Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has issued a stark warning, dissenting in a recent case and revealing a deep concern about the future of free speech in America. Her lone dissent in *Chiles v. Salazar* wasn’t simply a disagreement with the majority; it was a glimpse into a legal philosophy where dissenting voices are viewed as a threat to public wellbeing.
The case centered on a Colorado law attempting to restrict licensed counselors from offering any treatment aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Eight justices sided with free speech, affirming the right to discuss the causes and basis for such changes. Jackson, however, saw this as opening a dangerous “can of worms,” a preference for silencing dissent in the name of perceived scientific consensus.
This isn’t an isolated incident. Jackson’s jurisprudence consistently demonstrates a dismissal of core free speech values, a willingness to redefine speech as “conduct” to justify its suppression. She would rather impose an orthodoxy and regulate those who deviate from it, effectively erasing the boundaries of protected expression.
The majority, led by Justice Gorsuch, powerfully countered this view, asserting that the First Amendment guarantees “an inalienable right to think and speak freely,” and that a “free marketplace of ideas” is the most reliable path to truth. Any law suppressing speech based on viewpoint, Gorsuch wrote, is a grave assault on these fundamental commitments.
This contrast extends beyond the courtroom. Consider Malta, where a man faced potential imprisonment for simply discussing his personal journey away from homosexuality. This illustrates a growing global trend of curtailing speech deemed unacceptable by those in power, a trend Jackson appears to embrace.
The recent past offers a chilling parallel. During the COVID-19 pandemic, censorship flourished under the guise of science. Dissenting voices, like that of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, were actively silenced and vilified for challenging prevailing policies.
Dr. Bhattacharya, who advocated against sweeping lockdowns, was later vindicated as evidence emerged showing the detrimental effects of prolonged school and business closures. He was recently awarded the “Intellectual Freedom” award and now leads the National Institutes of Health, a testament to the importance of open debate.
Yet, for years, questioning the official narrative was labeled a “conspiracy theory.” The possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan was dismissed as “racist,” while the efficacy of masks and the benefits of natural immunity were initially downplayed, only to be later acknowledged. Even the six-foot social distancing rule, admitted by Dr. Fauci to have “just appeared” without solid data, was rigidly enforced.
Similarly, questioning gender reassignment surgeries for minors was once equated with bigotry. Now, leading medical associations and European nations are reconsidering these procedures, acknowledging potential harms and advocating for caution. This pattern reveals a consistent tendency to suppress debate and enforce orthodoxy as if it were unassailable science.
Justice Jackson views the protection of these dissenting views as a perilous “can of worms,” preferring the comfort of state-imposed truths. She argues that allowing opposing viewpoints “ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.” This ignores the fact that professionals are already accountable for malpractice and negligence.
Ironically, Colorado’s repeated attempts to stifle free speech have only served to strengthen it. The state’s Supreme Court even attempted to bar Donald Trump from the ballot, treating his views on the 2020 election as conduct rather than protected speech – a move ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As celebrations of these free speech victories unfold, advocates of censorship are reacting with alarm. Most chillingly, Justice Jackson is increasingly presented as a model for future Supreme Court nominees, raising the specter of a packed court fundamentally reshaping constitutional interpretation.
To paraphrase the *Chiles* decision, “to be completely frank, we know exactly what will happen then.” The future of free speech in America hangs in the balance, dependent on whether we prioritize open debate or succumb to the allure of enforced conformity.
