Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS Nominee Kagan On Free Speech Issues
DesScorp submitted one of a few stories I've seen about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, whose confirmation hearings are supposed to start today (despite being a formality, given that she has the votes pretty much locked up). "SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan hasn't left much of a paper trail during her legal career, which may make gauging her ideas and opinions somewhat difficult. But there are some positions she has made clear statements on, among them, pornography and 'hate speech.' In a 1993 University of Chicago seminar on the subject, Kagan argued that the government wasn't doing enough about the spread of porn or hate speech. She argued that new approaches were needed to fight their spread, as well as taking a fresh look at old approaches, such as obscenity laws. Kagan included herself among 'those of us who favor some form of pornography and hate speech regulation,' and told participants that 'a great deal can be done very usefully' to crack down on such evils."
> That group also happens to include people who are concerned about the courts abusing their powers.
IOW: people with a political agenda.
The Court did not exceed or abuse it's authority in Roe v Wade. It fulfilled it's designated role in American governance.
Your kind of whining stems from disliking the results of the process. Since you can't "win by playing by the rules" you want to change them.
Furthermore: this idea you are pushing that all rights of individuals need to be explicitly spelled out is the very essence of Fascism.
Morons like you are why the SCOTUS needs to take an active role. The founding fathers probably had proles like you in mind at the time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What a terrible argument. 'Well, it wouldn't be as bad as North Korea, therefore I would roll over and accept it if it came up, because relatively it's ok I guess.' Disgusting. There's an old platitude, 'I may not a agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
Man up, or you'll find yourself at the bottom of the slippery slope with everybody else once the regulation train leaves the station. Speech doesn't kill people, and unless there is a clear line of authority between individuals, nobody should be held accountable for the independent actions of somebody who took it upon themselves to do something because of what the first person may have said. If you start doing that, you might as well have executed J. D. Salinger because somebody shot John Lennon supposedly because of his work. Absurd.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
People who think Obama is synonymous with "left-wing" are missing a lot of the picture.
Yep, that he's synonymous with '0'.
He's an outright anti-American with obvious love for Communism and Islamists. He despises the idea of American Exceptionalism, and is doing everything he can to end it. If you don't think so, you're a) not paying enough attention and b) probably getting all your information from the State Controlled Media.
Come November, I expect things will take quite a turn for the better. It can't happen too soon, as we're well along into Great Depression II.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
So, what "well-regulated militia" are you part of?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Free speech is absolute. The 1st amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech but the speech itself is still absolute.
Then the same with hate speech. Your freedom is absolute, and you are just being held responsible for the consequences.
The rest of your arguments are just hair splitting and not worth addressing.
Yes, that's the coward's way of saying "you are right and I'm wrong, but I'm going to ignore everything that proves me wrong." I guess that's as good of a concession anyone will ever get from someone like you.
Learn to love Alaska