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

teapartysamurai

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
20,056
Reaction score
2,557
Points
290
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?" :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.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
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.
 

Dr.Traveler

Mathematician
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
652
Points
190
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.
 

Bill O'Olberman

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
818
Reaction score
125
Points
28
Location
Virginia
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.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,069
Reaction score
26,310
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
There's a difference between direct harm to others and indeterminate nondescript "societal costs".
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
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.
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
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?
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
138,516
Reaction score
16,208
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
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?" :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.
Is that any different from "crying fire in a crowded theater"?
 

Dr.Traveler

Mathematician
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
652
Points
190
There's a difference between direct harm to others and indeterminate nondescript "societal costs".
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.
 

drsmith1072

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
250
Points
48
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?" :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.
Uh you do realize that is how the 1st amendment has been interpreted in the past and that is why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater??

Once more this poster starts a thread in a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing.

as for your question "How stupid do they think we are? The answer, is very."

YES I would have to agree that you are VERY stupid. LOL
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,069
Reaction score
26,310
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
There's a difference between direct harm to others and indeterminate nondescript "societal costs".
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.
Could you be a little more vague?



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?
No....Wilson was a warmonger, tyrant and easily one of the three worst presidents of the last century.
 

drsmith1072

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
250
Points
48
There's a difference between direct harm to others and indeterminate nondescript "societal costs".
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.
Could you be a little more vague?
seems pretty clear to anyone not out to make something out of nothing.



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?
No....Wilson was a warmonger, tyrant and easily one of the three worst presidents of the last century.

so wilson was like W and the republicans whenthey tried to squash dissent by referring to American citzens as traitorous unpatriotic, un-American surrender monkeys who are either with us or against us??
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,069
Reaction score
26,310
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
Could you be a little more vague?
seems pretty clear to anyone not out to make something out of nothing.
Actually, it's purposefully vague and semantically slippery....That's the point.


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?
No....Wilson was a warmonger, tyrant and easily one of the three worst presidents of the last century.

so wilson was like W and the republicans whenthey tried to squash dissent by referring to American citzens as traitorous unpatriotic, un-American surrender monkeys who are either with us or against us??
Wilson modeled himself after a president who held office 75 years after he died?!?!?!?

Talk about your desperate incoherent spin!! :rofl:
 

Dr.Traveler

Mathematician
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
652
Points
190
There's a difference between direct harm to others and indeterminate nondescript "societal costs".
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.
Could you be a little more vague?
Nothing vague about it. Society is made up of people. Societal costs mean costs for people. That's the basic criteria for when we limit rights, ie, potential impact on others. At the end of the day if it impacts society, it directly impacts people. That's why arguing against a large Federal Debt is correct. You and I will pay that debt, even though many want to argue it is a "societal cost."

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?
No....Wilson was a warmonger, tyrant and easily one of the three worst presidents of the last century.
We'd agree then. I think that Woodrow's clamp down on the pacifists and the press rate up there with some of the worst oversteps in US history. Worse, the press clamp down contributed to the spread of the Great Influenza, meaning more folks died.

So I think we all agree it is possible to go too far in clamping down on free speech. Am I safe in saying that everyone in the room agrees that shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should not be protected as free speech?

That middle ground is the tough part, and that is where honest debate lies. Unfortunately, that is not where the OP took things so its up to the rest of us to make this thread worthwhile.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
66,069
Reaction score
26,310
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Nothing vague about it. Society is made up of people. Societal costs mean costs for people. That's the basic criteria for when we limit rights, ie, potential impact on others. At the end of the day if it impacts society, it directly impacts people. That's why arguing against a large Federal Debt is correct. You and I will pay that debt, even though many want to argue it is a "societal cost."
It's totally and purposefully vague.

Since "society" cannot be objectively quantified, to the extent that something like a tree can, anyone can claim that this or that has "societal costs", make up the criteria on the fly and claim that they're right.
Dude said:
No....Wilson was a warmonger, tyrant and easily one of the three worst presidents of the last century.

We'd agree then. I think that Woodrow's clamp down on the pacifists and the press rate up there with some of the worst oversteps in US history. Worse, the press clamp down contributed to the spread of the Great Influenza, meaning more folks died.

So I think we all agree it is possible to go too far in clamping down on free speech. Am I safe in saying that everyone in the room agrees that shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should not be protected as free speech?

That middle ground is the tough part, and that is where honest debate lies. Unfortunately, that is not where the OP took things so its up to the rest of us to make this thread worthwhile.
The "middle ground" is nothing of the sort...It's the plaything of tyrants and their enablers who use vague and malleable language like "societal costs".
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
Much todo about nothing.

This is just how crazy the cons are over anyone who Obama picks.

Everyone knows what she said is already accepted American views on freedom of speech.
 

drsmith1072

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
250
Points
48
Could you be a little more vague?
seems pretty clear to anyone not out to make something out of nothing.
Actually, it's purposefully vague and semantically slippery....That's the point.
but your spin doesn't change the fact that it is the standard.


No....Wilson was a warmonger, tyrant and easily one of the three worst presidents of the last century.

so wilson was like W and the republicans whenthey tried to squash dissent by referring to American citzens as traitorous unpatriotic, un-American surrender monkeys who are either with us or against us??
Wilson modeled himself after a president who held office 75 years after he died?!?!?!?

Talk about your desperate incoherent spin!! :rofl:
uh are you retarded?? I never said anything about wilson modeling himself after W but I did see a parallel between what you described with wilson and what traspired under W and the republicans.
Funny how you completely missed that and instead made up a work of fiction all so you could attack the messenger.
 

drsmith1072

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
6,031
Reaction score
250
Points
48
Much todo about nothing.

This is just how crazy the cons are over anyone who Obama picks.

Everyone knows what she said is already accepted American views on freedom of speech.
exactly.

As usual the author of the OP posts some drivel he read on a blog and then other righties chime in with blind agreement and defense of a baseless postion.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top