It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...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.
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."
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.
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.
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...
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