Kagan: Speech is free if government decides it has more value than 'societal costs'

[bobbyw24]

Freedom of speech, religion and other First Amendment issues are likely to be among the most visible during the coming Senate confirmation hearings on President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Kagan-Speech-is-free-if-government-decides-it-has--93309159.html#ixzz0nca2bhMS

[IPSecure]

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.
Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152305)

[Cowlesy]

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/2270/original/political-pictures-do-not-want-surprised-guy.jpg

[bobbyw24]

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152305)

Does not bode well.

Why can't Liberals be liberal when it comes to free speech?

[low preference guy]

What are you all acting surprised? Can't you see that the title of this thread is an obvious implication of "Congress shall write no law".

[bobbyw24]

What are you all acting surprised? Can't you see that the title of this thread is an obvious implication of "Congress shall write no law".

True

[Pericles]

Does not bode well.

Why can't Liberals be liberal when it comes to free speech?

They absolutely believe in free speech for everyone who agrees with them.

[Cowlesy]

"Fire in a crowded theater" arguments are popping up all across the internet tubes.

[tangent4ronpaul]

What are you all acting surprised? Can't you see that the title of this thread is an obvious implication of "Congress shall write no law".

Congress writes laws anymore? I thought that was all outsourced to lobbyists these days... :rolleyes:

-t

[osan]

"Fire in a crowded theater" arguments are popping up all across the internet tubes.

How surprising.

Kagan will be confirmed and we will be one step closer to done. Why not just stick the fork in us now and get it over with?

Sheesh.

[Brian4Liberty]

Raised a communist. Politically a corporatist. Ideologically a neo-conservative.

[rprprs]

Ya know, she may be on to something here.
Given the damage she'll do to American society while sitting on the court, I think she may have a point. :p

[Mini-Me]

Freedom of speech, religion and other First Amendment issues are likely to be among the most visible during the coming Senate confirmation hearings on President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Kagan-Speech-is-free-if-government-decides-it-has--93309159.html#ixzz0nca2bhMS

That's pretty much the most Orwellian thing I've heard all month. If the government gets to categorically decide what speech is free, then they clearly do not respect a right to free speech. It's appalling that anyone is stupid enough to fall for such doublethink.

Is there any Constitutional limit on government power that this lady DOES respect?

[nandnor]

"Fire in a crowded theater" arguments are popping up all across the internet tubes.Rothbardian property rights as human rights >>> fire in theater argument.

[Romulus]

Just another liberty stealing oppressor.

[Matt Collins]

"Fire in a crowded theater" arguments are popping up all across the internet tubes.
It's real simple. Badnarik explains it perfectly.

We all have rights, and with every right comes a responsibility. I have a right to self defense, but I have a responsibility to ensure my gun isn't used in an irresponsible manner. I have a right to free speech, but I have a duty to ensure my speech doesn't cause undue harm to another.

[slothman]

Write to your senator.
They probably won't listen, expesially in a big state
like NY, but they won't know if they don't hear from you.
Try not to insult liberals when doing so though.

[bobbyw24]

Kagan Says ‘Governmental Motive’ is Proper Focus in First Amendment Cases, Backs Limits on Speech That Can ‘Harm’

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720