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

page: 5
71
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I feel it should be said, that bribery is not a form of speech, and should not be protected as a form of free speech, which is exactly what SCOTUS has established by their over turning of the campaign finance laws.

Saying you support someone is completely different from giving someone bucket loads of money to do what you want them to do.

The idea that bribery is a form of free speech is insane.

As far as the decision of allowing films depicting cruelty to animals to be sold for profit is concerned, this should not be allowed, along with similar activities such as child pornography.

The problem isn't the position on making this illegal, it was the logic behind the decision that government should have to approve what is allowed as free speech. As I stated earlier on the thread, this is backwards.

All forms of free speech should be allowed, except for those forms that are identified through legal proceedings as being unacceptable, like child pornography, or depictions of actual torture.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


So she reiterates that you can't cry fire in a movie theater?

We've known that for quite some time.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


So she reiterates that you can't cry fire in a movie theater?

We've known that for quite some time.


I dont think you have a fair understanding of the opinions she wrote. She also states that Radio/TV/Internet can not yell FIRE if an administration is out of control as it would have deterimental societal affects. Her opinions have been rejected in the past, but if confirmed that will surely change.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca
I dont think you have a fair understanding of the opinions she wrote. She also states that Radio/TV/Internet can not yell FIRE if an administration is out of control as it would have deterimental societal affects. Her opinions have been rejected in the past, but if confirmed that will surely change.

Um, no, that's not what she said, either. Did you read her brief?

She said that if you are selling a video depicting an illegal act, in this case cruelty to animals, that society deems to have no socially redeeming value what so ever (much like child pornography), than that video is not considered protected speech.

What would still be protected? Selling a video where you look into the camera and say, "I believe dog fighting and other forms of animal cruelty should be legalized." Someone can even legally say they believe child pornography is okay and laws against it should be overturned. In those cases a fundamentally unpopular and vile point of view is being expressed, but no crime is being committed in the act.

Talking and expressing views is always protected speech. Committing a crime, photographing it, then trying to sell it for profit is not protected speech. She was only arguing against the latter, not the former.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by prionace glauca
I dont think you have a fair understanding of the opinions she wrote. She also states that Radio/TV/Internet can not yell FIRE if an administration is out of control as it would have deterimental societal affects. Her opinions have been rejected in the past, but if confirmed that will surely change.

Um, no, that's not what she said, either. Did you read her brief?

She said that if you are selling a video depicting an illegal act, in this case cruelty to animals, that society deems to have no socially redeeming value what so ever (much like child pornography), than that video is not considered protected speech.

What would still be protected? Selling a video where you look into the camera and say, "I believe dog fighting and other forms of animal cruelty should be legalized." Someone can even legally say they believe child pornography is okay and laws against it should be overturned. In those cases a fundamentally unpopular and vile point of view is being expressed, but no crime is being committed in the act.

Talking and expressing views is always protected speech. Committing a crime, photographing it, then trying to sell it for profit is not protected speech. She was only arguing against the latter, not the former.


Some Speech Can Be 'Disappeared'


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 .

That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and … actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Maybe you forgot to read about the paper she wrote not to long ago. Her attack on free speech has taken several angles not just one. Try to grasp the picture as a whole.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by prionace glauca]





new topics
 
71
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum