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

[teapartysamurai]

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.

Nice spin, but if that were the case she would have said so. She didn't.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Child pornography is a defacto aggression against a minor child, who by definition is precluded from consenting to such acts.

Fail again.

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?

Oh my Lord. What did I say about liberals denying something in one breathe and confirming it in another.

He's against child porn, and now he's for it, because he thinks children should have the right of consent??????

Carb, call that defeating yourself and discreditiung yourself in one post.

 

[teapartysamurai]

As an illustration why, consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “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.”​

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?"

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.

Is that any different from "crying fire in a crowded theater"?

Um yeah. That's committing a criminal act, not a "societal cost."

Societal costs are the rationale liberals used in the 90s to try and push "hate speech" codes and laws.

The problem is you kiddies infecting this board being from age 30 and under probably don't remember that.

Liberals never give up an idea just because it gets struck down by the higher courts. They keep at it.

This is just a liberal resurrecting that idea, again and again and again.

 

[drsmith1072]

You're in waaaaaaaaay over your head here, bub.

Says the moron who can't even follow a simple debate and has to engage in baseless attack to try and cover for the fact that you misread what i wrote so you could attack me.

Fact is that you read it wrong, IF you have any integrity, your best option is to just be honest and admit to your mistake.

Attacking the messenger won't change the facts. I really wish righties would have learned that by now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am new to the board, but unless you are implying that it is run by the government you cannot claim it does not have free speech.

 

[Oddball]

You're in waaaaaaaaay over your head here, bub.

Says the moron who can't even follow a simple debate and has to engage in baseless attack to try and cover for the fact that you misread what i wrote so you could attack me.

Fact is that you read it wrong, IF you have any integrity, your best option is to just be honest and admit to your mistake.

Attacking the messenger won't change the facts. I really wish righties would have learned that by now.

I read nothing wrong and you're still in waaaay over your head.

And righties have nothing on you in the attacking the messenger department, Gomer.

 

[rdean]

As an illustration why, consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “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.”​

​

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?"

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.

You know that's a stupid thing to say.

If you are in a crowded theater and someone screams "fire". Is that against the law?
You know it is. And why is it against the law?

 

[beowolfe]

As an illustration why, consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “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.”​

​

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?"

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.

Let me give you a better translation. It's what we've always done. If you don't believe me, go to a movie theater and yell 'fire' while a movie is playing.

 

[beowolfe]

As an illustration why, consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “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.”​

​

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?"

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.

You know that's a stupid thing to say.

If you are in a crowded theater and someone screams "fire". Is that against the law?
You know it is. And why is it against the law?

Because that person's right to free speech was weighed against societal needs and found lacking.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I find it hilarious that people keep taking out-of-context quotes from briefs she filed as Solicitor General.

Learn about our legal system folks. Everything will make more sense.

 

[drsmith1072]

You're in waaaaaaaaay over your head here, bub.

Says the moron who can't even follow a simple debate and has to engage in baseless attack to try and cover for the fact that you misread what i wrote so you could attack me.

Fact is that you read it wrong, IF you have any integrity, your best option is to just be honest and admit to your mistake.

Attacking the messenger won't change the facts. I really wish righties would have learned that by now.

I read nothing wrong and you're still in waaaay over your head.

And righties have nothing on you in the attacking the messenger department, Gomer.

Uh yeah you did read it wrong. I made a comparison between what you said about wilson and how W and the republcians acted and YOU tried to dishonestly claim that I was saying that wilson modeled himself after W. So the only one in waaaay over their head is YOU.

So either you misread it (giving you the benefit of the doubt) or you intentionally tried to spin it. So which is it? Did you make a mistake or are you a liar??

 

[Eccgmike]

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.

That is trully one of the dumbist things I've heard in this forum...

 

[Eccgmike]

Let's not forget this is a woman that thinks that if a person is SUSPECTED of financing Al Queda, regardless of where or who they are, should be detained indefinatly.......

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Nice spin, but if that were the case she would have said so. She didn't.

So because someone smarter than you didn't spell everything out so a moron could understand what was being said you are now trying to argue that merely because you BELIEVE it doesn't apply that it doesn't? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

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?"

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.

Is that any different from "crying fire in a crowded theater"?

Um yeah. That's committing a criminal act, not a "societal cost."

Societal costs are the rationale liberals used in the 90s to try and push "hate speech" codes and laws.

The problem is you kiddies infecting this board being from age 30 and under probably don't remember that.

Liberals never give up an idea just because it gets struck down by the higher courts. They keep at it.

This is just a liberal resurrecting that idea, again and again and again.

Uh MORON, it is deemed a criminal act and NOT considered free speech based on its societal cost.

How typical, someone uses a term that you lack the intellect to understand and you go all apeshit over NOTHING.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

That is trully one of the dumbist things I've heard in this forum...

You do realize that you misspelled "dumbest" don't you?? LOL

 

[Eccgmike]

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.

That is trully one of the dumbist things I've heard in this forum...

You do realize that you misspelled "dumbest" don't you?? LOL

Yes,... That was an admittedly weak attempt at irony....

 

[drsmith1072]

That is trully one of the dumbist things I've heard in this forum...

You do realize that you misspelled "dumbest" don't you?? LOL

Yes,... That was an admittedly weak attempt at irony....

LOL Yeah, sure it was.

LOL jk

 

[Foxfyre]

I would say that there should be no restriction on a properly rated movie on dog fighting UNLESS dogs were intentionally injured in the making of it. We certainly allow a lot of movies where humans are treated with unimaginable cruelty, but I can't imagine free speech rights being extended to a right for humans to be actually treated with unimaginable cruelty.

Free speech rights do not extend to being able to place an adult bookstore next to a school or a strip club in a town that doesn't want one there. It does not extend to a right to maliciously libel or slander another.

If those are the 'societal costs' to which Kagan refers, I would agree with her.

If she is referring to people somehow being harmed by being subjected to talk radio or Air America or Fox News or MSNBC, then I have strong issues with the lady.

Does anybody know in which context her remarks were made?