I WOULD NOTE AT THIS TIME IT SO HAPPENS THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA IS ONE OF JUST THREE FEDERAL DISTRICTS WITHOUT A FEDERAL DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND I'VE OFFERED LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH ONE AND I'LL BE SEEKING SUPPORT FROM MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TO TRY TO MAKE THAT BIPARTISANSHIP TO ENSURE THERE IS ACCESS TO COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS IN MY STATE. LET'S TALK A BIT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT. FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, PUBLICATION, ASSEMBLY. THERE'S A WELL KNOWN SUPREME COURT CASE BRANDONBERG V. OHIO WHICH ESTABLISHES A CERTAIN TEST TO ENSURE THE GOVERNMENT IS CONSTRAINED IN ANY EFFORT THAT MAY BE MADE TO PUNISH SPEECH AND THE IMPULSE TO SENSORSHIP IS SOMETHING THAT CAN EMERGE FROM TIME TO TIME ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL SPECTRUM, PARTICULARLY IN TIMES OF GREAT CONTROVERSY OR IN TIMES OF NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS. CAN YOU PLEASE WALK THE COMMITTEE AND BROADER PUBLIC WATCHING NOW FROM ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THAT DECISION AND HOW YOU WILL APPROACH THESE VITAL PROTECTIONS FOR SPEECH PUBLICATION AND ASSEMBLY SHOULD YOU BE CONFIRMED? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR, FREEDOM 6 SPEECH, PUBLICATION, ASSEMBLY IS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS A CORE FOUNDATIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST SENSORSHIP. IT IS IMPORTANT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME THAT PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, THAT IDEAS BE EXCHANGED. THAT IS THE GROUNDWORK FOR A VIGOROUS AND VITAL DEMOCRACY. THERE ARE MANY SAYSES, MANY CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT'S JURISPRUDENCE THAT DISCUSS VARIOUS DISPUTES ABOUT CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CAN RESTRAIN OR REGULATORY -- REGULATE SPEECH AND THAT DECISION ESTABLISHES TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT IF THERE IS SPEECH THAT IS AN INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE, THAT'S ONE CIRCUMSTANCE THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE ABLE TO PREVENT IT BUT OTHER THAN THAT, SHORT OF THAT, FREE SPEECH IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. AND THERE ARE, AGAIN, VARIOUS TESTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COURT HAS APPLIED IN DECIDING WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE THE CONTENT, PLACE AND MANNER OF SPEECH BUT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT OUR DEMOCRACY THRIVES BECAUSE YOU -- BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS RESTRAINED AND CANNOT CENSOR ITS CITIZENS. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE MEMBERS OF PRESS THAT ARE HERE AND THE PHOTOGRAPHERS AND REPORTERS TAKE ENSURE THIS IS PUBLIC AND DESCRIBE YOUR APPROACH TO PRESS FREEDOM, THE QUESTION OF PRIOR RESTRAINT HAS BEEN LITIGATED. A FAMOUS CASE IN THE CASE OF POHL PAPERS IN THE LATTER YEARS OF THE VIETNAM WAR. I KNOW I BELIEVE FOR ALL OF US ON THIS COMMITTEE WE RECOGNIZE THE VITAL ROLE OF PRESS FREEDOM IN ENSURING THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, ACCESS TO TRUTH AND DEBATE IN OUR DEMOCRACY. HOW WILL YOU APPROACH CASES THAT IMPLICATE PRESS FREEDOM? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THIS IS ANOTHER AREA IN WHICH THERE IS WELL ESTABLISHED CASE LAW THAT SUPPORTS THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS TO BE ABLE TO WRITE AND REPORT. THERE IS A GENERAL OBLIGATION OF TRUTH IN TERMS OF THE PRESS BUT ALSO A RECOGNITION THAT SOMETIMES THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT GET PUBLISHED THAT AREN'T EXACTLY ACCURATE. SO THE COURT IN "NEW YORK TIMES" VERSUS SULLIVAN DETERMINED A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIABILITY FOR PRESS, THINGS PUT OUT IN THE PRESS HAVE TO BE KNOWINGLY FALSE, THERE'S AN ACTUAL MALICE TEST BECAUSE THE COURT WAS BALANCING CONCERNS ABOUT LIABLE, PEOPLE CLAIMING THAT THEY HAD BEEN MISREPRESENTED IN THE PRESS WITH THE NEED TO ALLOW THE PRESS TO DO THEIR JOB. THE OVERALL UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PRESS FREEDOM AGAIN IS ONE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS THAT ARE -- THAT UNDERGIRD OUR DEMOCRACY. ...