is just another right leaning pundit not an even handed objective reporter. Not one investigatory piece that goes after the right or the myriad of trump scandals, illegal acts, or in-your-face corruption. ( just hired his own daughter in law as chairperson of RNC—just from this past week and half ).

  16. Your truth or my truth? Today or maybe it was yesterday, SOC got on national television and said that President Trump called for riots on the Capitol building on January 6, so he could stay in power! I don’t know how a government official can go on TV and just blatantly lie about someone, and be immune from slander because he’s a public figure. It’s just not right.

  20. Matt's point about the Pres using the bully pulpit is valid unless you have a regime head like Biden who can't put together a coherent paragraph (except one a year at the SOTU).

  29. What? Bri is asking why cant Gov contact and coerce media. So if the IRS contacts you to pay, do you think its a suggestion? This is probably the dumbest thing Ive heard her say in awhile.

  35. I read the transcript of the conversation, including her example of what constitutes "dangerous" speech. Basically, she's making the old "trade freedom for safety" argument. Importantly, her position on this is completely wrong as it is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended. The First Amendment is NOT a problem when it works the way it's supposed to work and protects unpopular speech. Of course, can we expect a Justice who can't even offer a definition of what a woman is to really know how the First Amendment is supposed to work? 😉

  37. Even if we contort the meaning the the 1st, her argument still doesn't make sense. If we accept her interpretation, the government doesn't need to influence tech platforms to do anything. They can just make saying it illegal and throw people in jail. The whole case is about whether they can sidestep the restrictions of the 1st by influencing social media to do it for them so they don't get their hands dirty. But if we accept her idea that the 1st already has a huge loophole of "but it's really important, guys", then the government doesn't need to sidestep it anything.

Comments are closed.