During the Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to argue that the government’s First Amendment rights were under attack. According to her, the government should have the ability under the First Amendment to pressure social media companies to censor people. But Glenn had some other thoughts. If the government can violate your rights when there’s “trouble,” Glenn argues, then you don’t have rights. Glenn lays out how that’s NOT the US Constitution. That’s the SOVIET Constitution.
Transcript
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Well, I don't know if you heard Justice Jackson yesterday.
But woo!
Was she -- she's in tune with our system of government. Here she is, yesterday, where free speech is on trial. The government is making the claim, that their free speech is being limited, because they want to tell social media what to do.
And their First Amendment rights, are being trampled on.
Just so you know, the government doesn't have First Amendment rights. The First Amendment right goes to the people. And it says, that the government can't tell you what you can say and what you can't say.
Here is justice brown Jackson yesterday.
VOICE: Justice Jackson.
VOICE: 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 -- what would you have the government do? 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 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.
GLENN: Right.
VOICE: 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.
GLENN: Okay. Sure. Uh-huh.
VOICE: 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.
GLENN: Okay. Sure.
I would love to help you with that. I would love to help you with that. Let me help you.
And I appreciate your asking for help. Don't usually experience that, you know, cry for help on understanding any of the amendments, let alone the first one from a Supreme Court justice. But I appreciate your willingness to say, I really don't have a clue as to what I'm doing here.
See, we have a Bill of Rights, that was built -- our country is built, up like any other country in the world.
And our Bill of Rights came from a -- a Founding Era, where they had been really living under the thumb of a tyrant. And so they knew tyranny firsthand. And it made them very, very skittish about governments, and what they could do.
Because when governments speak, that's one thing. The government can speak, and say, hey. This is bad. You shouldn't do this.
But when governments coerce people, especially businesses, well, they've got an awful lot of power.
And that can turn into tyranny quickly.
Now, the -- the Bill of Rights was written, and especially the First Amendment, was -- was written, for those bad times.
You know, you -- I know you're worried about, well, these -- I mean, freedom of speech is great. Unless things are, you know, troubled.
Well, okay. But that's why think wrote this down.
Our documents are a negative charter of liberties.
So it means that the Bill of Rights, apply to the citizens, but not to the governments. The government cannot do anything to violate these rights. And if, you know, it changes when there's trouble, or when the government feels there's trouble, well, then, you don't really have the right, do you?
And I really don't have any shackles, on the presidency. The administration, or the government.
What you have, actually, is another Constitution, written in 1936. It was really great. Because of the way it -- I mean, it was way advanced.
All voting restrictions were taken off. Universal direct suffrage. The right to work.
Guaranteed by the previous Constitution. In addition, to 1936, and, by the way, I'm not talking about Germany. Okay.
1936. The Constitution recognized the collective and economic rights. Including the right to work. The right to rest. The health protection.
Care in old age. And in sickness. The right to housing and education and cultural benefits.
It was really a cutting edge Constitution. Because everybody wants that stuff, right?
You have a universal right to it.
And all of the government bodies, had to help provide those things, because you, the citizen have a right.
And they want right direct election, of all government bodies. And they -- they reorganized it, at 36.
And they just -- they streamlined the government. You know, so there wasn't a lot of red tape. So Article 122, in the -- in the Constitution, said that women, are accorded equal rights with men.
Now, this is 1936.
Think about how advanced this is.
Women have equal rights with men, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life.
In fact, they were really the first one to make sure that there was, you know, kindergartens, and a universal right to kindergarten, and maternity leave, and prematernity, and protection of the mom and her interests.
It was really, really good. In article 122. In 123. That was the equal rights for all citizens.
It was -- it was equity for everybody. Irrespective of their nationality or their race.
In all spheres of life. And they wanted to make sure that there was racial inclusiveness, and no hatred, or contempt. Or restrictions of rights and privileges on account of nationality or race.
And if you did any of these hate crimes, it was punishable by law. So this is now the -- the Soviet Constitution of 1936. And it was the longest running Constitution of the Soviet Union. And it was great. Article 124, guaranteed freedom of religion.
