Supreme Court Bombshell - Liberal Justice Does The Unthinkable

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America

And you know, freedom is always just one generation away from being lost

And from the Supreme Court, we have proof of that. Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe

Those little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow

In one of the biggest free speech cases of all time, maybe the biggest free speech case of all time, plaintiffs have argued that the government going

to social media companies and asking them to censor and remove certain things about, you know

speech things like, you know, things about public health, remember them removing that

Or things about how they feel about an election, that that's the government censoring speech

If it is, it's a violation of the First Amendment. Well, liberal justice Katonji Brown-Jackson

she made a really weird argument that caught the attention of a lot of people

She said, you know, in this case, it seems like the First Amendment is hamstringing

the government's ability to basically to police speech. Yeah, that's the job of the First Amendment Supreme Court justice

I don't know if you studied the Constitution and Harvard Law, but that's the actual purpose

of the First Amendment. That's the whole point. It's to hamstring the government from silencing your speech

It's the entire thing. Unbelievable that this was said by a Supreme Court justice

And it lets you know one thing, why elections are so important. Imagine Joe Biden wins

And imagine for whatever reason, Thomas and Alito are off the court. And Biden adds two justices

Now, what do you got? You got a 5-4 liberal edge. And you could lose things in the Bill of Rights

Just like that. I want you to listen to what she says, and then I want your opinions on it

Please remember to like, comment, share, and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America

We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody. Justice Jackson

So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government

in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do

I've heard you say a couple 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 going to get it done

And 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. 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