Kagan in prev possition rules banning books was OK

[tangent4ronpaul]

Made me wonder what authority she had to do this. So I went looking for info on books used in the US.

Fanny Hill or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure John Cleland Novel Banned in the USA in 1821 for obscenity, then again in 1963. This was the last book ever banned in the USA.[9] See also Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

The Federal Mafia Irwin Schiff Nonfiction An injunction was issued by a U.S. District Court in Nevada under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 against Irwin Schiff and associates Cynthia Neun and Lawrence Cohen, against the sale of this book by those persons as the court found that the information it contains is fraudulent.[31]

Case regarding The Federal Mafia

The Federal Mafia is a book written in prison[17] by Schiff. In the book, Schiff contended that the income tax system and Internal Revenue Service were illegal. On August 9, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction issued by a U.S. District Court in Nevada under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 against Irwin Schiff and associates Cynthia Neun and Lawrence Cohen, against the sale of this book by those persons.[18] This prohibition does not extend to other sellers of the book. The court rejected Schiff's contention on appeal that the First Amendment protects sales of the book, as the court found that the information it contains is fraudulent.[19]

Schiff, Neun and Cohen are currently barred under the preliminary injunction from selling or advertising material advocating nonpayment of tax, preparing a tax return for others, and from otherwise providing assistance or encouragement to others in violating tax law. Schiff and his associates are additionally required to provide a copy of the injunction to each of their customers, to post it on their website, and to provide the government with a customer list.[20]

Schiff and his associates have responded by giving the book for free on their website.[21]

They have a see also for Peter Schiff

Peter David Schiff (pronounced /ˈʃɪf/; born March 23, 1963) is an American stock broker, author, financial news commentator, video blogger, the president of Euro Pacific Capital, non-professional economist,[12] and a 2010 candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Democratic Senator Chris Dodd.[13]

hmmmm....

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Irwin Schiff is Peter Schiff's father. I never knew that. I'd heard murmers about his book, but never a title or author.

-t

[Chester Copperpot]

in what capacity was kagan deciding the validity of banning books?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Solicitor General

The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court. In addition to supervising and conducting cases in which the government is a party, the Solicitor General's office also files amicus curiae briefs in cases in which the federal government has a significant interest in the legal issue. The Solicitor General's office argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party, and also argues in most of the cases in which the government has filed an amicus brief. In the federal courts of appeals, the Office of the Solicitor General reviews cases decided against the United States and determines whether the government will seek review in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General's office also reviews cases decided against the United States in the federal district courts and approves every case in which the government files an appeal.

-t

[Chester Copperpot]

These people are all traitors.. They are completely unamerican..

WTF has happened to our country?

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck Novel Was temporarily banned in many places in the US. In the region of California in which it was partially set, it was banned because it made the residents of this region look bad.[34]

Lady Chatterley's Lover D. H. Lawrence Novel Temporarily banned in the United States and the United Kingdom for violation of obscenity laws; both bans were lifted in 1959 and 1960, respectively.[28]

Temporarily banned in Australia.[49]

Naked Lunch William S. Burroughs Novel Banned by Boston courts in 1962 for obscenity, but that decision was reversed in 1966 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[59]

Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell Novel Banned by the Soviet Union in 1950, as Stalin understood that it was a satire based on his leadership, it was nearly banned by USA and UK in the early 1960s during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was not until 1990 that the USSR legalised the book and it was re-released after editing.[60]

Tropic of Cancer Henry Miller Novel (fictionalized memoir) Banned in the US in the 1930s until the early 1960s, seized by US customs for sexually explicit content and vulgarity. The rest of Miller's work was also banned by the United States.[80] Also banned in South Africa until the late 1980s.[citation needed]

Ulysses James Joyce Novel Banned in UK during the 1930s and in Australia during the 1930s and 1940s.[citation needed] Challenged and temporarily banned in the US for its sexual content. In 1933 the ban was overturned in United States v. One Book Called Ulysses.[82]

Uncle Tom's Cabin Harriet Beecher Stowe Novel Banned in the Southern States due to its anti-slavery content. In 1852, Uncle Tom's Cabin was banned in Russia under the reign of Nicholas I due to the idea of equality it presented, and for its "undermining religious ideals." [13]

United States-Vietnam Relations: 1945-1967 Robert McNamara and the United States Department of Defense Government Study Also known as the Pentagon Papers. US President Nixon attempted to suspend publication of classified information. The restraint was lifted by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision.[84] See also New York Times Co. v. United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_States

-t

[mczerone]

These people are all traitors.. They are completely unamerican..

WTF has happened to our country?

A bunch of merchantilists got together and drafted a two-faced document meant to pacify the people while giving infinite license to a strong federal govt.

Then 219 years of democracy allowed everyone to think that they owned the dissenters, if only they could get more slips of paper with their names on them.

[charrob]

She also seems to be pushing this "war on terror" bullshit:


Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has continued to assert many of Bush's executive policies in his "war on terror." Elena Kagan, reportedly Obama's choice to replace Justice Stevens, has never been a judge. But she has been a loyal foot soldier in Obama's fight against terrorism and there is little reason to believe that she will not continue to do so. During her confirmation hearing for solicitor general, Kagan agreed with Senator Lindsey Graham that the president can hold suspected terrorists indefinitely during wartime, and the entire world is a battlefield.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/09-0

if i'm not mistaken Ms. Teaparty herself, Sarah Palin, is big on banning books and bringing out the fearmongers as well. -maybe they should get together... :rolleyes:

[Morgan Brykein]

Doesn't everyone know? Books are interstate commerce.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Theoretically, free speech in the U.S. can also be limited if it might cause a clear and present danger of an imminent lawless action, or constitutes a copyright violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger

Clear and present danger is a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States,[1] concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[2][3] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was later modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[4] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an imminent lawless action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Imminent lawless action is a term used in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to define the limits of constitutionally protected speech. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States (1919), which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot) does not have constitutional protection. As of 2009[update], "imminent lawless action" continues to be the test applied in free speech cases.

-t

[TheFlashlight.org]

Since when are gym teachers getting nominated to the Supreme Court?I would expect any Supreme Court nominee to 1) reflect mainstream American values 2) be way smarter than myself 3) be way more in shape than myself

PS
Please check out my website.

[awake]

These people are all traitors.. They are completely unamerican..

WTF has happened to our country?

Democracy is a competition in evil. There simply isn't any other outcome.

[idirtify]

May be off-topic:

Even if Irwin’s book was factually incorrect, since when is that a criterion for banning? If it was, just think of all the books that would be banned! But FEDERAL MAFIA is not factually incorrect. Its claim is that there is no ACTUAL law making individuals pay income taxes, and nowhere in his court cases did the Feds show such a law – because no such law exists.

If the basis is that FEDERAL MAFIA would provoke imminent lawless action:
Since no law exists, not paying would not be a lawless action.

If anything qualifies for banning, it would be the IRS Code; considering the huge amount of lawless action it produces and the large number of incorrect facts it contains.

[ChaosControl]

She also seems to be pushing this "war on terror" bullshit:



if i'm not mistaken Ms. Teaparty herself, Sarah Palin, is big on banning books and bringing out the fearmongers as well. -maybe they should get together... :rolleyes:

They make a lovely couple.

[t0rnado]

This bitch attempted to ban a documentary that was critical of Hilary Clinton:

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/will-sg-correct-the-governments-book-banning-mistake