Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Supreme Court Nominee is an Enemy of Free Speech! Big Suprise...

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Zimobog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, June 20th, 2011 @ 06:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celtogermanic
    Subrace
    Don't know
    State
    Alaska Alaska
    Location
    Mat-Su Valley
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Family
    Married with Children
    Occupation
    disaster mitigation
    Politics
    I want my country back now
    Religion
    HFR Heathenry
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Supreme Court Nominee is an Enemy of Free Speech! Big Suprise...

    ...In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “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.” (emphasis mine).

    “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,” reports World Net Daily.

    Kagan also argued as recently as September that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to engage in free speech, and that the government can censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.

    Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.

    “The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

    Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.

    Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

    If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.

    http://www.infowars.com/kagan-disapp...-it-offensive/


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Gary in TX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 @ 04:19 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Danish, English and Scottish.
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Saxon, Scot and Dane.
    Subrace
    Borreby
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Aryan Nationalist
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    194
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Well of course she's a slimeball liberal...look who nominated her.

    I just did my best to try not to pay too much attention to the USSC nominee process lately. I just knew that Obama was gonna pull out one of the biggest slimeballs on the face of the planet, but one where most people don't know too much about them so that they might slip through without too much fuss......and so he has.

    Gee, big suprise.

    Hopefully the Republicans put up enough of a fight and pull up enough dirt on her to nip this whole thing in the bud as alot of these vital USSC decisions on State Rights and Individual Freedoms that have started to turn things just a little bit around have been by a margin of 5-4, but I'm not holding my breath that this will turn out well.

  3. #3
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    49
    Thanked in
    47 Posts
    she is a jewish lesbian almost without any credentials.

    She is obviously somebody who should legalize the takeover by jewish supremacist and clear the way into a totalitarian state.

    There is nothing which commends her for that office. She is obviously put there by a 'network'.

    She can be compared to the Miers scandal of Bush
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 6th, 2012 @ 07:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    German/Irish
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Computer CAD/ Civil
    Politics
    Libertarian/Conservative
    Posts
    1,771
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ocko View Post
    she is a jewish lesbian almost without any credentials.

    She is obviously somebody who should legalize the takeover by jewish supremacist and clear the way into a totalitarian state.

    There is nothing which commends her for that office. She is obviously put there by a 'network'.

    She can be compared to the Miers scandal of Bush

    Thanks!
    I really could not have stated it better myself.

    Oh one other thing that should not surprise anyone is that she is an avowed Socialist.

    By Aaron Klein
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    President Obama Announces His Nominee For Supreme Court Justice

    NEW YORK – In her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, lamented the decline of socialism in the country as "sad" for those who still hope to "change America."

    Titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," Kagan opined that infighting caused the decline of the early socialist movement. She asked why the "greatness" of socialism was not reemerging as a major political force.

    "In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness,"
    I Beg to differ with her, SHE and the vast majority of her ilk are the same sort of filth that both supported the Bolshevik Revelation, in Russia and have acted as a Fifth Column in the US for most of this century.

    Unfortunately for America and the rest of the world there was no control's on politics of the 1900's to prevent Jewish and Foreign socialist from entering and undermining the US Democratic System.

    Welcome to the USSA, And her Ally the EUSSR.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Devin De Blois's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, February 25th, 2011 @ 03:00 AM
    Ethnicity
    WASP
    Ancestry
    England, France, and Germany
    Subrace
    WASP
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Maryland Maryland
    Gender
    Occupation
    driver and clerk
    Politics
    Conservative WASP
    Religion
    WASP-Baptist
    Posts
    123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    I just don't understand why we all can't be equal, pay almost all of our wages in taxes, give up our guns and free speech and live in shit like most socialist countries, it just makes no sense.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/Sabdude/RoyalStandardFlagAngloNormanKings.png

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,360
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    198
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,144
    Thanked in
    660 Posts

    "Hate Speech is Free Speech", Gov. Dean

    I tell my constitutional law students that there are a couple of statements that indicate that a speaker is a constitutional illiterate who can safely be ignored. One is the claim that the Constitution views black people as ⅗ the worth of white people (actually, it was all about power in Congress, with slaveowners wanting black people to count 100% toward apportionment so that slaveowners would get more seats in Congress, and abolitionists wanting them not counted at all so that slaveowners would get fewer seats in Congress; the ⅗ compromise was just that, a compromise).

