Would you ALLOW the Government to Regulate your own SPEECH?

Speech is free if government decides.....

...in United States v. Stevens (2010), President Barack Obama's new nominee for the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens defended the constitutionality of a very broad law that criminalized the depiction of animal cruelty. Kagan argued in the government’s brief that speech was entitled to no First Amendment protection if its harms outweigh its benefits: “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.” Kagan did not argue the case before the Court.

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."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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 above articles highlight the point of view or the beliefs held by the newest appointee to the most powerful court of the United States of America.

Elena Kagan, was struck down against her attacks on the First Amendment Protections that ALL of us enjoy. Now she will be appointed to the same court that struck against that decision.

This is not a LEFT or a RIGHT issue. This affects everyone across all political spectrums. This attack failed once already, but seeing as how lawmakers have no respect for the constitution anymore and if this person succeeds at being appointed to the High Court. I doubt her beliefs or points of view will change.



An example of Hate Speech ABOVE



Are you ready to give up your Freedom of Free Speech?


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

this just gets better and better day by day...

*twitches*

i knew she was no good! damn elitists!

I do not believe that anything should violate the freedom of speech. To do such, then it opens the door to censorship across the board, and should never be questioned or put into jeapordy. I can see if she is appointed, then she could influence the court in a way that we should not cross, putting and end to the ability of a person to voice or print an opinion that we have so taken for granted for the longest time.

reply to post by prionace glauca


No thank you, I think anyone can spout off at the mouth all the want to. I dont have to listen, However if you dont shut your mouth in my home you may end up on your ass, outside my door...

To anyone who things you should regulate speach just try it, Im in a fighting mood.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
I do not believe that anything should violate the freedom of speech. To do such, then it opens the door to censorship across the board, and should never be questioned or put into jeapordy. I can see if she is appointed, then she could influence the court in a way that we should not cross, putting and end to the ability of a person to voice or print an opinion that we have so taken for granted for the longest time.

The U.S. Constitution is the greatest in all of the world. Nations abroad have struggled with the idea of the freedoms that our constitution gurantees as unalienable rights.

Now you have this administation setting up entities to remove those unalienable rights.

we already have serious Freedon of Speech issues.
All the crazy political correctness, special interest groups, religion based groups, the ADL, the SPLC, etc. All now accuse people of "Hate Crimes" if that person happens to voice an opinion. So, not only is free speech prosecuted already, but it's also now deemed criminal to hold an opinion, let alone voice that opinion.
My own view - if someone is saying something I disagree with then I have a choice; I can either argue against it or simply walk away. Like the tv really, if a programme comes on I don't like, I'll change channel or turn it off....simple!

It's ironic to see so many groups holding protests against racism, fascism and many other isms.... yet in doing so they are denying others their beliefs and freedom to speak about what they believe in. Freedom of speech should be a right of all people. Attacking people because of what they say or even think is censorship in the extremist form and should not be tolerated by any supposedly civilised society. The fact that this is happening shows that we are obviously not as civilised as we think, or at least our own governments, who foist these measures on us, seem to think we are not capable, thus should be barred, from simple expression.

As for me... I say what I bloody well like and I like what I bloody well say!

reply to post by prionace glauca


Oh hell to M*** F*** NO!!!! ESP with me potty mouth, darn cryin liberals again J/K only commies would wanna control speech.

As much as I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt as her comments were at face value in regard to hate speech, there's one thing that keeps playing over and over in my mind...

The first amendment doesn't protect speech you like, it protects speech you hate; kinda the whole point of it all. I guess Larry Flynt was right... it's pretty sad when you can turn to a porn magnate for a better understanding of the first amendment than a prospective Supreme Court justice.

Originally posted by Legion2112
As much as I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt as her comments were at face value in regard to hate speech, there's one thing that keeps playing over and over in my mind...

The first amendment doesn't protect speech you like, it protects speech you hate; kinda the whole point of it all. I guess Larry Flynt was right... it's pretty sad when you can turn to a porn magnate for a better understanding of the first amendment than a prospective Supreme Court justice.

It all depends on whose point of view you are analyzing the speech from. I could be saying something I like and many others like, but to some it would be considered dissent. Just take this thread for example.

reply to post by prionace glauca


I agree, but to be fair, the Bush admin did grave damage to our first amendment rights. He began his "reign" by having protesters placed in "first amendment zones" that were blocks, sometimes miles, away from where he or Cheney were appearing.
Sadly, Obama is continuing in the direction of oppression. Both have called it "protecting our freedom".

Our government is not "by the people". It is by the elites, FOR the elites; the very wealthy. Political parties solicit huge sums of money, claiming that is what is needed to win. People are too lazy or busy to participate in the process, so they throw money at it and think they've done their part.
We are in a class war. No person with a net worth of over $500,000 should be allowed to sit in Congress or in the WH. They don't serve the average American. They serve their peers.

I wouldn't trust the government to wipe its own backside competently.

The Iraq war is a pile of dung & we STILL aren't free of that fecesasco.

Less bad government is better government,

and THIS government does NOTHING but harm to real Americans.

reply to post by prionace glauca



But isn't dissenting speech one of the main reasons for the existence of the first amendment? Seems to me that a person who would so vehemently argue against the right of individuals to speak their minds, as distasteful to them as it might be, doesn't have the slightest clue as to what the meaning of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," truly is...

Originally posted by Legion2112
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

But isn't dissenting speech one of the main reasons for the existence of the first amendment? Seems to me that a person who would so vehemently argue against the right of individuals to speak their minds, as distasteful to them as it might be, doesn't have the slightest clue as to what the meaning of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," truly is...

I was agreeing with what you said earlier, only to point out that now the first amnedment will be viewed thought the filters of the government and law bodies alone. The constitution is bypassed completely if such a tragic situation were to occur as this nominee once supported & probably still does.

Stuffing SCOTUS with activists that legislate from the bench began with FDR.

The U.S. doesn't have a justice department, they have a "JUST-US" department. This amounts to protection for the "counterfeiters in charge" & their cohorts (congress).

reply to post by prionace glauca


Oh, sorry. My powers of inference are hindered by the combination of a long morning and weak coffee

Originally posted by Legion2112
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

Oh, sorry. My powers of inference are hindered by the combination of a long morning and weak coffee

It all good m8, but in reality this isn't the first pervasive attempt by Red or Blue entities against our Constitution.

um? what freedom of speech? I did not know we had any!
but I think it would be nice to see it in law.
so all the people can SEE that we dont have any freedom of speech...

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

$500,000 is rather low.
My stepgrandmother's late first husbands family homesteaded the farm where she still lives. She owns it but it is going to her son when she dies. It's tax assessment is $650,000. Just a family farm. So when she dies and he inherits, does that mean you believe he should lose his ability to run for office? And it was homesteaded. It's only 160 acres.

All in all the pervasive attempts by individuals who seek to undermine our Constitution are getting more bold. We the People need to voice our opinions regarding this nomination.