It's Tuesday, March 19th, 2024.

Playing fast and loose with the First Amendment, Lake and Riley's father speaks out.

And reaction to your reactions next on the AM update.

The Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which deals with how government actors during COVID,

pressured social media companies to moderate certain narratives about the pandemic, and according to lower courts may have violated the First Amendment rights of multiple specific COVID skeptics.

Specifically, the Supreme Court was deciding yesterday whether to uphold an injunction placed

on the federal government from a lower court that barred them from communicating with their

contacts at social media companies under some rather broad circumstances.

To give you an indication on how this case, I hope doesn't go, but I fear will go.

Here's Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson, just completely missing the point

of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

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 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.

...