    The other hallmark of constitutional illiteracy is the claim that the First Amendment doesn’t protect “hate speech.” And by making that claim last week, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and Democratic presidential candidate, revealed himself to be a constitutional illiterate. Then, predictably, he doubled down on his ignorance.

    In First Amendment law, the term “hate speech” is meaningless. All speech is equally protected whether it’s hateful or cheerful. It doesn’t matter if it’s racist, sexist or in poor taste, unless speech falls into a few very narrow categories — like “true threats,” which have to address a specific individual, or “incitement,” which must constitute an immediate and intentional encouragement to imminent lawless action — it’s protected.

    The term “hate speech” was invented by people who don’t like that freedom, and who want to give the — completely false — impression that there’s a kind of speech that the First Amendment doesn’t protect because it’s hateful. What they mean by “hateful,” it seems, is really just that it’s speech they don’t agree with. Some even try to argue that since hearing disagreeable ideas is unpleasant, expressing those ideas is somehow an act of “violence.”

    There are two problems with that argument. The first is that it’s idiotic: That’s never been the law, nor could it be if we give any value to free expression, because there’s no idea that somebody doesn’t disagree with. The second is that the argument is usually made by people who spend a lot of time expressing disagreeable ideas themselves, without, apparently, the least thought that if their own rules about disagreeable speech held sway, they’d probably be locked up first. (As Twitter wag IowaHawk has offered: “I'll let you ban hate speech when you let me define it. Deal?”)

    The response to Dean was merciless: First Amendment law expert Eugene Volokh responded, "No, Gov. Dean, there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment.” If there were, neither the Westboro Baptist Church — whose hateful speech the Supreme Court recently held protected — nor the many people referring to Trump supporters as Nazis and “deplorables” would enjoy free speech.

    As Volokh writes, if people want “hate speech” to be unprotected, they’re calling for a change to the First Amendment, and it’s a big one. They should not only admit that, “they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected and how judges, juries and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. And claiming that hate speech is already 'not protected by the First Amendment,' as if one is just restating settled law, does not suffice.”

    Dean then doubled down with the constitutional illiterate’s usual fallback, that you could ban “hate speech” as “fighting words” under the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which allows a ban on “fighting words.” (Journalist Dan Gillmor commented: “Disappointing, to say the least, to see Dean digging the hole deeper on his flatly incorrect original statement.”)

    But “fighting words” aren’t hate speech. Fighting words are direct, person-to-person invitations to a brawl. Expressing political or social views that people don’t like isn’t the same thing, even if people might react violently to those views.

    And that’s good. If, by reacting violently to views they didn’t like, people could get the government to censor those views as “hate speech” or “fighting words,” then people would have a strong incentive to react violently to views they don’t like. Giving the angry and violent the ability to shut down other people’s speech (the term we use for this in constitutional law, Gov. Dean, is “heckler’s veto”) is a bad thing, which would leave us with a society marked by a lot more violence, a lot more censorship, and a lot less speech.

    Is that really what you want? Because that’s what we’d get, if we followed the advice of constitutional illiterates.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/100815564/

Similar Threads

  1. How The Battle For Free Speech Was Won: Canada Ends Internet 'Hate Speech' Ban
    By Nachtengel in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Sunday, July 1st, 2012, 10:17 AM
  2. A US Supreme Court Without WASPs?
    By Nachtengel in forum The United States
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Monday, December 20th, 2010, 06:02 PM
  3. UN, EU, World Court, Supreme Court: Subsidiarity, Anyone?
    By Taras Bulba in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 12th, 2006, 11:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •