Kagan: "First Amendment protection depends upon balancing against 'societal costs."

Discussion in 'Politics' started by teapartysamurai, May 11, 2010.

  1. teapartysamurai
    Online

    teapartysamurai Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    18,840
    Thanks Received:
    2,275
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,838


    Read all here:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Kagan-Speech-is-free-if-government-decides-it-has--93309159.html


    Translation? Free speech is only free if LIBERALS decide it won't deter their agenda. We can't have the other side's criticsms getting in our way now can we?

    I mean WHO gets to decide "societal costs?" Why liberal judges like her of course!

    THIS is supposedly the Obama pick that will "move the court to the right?" :lol::lol::lol::lol:

    How stupid do they think we are? The answer, is very.

    After all, enough voters bought Obama's lies to vote for him.

    It's time to call your Senator now regarding this turkey.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    If you truly love FREE SPEECH, why are you posting on a board that doesn't have it?

    I'm not putting this board down, I actually appreciate that our speech here has some reasonable limits.

    But words like FREE are overworked and often used to lead fools astray.

    You want total freedom?

    Move to Somalia.
     
  3. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    Why is it against the law to yell "FIRE!" in a theater?

    Why are you open to legal consequences for libel?

    All Rights are subject to restriction when they compromise someone else's Rights. That's why the police could haul out protesters intent on disrupting a Church service for example. Once you use your rights in a way that infringes on my Rights, you lose legal protection.

    That's been the law of the land... well since the law of the land came into exsistence. If you're only now getting that I think you should go back to school and demand an education.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Bill O'Olberman
    Offline

    Bill O'Olberman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    818
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +124
    To put that case in some context, as depictions of animal cruelty Kagan was trying to argue that through the power granted to the government through the commerce clause could ban the sale of "depictions of animal cruelty," so basically movies of dog fighting and shit shouldnt be protected by the first amendment. I mean you could be an absolute total free speech advocate and say that the sale and dissemination of child pronography ought to be allowed. But that has societal costs that most people dont want.
     
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    There's a difference between direct harm to others and indeterminate nondescript "societal costs".
     
  6. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95,992
    Thanks Received:
    11,264
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,223
    Societal cost would be a reason that child pornography is not protected free speech. Apparently some rightwingers around here don't think that societal cost is worth preventing
    .

    Disgusting.
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Child pornography is a defacto aggression against a minor child, who by definition is precluded from consenting to such acts.

    Fail again.
     
  8. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95,992
    Thanks Received:
    11,264
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,223
    Minors are not denied the right of consent by definition; they are denied by statute.

    What is the rationale for denying minors the right to consent in the first place?
     
  9. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    89,060
    Thanks Received:
    10,372
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,651
    Is that any different from "crying fire in a crowded theater"?
     
  10. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    How do you interpret "societal costs"? Considering society is made up of people, if something has a "societal cost" that means it is directly impacting people.

    I think the OP is out for a sense of Outrage! and didn't think things through. There is an honest debate that can be had about when it is justified to curb Free Speech (and sometimes it is), and when it goes to far.

    For example: Woodrow Wilson clamped down hard on pacifist views during WWI calling such views detremental to the war effort. Freedom of Press was compromised so much that newspapers were unable to report about one of the worst epidemics in the history of mankind. Was Wilson correct?

    If the OP wants an honest debate, they should open with the question of when is curtailing free speech justified. Simply saying "She hates Free Speech" isn't honest, as if the OP had an issue with limitations on Free Speech, they are 200+ years late to the party.
     

Share This Page