Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Kagan: Speech is free if government decides it has more value than 'societal costs -UPDATED'

page: 1
71
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+25 more 
posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Kagan: Speech is free if government decides it has more value than 'societal costs'


www.washing tonexaminer.com

Freedom of speech, religion and other First Amendment issues are likely to be among the most visible during the coming Senate confirmation hearings on President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

... Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.


So now our First Amendment's protection of speech are under attack. Though the decision was overturned but what happens when she is nominated to the highest court of the land?

This shouldn't be a Left or Right issue. Freedom of Speech is what makes ATS a popular site to visit and express those freedoms. How far would such a prohibition go if it ever is provoked again?

Are you ready to hand in your Freedoms of Speech? Let the government decide what you can and can not say?

-----------------------------------------
UPDATE

Kagan Asked Court to 'Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters'


Chief Justice Roberts: Kagan Asked Court to 'Embrace Theory of First Amendment That Would Allow Censorship Not Only of Radio and Television Broadcasts, But Pamphlets and Posters'

(CNSNews.com) - Solicitor General Elena Kagan, nominated Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, told that court in September that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from engaging in political speech such as publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Kagan’s argument that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations was rejected by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case, and in a scathing concurrence Chief Justice John Roberts took direct aim at Kagan’s argument that the government could ban political pamphlets.





www.washing tonexaminer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]


+15 more 
posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
This woman is also a proponent of indefinite detention.
Her wiki article is FULL of information.

This nutjob scares the hell out of me and it is just more proof that Obama and his cronies are a bunch of liberty hating usurpers.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


Zionism at work.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


Zionism at work.


That makes no sense what so ever. Think of all the governments that regulate freedom of speech. Your list would probably include a majority of governments that are run by Dictators and/or are communists.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]


+2 more 
posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
and guess what... she also served on a panel advising Goldman Sachs too. That alone should seal her nomination!


Seriously, is there ANYONE in high office in the US who doesn't, or has never, worked for GS?

Just more cronyism going on and staffing with the "right" people.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
This woman is also a proponent of indefinite detention.
Her wiki article is FULL of information.

This nutjob scares the he'll out of me and it is just more proof that Obama and his cronies are a bunch of liberty hating usurpers.


I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion. Now if we were to step back and look at the whole picture of everyone supporting her as a nominee for this position should be also labeled a Nut Job. Not only a Nut Job, but a enemy of the United States of the America and its Constitution.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
This woman is threat to everything that is American. IF she is confirmed... this will be the end of the COnstitution. I can see it already!



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
This is an important topic.

How can she be considered for the Supreme Court after having written an oppinion like that. The way she worded her opinion clearly undermines our first amendment rights.

There are restrictions on free speech, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre is always the top of the charts, violent threats, child pornography, all taboo.

I don't know how strong the laws are against animal cruelty, but I don't think it should be allowed. I also think that people shouldn't be able to sell pictures of animals acutally being tortured. That I agree with.

There should be limits to free speech, but those limits should be very narrow and specific. Such restrictions of free speech should only be allowed after considerable deliberation.

It seems that in this decision backed by Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, the reasoning was completely backwards. The opinion that government should appove of what speech should be allowed, before it can be allowed, is a complete violation of the principles of our constitution and the first amendment.

This seems to be clear evidence of either incompetence, or an opinion on free speech that is contrary to the fundamentals of our society.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Strange, I am the only one who has flagged this thread.

I would think others who agree with the topic would be hitting the flag button.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The Goldman Sachs connection poisons the nomination in my opinion.

That's like nominating someone who once worked with Al Qaeda....

I would also expect that anyone who feels that the categorical value of words can be determined should be pressured to reveal the metric by which they measure free expression - and how they 'value' societal cost.

But our Senators and Congressmen rarely foray into anything that is too 'deep'; usually preferring to go by mega-media's collection of celebrity information to determine what is or isn't objectionable.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Strange, I am the only one who has flagged this thread.

I would think others who agree with the topic would be hitting the flag button.




Well this is a real important topic to discuss about, as it this issue involves everyone. Even those who are absolutely for the Obama administration, you will be affected if this person is allowed to be appointed and her ideaologies are allowed to be set as law.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Is it just me or do all of these psycho tyrant women, Reno, Napolitano, Kagan, all look like they're from the same genetic stock?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca



... Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.


So now our First Amendment's protection of speech are under attack. Though the decision was overturned but what happens when she is nominated to the highest court of the land?

This shouldn't be a Left or Right issue. Freedom of Speech is what makes ATS a popular site to visit and express those freedoms. How far would such a prohibition go if it ever is provoked again?

Are you ready to hand in your Freedoms of Speech? Let the government decide what you can and can not say?




www.washing tonexaminer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I have never had freedom of speech in my country.
There are laws in place that stop this.
Having said that i have never had occasion to utter anything that falls within the "anti discrimination' act.

having survived with this policy in place i am more concerned about the fact the president appoints this position.and that they are not voted in by those in the legal/judicial profession.
I don't think the President, PM, Prince etc has any right to appoint anyone as anything.
Because they are, obviously going to appoint a friend, not the best person for the job.......



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Nice.. They love to twist and distort our rights. I’m glad we will have another person that is versed in translating our rights so we can understand the true meaning. I feel more fee already.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
We have had our freedoms slowly chipped away, and now an appointee who believes in regulating free speech thru the filter of the government is down right nuts. When has the government , Red or BLue, ever done anything for the People. All of the puzzle pieces are being setup to propagate further corruption and minimize dissent.


[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


LOL...this is the first time I agree with you 100%. This lady scares the bejebus out of me!



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


LOL...this is the first time I agree with you 100%. This lady scares the bejebus out of me!


Attacks on our constitution should bring everyone together. She isn't the only attacker, there are Red & Blue & Independent attackers. Though most of us were silent in the past because all we wanted to do was live our lives, make children and take care of our families. Our silence has only embolden the enemies of our Constitution to step their attacks against it even more.

We need to have a united front such attacks and protect our Constitution.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Double Post



[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Tripple Post





[edit on 11-5-2010 by prionace glauca]






top topics



 
71
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join