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

I didn't agree with Sotomeyers confirmation either. I think her wise Latina making better decisions comments proved a level of bias that was not acceptable.

I didn't agree with GWs nominations either.

It seems that the SCOTUS continues to become more ideologically extreme.

What is it with lawyers and judges and people in general?
What is so difficult to understand about:
"Congress shall make no law..."

It is cut and dry.
Even the bans on yelling fire in a crowded theater are complete BS.

"Congress shall make no law..."

If we as a society disagree with that so much then amend the Constitution. The Constitution has an official process for changing it. Instead we get end runs around the Constitution by treasonous thugs in the courtroom and in Congress who would take away the Constitutional protections of our unalienable rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has one purpose. To interpret the Constitution, and determine if what is presented is in fact Constitutional. Personal opinion or belief should not exist in this credo period!

It is not a perfect world however, but really she has no right to make law, only to interpret the Constitution as a Supreme Court Justice.

The only problem here is, a lot can be lost in translation.

She's right, in a way, you're not free to mention Islam or Mohammed if it garners too many death threats, just look at South Park. You also can't say anything that isn't popular, everything you hear on tv or read in magazines and books has been approved for public consumption.

You're free to say what you want as long as it's an approved and relatively popular statement or opinion.

www.wnd.com...

In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government...

I wonder what is meant by "uncoerced disappearance of free speech"?

I don't know what the "R.A.V." stands for in her title either. Anyone know?

Final thought:
“It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong.” -Voltaire

It seems when supreme court nominees are about to be appointed, TPTB want to make sure he/she is a total POS before they let them in.

Just like Sotomayor, some of the things she said absolutely alarmed me and everyone I know. Boom, she's in.

Originally posted by On the Edge


I don't know what the "R.A.V." stands for in her title either. Anyone know?

I believe it is the initials of a teenager convicted under the "St. Paul, Minnesota's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance", and used to indicate that particular case w/out divulging the name of the underage offender.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Tharsis]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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?

You mean they all look like ugly men Not that I find men "attractive" to begin with, but you know if someone is ugly when you see them...and these women are hideous and all look like fat bastard from Austin Powers or something

[edit on 11-5-2010 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by On the Edge

I wonder what is meant by "uncoerced disappearance of free speech"?

I don't know what the "R.A.V." stands for in her title either. Anyone know?

Final thought:
“It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong.” -Voltaire

Regulation of Fighting Words and Hate Speech

R.A.V stands for Robert A. Victoria, a St.Paul teenager, was prosecuted for burning a cross in the yard of a black family.

R. A. V. considered a challenge to a St. Paul ordinance punishing the placement of certain symbols that were "likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender." Robert Victoria, a teenager, had been convicted of violating the ordinance after having been found to have burned a cross on the yard of a black family. The Court, in an an opinion by Justice Scalia, reversed R. A. V.'s conviction on the ground that the ordinance unconstitutionally criminalized some hurtful expression (specifically that aimed at racial and religious minorites) and not other hurtful expression (that aimed at other unprotected groups) based on the political preferences of legislators. Scalia makes clear that "fighting words" is not, as Chaplinsky had suggested, a category of speech that is wholly outside of First Amendment protection.

The first attack on our Constitution's First Amendment by a Justice in 1942...

In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."
Basically a teenager was charged with a hate crime that was overturned because of the right First Amendment Protected. Even though I do not agree with the act the teenager comitted, but the rights of his expression of speech in what ever shape or form were protected.

And who was our President in 1942?

If you answered FDR, then you are right. The pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together.

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

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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?

You are exactly right.
Now I know who she reminds me of.

reply to post by prionace glauca


Thanks for that info!

What does Roosevelt have to do with this subject. I could try to draw inferences,but I'm curious what you meant. Tell us more?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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?

hahahahaha!!!!!!! omg yes! they all look and act like the filth they spewed from! god, these are some scary a** women, if they should even be considered women. They look more like a horrible transgendered mutation though.

Well, this is the change we got. More banker elites to dictate what we can and can't do. It's all good though. In fact, I kinda want it to happen to start waking up the masses to what we've all known about for a long time. I keep saying, they can keep taking more and more of our rights away, they're only sealing their own fate. I mean, Americans are crazy ignorant but man do we love to talk! Take that from us and there will be heads rolling guaranteed. I'd say it's even more sacred than our right to own guns.

Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

Thanks for that info!

What does Roosevelt have to do with this subject. I could try to draw inferences,but I'm curious what you meant. Tell us more?

Roosevelt is considered as GOD in Liberal and Progressive circles. When Obama was running his election campaign, he was compared to being Abraham Lincoln, the great president who broke barriers and united individuals no matter their polical parties. Obama never was in tune with Lincoln's philosiphies, his ideaologies were in line with FDR. FDR believed that dissent of the government is punished by sentencing to jail. He appointed Justices to the SCOTUS just so that his policies would remain favorable and anyone who dissented would be taken care of. Hence the other decision by SCOTUS above from 1942 and many other decisions that SCOTUS made during the years of FDR.

... and I wonder who the lucky person is that will play her on SNL?

Here is my guess?

reply to post by poet1b


I couple your thought with the observation that the *SNIP* are dropping a fresh soundbyte, round the clock, being "we are a nation under 'rule of law'".

Listen for it. They are using it as though an incentive to pass more laws, their way.

I liked the Constitution just the way it is. The one printed on hemp stock.

Maybe they should leave, before they are escorted?

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on Wed May 12 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

Thanks for that info!

What does Roosevelt have to do with this subject. I could try to draw inferences,but I'm curious what you meant. Tell us more?

Also some more connections can be made as to how FDR is on Obama's mind all the time.

....In his first term (1933–36) FDR launched the New Deal, a very large, complex interlocking set of programs designed to produce relief (especially government jobs for the unemployed), recovery (of the economy), and reform (by which he meant regulation of Wall Street, banks and transportation). The Conservative Coalition that formed in 1937 prevented his packing the Supreme Court or passing much new legislation; it abolished most of the relief programs when unemployment practically ended during World War II. Most of the regulations on business were ended about 1975-85, except for the regulation of Wall Street by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which still exists. The major surviving General Welfare clause program is Social Security, which Congress passed in 1935.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

reply to post by prionace glauca


Well stated. Thank you!

There's so much "History Repeating Itself" these days. None of it good!

Another headline just crossed the wire about the recent past of this appointee and the direction this administration want to take the USA.

HOPE AND CHAINS Coming to a Neighborhood near you

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.

And the fairness doctrine might have its strogest supporter as the next SCOTUS.

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

Now it looks like the Senators are already making excuses about appointing her. They are stating there isn't enough of a paper trail to make a good case against her nomination. What about the stances she has already participated in?

She doesn't like porn and hate speech, whatever that means. I guess LBJ and the following Meese Commission were not enough to prove these arguments against sex and words fallacious, now we have Obama appoint someone that essentially existed in a bubble during these times or felt it was some great injustice. Why does it always have to be some manly looking woman? With Reno we got Waco, what will this crazy government supremecist think of next. They are the true makers of hate speech, they hate the constitution and freedom of speech. She would fit in with Lenin, with her second amendment insanity and Cass Sunstein style dumbed down conspiracy theory anxiety disorder. They are scared of free expression and information they don't like, free speech goes for speech I don't like, not for some supremecist to tell me what constitutes legal speech or thought, I guess she knows hate speech and porn when she sees it.