Including the separation of church and state. And school from church.
And 124, it ensured all citizens the freedom of conscience. Freedom of religious worship. And freedom of any anti-reckless propaganda, recognized for all citizens. Which was nice, and in 124, Stalin, in the face of real stiff opposition there, eventually said, you know what, maybe we should talk to the Russian orthodox church. Maybe we should allow them to exist. And he did, kind of. But it was all within the Constitution. Because see, this Constitution is a Constitution of positive liberties. Unlike ours, negative liberties. Telling the government what it cannot do. Theirs is a positive liberty. All the things the government must do.
And article 125. Remember, this is 1936. Article 125 of the Constitution, guaranteed freedom of speech in the press. And freedom of assembly.
Then they said, look, the Communist Party really needs to come together.
And we can have diversity in the Communist Party. But it's only one party in the free elections. So you could -- you could do that.
Now, this Constitution, was written in 1936.
And it was thoroughly democratic. Thoroughly democratic.
I mean, yeah. Once the writers of the Constitution. And the organizers, you know, finished it. They were imprisoned, and/or executed right after. Because they were counterrevolutionaries. And, you know, you have to get rid of those people.
There were some people that were just too radical. And they were the writers of the Constitution. But, you know, that's an old dusty document.
Sure, it was written last week. But they didn't foresee everything.
So they started the great -- the great terror.
Is what it's called.
I don't know what happened during the great terror.
But it coincided with the signing of the new Constitution.
But everybody was protected. You could say whatever you want.
You know, you could look at the great terror, or the subcategory of the great purge.
And say, hey. You know what, they're stepping on those rights. There. Those people.
But they are people that the state really doesn't. You know, the state really needs some authority to be -- sure, you have a right to speak. You know, you have the enjoyment of rights and freedoms of citizens. But, I'm just quoting the Constitution, not to the detriment of the interests of society. Or the state.
So if you saw something, you know, like Ketanji -- whatever her name is. Jackson brown. Jackson -- whatever her name is.
I love her. And she is right.
When the state has an interesting, because the state knows best, then we have to, you know, restrain people from saying things. So let me just -- let me just quote article 39. Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society, or the state.
Amen! That's what she's saying. I mean, they've been saying this since 1936 in the Soviet Union. Article 59 obliged citizens to obey all the laws and comply with the standards of the socialist society as determined by the party. So if the party said, you know, let's just say, we can mutilate your children.
You can speak out about that. I mean, you're going to have to go to jail for it.
Because it will be a hate crime.
In fact, hate crimes were even mentioned specifically, in that 19 -- they were so far ahead.
They were just -- they were just way, way, way, way, way ahead. Because they were already on those hate crimes. You know, you don't have a -- you don't have a right to say, you know.
For instance, here it is. Quote, the Constitution prohibits incitement of hatred or hostility on any religious ground.
So you couldn't just, you know, say to the Bible. Bible says this.
If it incited hatred. So -- and the Constitution, you know, gave -- you have a freedom of conscience. You can do that.
You can profess or not profess any religion.
And you can conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. As long -- and I'm quoting. As long as it's in the interest of the state. You see.
Because they know better. They know better.
So Ketanji, I just -- I'm trying to help you. Because you asked for help yesterday. Which I find just so refreshing. That a talk show host, that is a recovering alcoholic and former DJ, who is just completely self-educated, you know, knows this stuff, better than a Supreme Court justice. But I think that's great, that, you know, you're humble enough to say, I don't know my ass from my elbow. I think that's great. I really do. I really do.
So let's just remember, the government, you know -- we have inalienable rights. What does that mean?
I don't know. Something about aliens from space, Ketanji. No.
Means no man can change those rights. Alter those rights. Or take away. That's what inalienable means.
And in the Soviet Union, they didn't that have, okay?
They didn't have inalienable rights. You as a citizen can, and I'm quoting. Enjoy rights. When the exercise of these rights, do not interfere with the interests of the state, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they alone have the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society.
What a utopia that is. Man, if we could just model our Constitution on something as open-minded as this, we would certainly be fixed. Kind of in the way, my dog was fixed. But we would be fixed all right.