The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: TimF	5/17/2010 1:35:53 PM
	of 3029

Kagan: Speech is free if government decides it has more value than 'societal costs' By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 05/10/10 4:08 PM EDT 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.” The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted. You can read the entirety of Kagan's brief here, and additional analysis by Hudson of Kagan's record on First Amendment issues here. washingtonexaminer.com ...Kagan herself didn't write the brief or argue before the Court, but she signed off on it. This was the case decided recently concerning whether a federal law banning the production, sale, or distribution of videos depicting animal cruelty. The Court struck down the law in an 8:1 decision. The First Amendment Center points out that her views might be different from what was said in the brief since the role of an advocate and judge are quite different. Since we don't have other rulings from her it will be worthwhile for the senators to talk to her about her views on the First Amendment. Does she really believe that there is a "Societal Cost and Benefits Clause" in the First Amendment? I've never seen that clause when I read the Amendment. That's a pretty sweeping and dangerous argument and eight Justices disagreed with that approach. Does she really believe that the federal government should have that power to determine which speech provides greater costs than benefits? Oh, wait. She and President Obama are quite proud of their stand in the Citizens United case to say that corporate speech in elections should be banned at a predetermined period before elections. So it is clear that both she and Obama support that sort of balancing test for speech. And the Democrats agree and are busy crafting a bill to try to get around the Supreme Court ruling. It's a frightening prospect to have an entire party that seems to think that the government can impose limits on political speech if they think that the costs outweigh the benefits. betsyspage.blogspot.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next