For Those Opposed to Censorship

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that there is no way to block President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan...but it would be reassuring if some of our left wing board members would make known that they disagree with her views on free speech, as follows:


"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.
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."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
(emphasis mine)

So, once again we see that elections have consequences.
Let's all remember that.

 

[strollingbones]

i am totally opposed to kagan....her views on book banning etc scare me to death ...but can you object to her and not be called an anti semite?

 

[PoliticalChic]

i am totally opposed to kagan....her views on book banning etc scare me to death ...but can you object to her and not be called an anti semite?

I haven't seen anyone called an anti-semite...
but I haven''t seen much about this nominee at all, probably because there is no way to stop her accession.


So go for it!

 

[Immanuel]

i am totally opposed to kagan....her views on book banning etc scare me to death ...but can you object to her and not be called an anti semite?

Good question. I think you can find your answer to that question by reviewing the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Could someone oppose the candidate, Barack Obama, and not be called a racist?

Immie

 

[Wry Catcher]

I understand that there is no way to block President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan...but it would be reassuring if some of our left wing board members would make known that they disagree with her views on free speech, as follows:


"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.
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."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
(emphasis mine)

So, once again we see that elections have consequences.
Let's all remember that.

Questions:
In senetence #1 to what does "after R.A.V." refer.? In context, what remedy does she propose, if any, which would elate her?

Next, in the quote "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." .
In what context is this statement made?
Consider the governments action in surpressing the (classic example) of yelling fire in a crowded movie house? Or, the arrest and prosecution of someone stating a bomb in on an aircraft? Or someone advocating the assassination of an elected official?

Elections have consequences, I'm sure no one who voted for George W. Bush expected a great recession, two wars, and a nation as divided as ours was in the decade before our civil war.

 

[rikules]

I understand that there is no way to block President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan...but it would be reassuring if some of our left wing board members would make known that they disagree with her views on free speech, as follows:


"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.
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."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
(emphasis mine)

So, once again we see that elections have consequences.
Let's all remember that.

'I understand that there is no way to block President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan...but it would be reassuring if some of our left wing board members would make known that they disagree with her views on free speech, as follows:


"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." '


and you disagree with this?

I'll bet you don't....

I have no doubt that you would like to see certain types of speech "disappear", too.

wouldn't it be great (for conservatives) if all forms of liberal speech 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."


I certainly hope you are not so stupid as to think that there are no conservatives/christians who would argue that it may be proper to "suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government."


"If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared"."


there are, of course, millions of conservatives/christians who agree with this

they would shut up liberals and socialists and atheists and evolutionists and homosexual activists just as quickly as some leftists would

perhaps I err in assuming that your initial post was directed at everyone who isn't a conservative

perhaps
when you say "those who are opposed to free speech"
you include leftists and rightists?

no?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that there is no way to block President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan...but it would be reassuring if some of our left wing board members would make known that they disagree with her views on free speech, as follows:


"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.
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."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
(emphasis mine)

So, once again we see that elections have consequences.
Let's all remember that.

Questions:
In senetence #1 to what does "after R.A.V." refer.? In context, what remedy does she propose, if any, which would elate her?

Next, in the quote "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." .
In what context is this statement made?
Consider the governments action in surpressing the (classic example) of yelling fire in a crowded movie house? Or, the arrest and prosecution of someone stating a bomb in on an aircraft? Or someone advocating the assassination of an elected official?

Elections have consequences, I'm sure no one who voted for George W. Bush expected a great recession, two wars, and a nation as divided as ours was in the decade before our civil war.

I appreciate your addressing the OP, but here are the real questions to be asked:

1. Should anyone favor the government having the option of surpressing speech...

2. How weak is any defense of same which requires the use of the blame Bush option.

A teenager, referred to in court documents only as R.A.V., burned a cross on a black family's lawn.

It seems that the Kagan-Obama concept is that you can have the weight of law brought down on one who insults a member of the protected group.

You down for that?

Are you prepared to argue that the government should be allowed to decide when it should be 'balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.'
I for one, think this is an anti-American concept.

In your estimation, is the above comparable to 'yelling fire in a crowded movie house'?

In full disclosure, I believe that 'Or someone advocating the assassination of an elected official' is just as bogus, absent the ability to do same.
How about 'kill the umpire'? Jail 'em?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that there is no way to block President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan...but it would be reassuring if some of our left wing board members would make known that they disagree with her views on free speech, as follows:


"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.
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."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
(emphasis mine)

So, once again we see that elections have consequences.
Let's all remember that.

'I understand that there is no way to block President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Ms. Kagan...but it would be reassuring if some of our left wing board members would make known that they disagree with her views on free speech, as follows:


"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." '


and you disagree with this?

I'll bet you don't....

I have no doubt that you would like to see certain types of speech "disappear", too.

wouldn't it be great (for conservatives) if all forms of liberal speech 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."


I certainly hope you are not so stupid as to think that there are no conservatives/christians who would argue that it may be proper to "suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government."


"If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared"."


there are, of course, millions of conservatives/christians who agree with this

they would shut up liberals and socialists and atheists and evolutionists and homosexual activists just as quickly as some leftists would

perhaps I err in assuming that your initial post was directed at everyone who isn't a conservative

perhaps
when you say "those who are opposed to free speech"
you include leftists and rightists?

no?

This is the problem for libs, who are so used to living in the liberal echo chamber...and believe that real folks agree with their twaddle.

"and you disagree with this?

I'll bet you don't....

I have no doubt that you would like to see certain types of speech "disappear", too.

wouldn't it be great (for conservatives) if all forms of liberal speech disappeared?"

How much 'ya bettin'?

Of course I disagree with making any speech 'disappear'!

The answer to bad speech is good speech...it's the reason I post alternatives to your nonsense...and I would not want any 'liberal speech' to disappear...not even yours.

And, of course, you don't see that the simplest manner of making 'bad speech' disapperar: make 'bad people' disappear.

I'm hoping that brighter folks than you see that having a government with the power to make speech 'disappear' is a terrible idea.


Why is it necessary to describe those who have alternative views as 'stupid'? Is it an inability to articulate the view without pejoratives?

"I certainly hope you are not so stupid as to think that there are no conservatives/christians who would argue that it may be proper to "suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government."

So you can support censorship because some hypothetical folk on the other side might feel that way? Luckily for you, I choose not to use the same descriptive language that you do.

Let me remind you: Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge.

 

[strollingbones]

i remember when this whole country was a free speech zone

 

[boedicca]

i am totally opposed to kagan....her views on book banning etc scare me to death ...but can you object to her and not be called an anti semite?

Her views scare the beejeebus out of me as well.

She really does not believe there are limits to government power - and betrays a complete lack of respect for The Constitution.