Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

[teapartysamurai]

the money quote:

Kagan notes, however, that such “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” but that government may not restrict it to protect incumbent politicians or because it dislikes a particular speaker or a particular message.



She argued that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.

Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, Kagan said, because the government’s motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other – unprotected – activity

Read it all here: CNSNews.com - Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

Now people, this all sounds reasonable (which liberalism on the surface always does) until you parse the real intent of this gobblydegook.

What it really means is, the government can infringe speech as long as it has "good intentions."

Now that is the heart of liberalism. She is saying don't examine the EFFECT a court decision may have, examine THE INTENTIONS.

THAT'S LIBERALISM. You are NEVER supposed to examine any liberal policy or law, only the "good intentions."

That is exactly what Kagan is saying in her doublespeak and that is exactly what she means.

But who gets to decide what are GOOD INTENTIONS? Why liberals like Kagan, of course.

It doesn't matter what effect it has on YOU and ME. All that matters is how liberals RATIONALIZE their "good intentions."

So, typically liberal.

 

[uptownlivin90]

the money quote:

Kagan notes, however, that such “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” but that government may not restrict it to protect incumbent politicians or because it dislikes a particular speaker or a particular message.



She argued that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.

Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, Kagan said, because the government’s motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other – unprotected – activity

Read it all here: CNSNews.com - Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

Now people, this all sounds reasonable (which liberalism on the surface always does) until you parse the real intent of this gobblydegook.

What it really means is, the government can infringe speech as long as it has "good intentions."

Now that is the heart of liberalism. She is saying don't examine the EFFECT a court decision may have, examine THE INTENTIONS.

THAT'S LIBERALISM. You are NEVER supposed to examine any liberal policy or law, only the "good intentions."

That is exactly what Kagan is saying in her doublespeak and that is exactly what she means.

But who gets to decide what are GOOD INTENTIONS? Why liberals like Kagan, of course.

It doesn't matter what effect it has on YOU and ME. All that matters is how liberals RATIONALIZE their "good intentions."

So, typically liberal.

Depends on what you mean by "liberals".

 

[JenyEliza]

"Government Redistribution of Speech"?

WTF?

Does she mean FREE BOOKS? FREE NEWSPAPERS? FREE SMARTPHONES?

WHAT THE HELL does the pudgy Lesbinator mean?

 

[JenyEliza]

Oh, and the road to Hell is paved with "good intentions". My Mom's favorite saying.

Apparently the pudgy Lesbinator has never heard that saying.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This woman's beliefs on Free Speech are very disturbing. I don't understand how Liberals can support her. Both Democrats & Republicans should vote Nay on this nominee. For once i would like to see them buck the system and not just vote along party-lines. If you truly believe in Free Speech and our Constitution,you would have to vote Nay on this nominee.

 

[tommywho70x]

This woman's beliefs on Free Speech are very disturbing. I don't understand how Liberals can support her. Both Democrats & Republicans should vote Nay on this nominee. For once i would like to see them buck the system and not just vote along party-lines. If you truly believe in Free Speech and our Constitution,you would have to vote Nay on this nominee.

couldn't say it any better myself. thank you

 

[drsmith1072]

the money quote:

Kagan notes, however, that such “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” but that government may not restrict it to protect incumbent politicians or because it dislikes a particular speaker or a particular message.



She argued that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.

Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, Kagan said, because the government’s motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other – unprotected – activity

Read it all here: CNSNews.com - Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'

Now people, this all sounds reasonable (which liberalism on the surface always does) until you parse the real intent of this gobblydegook.

What it really means is, the government can infringe speech as long as it has "good intentions."

Now that is the heart of liberalism. She is saying don't examine the EFFECT a court decision may have, examine THE INTENTIONS.

THAT'S LIBERALISM. You are NEVER supposed to examine any liberal policy or law, only the "good intentions."

That is exactly what Kagan is saying in her doublespeak and that is exactly what she means.

But who gets to decide what are GOOD INTENTIONS? Why liberals like Kagan, of course.

It doesn't matter what effect it has on YOU and ME. All that matters is how liberals RATIONALIZE their "good intentions."

So, typically liberal.

WOW more attempts to make something out of nothing.

So how long before you cut and run from this thread like you do from all of the others that you start?

YOUR MISinterpretations of what you BELIEVE to be someone elses intent is nothing but more right wing propaganda spewed by a lemming who can't think for himself.

 

[drsmith1072]

"In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent.

She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities."

She was primarily arguing over congress' abilities and limitations to limit free speech and how the SCOTUS could define what crosses the line and what does not.

According to your own article she defines what she was saying so there really is no reason or justification for you to reinterpret a meaning that has already been clearly stated by the author.

However, thanks for the spin.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

If you consider yourself to be a Liberal,you could never support this nominee. Her record on Free Speech is atrocious. Both Democrats & Republicans need to vote Nay on this nominee.