PC either is a fool or fraud. She is also a 2025 Heritage giggly girl.
My side says if you think you won the election, then provide the evidence. No one is denying you your free speech.
If your side says you get to defame and vilify and threaten the trial process, judges, staffs, and jurors, then you are wrong.
"No one is denying you your free speech."
Democrat Kagan on Free Speech:
America is not America sans the Constitution.
The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yet the
Democrats put this on the Supreme Court:
"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"
Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…
thedaleygator.wordpress.com
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia
“Earlier this week,
Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”
The
majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”
Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that
“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.
Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.
Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.
Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding.
The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.”
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?
What is the difference between Fascists and Democrats????
Good question.
