Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obamas SC Judge nominee is hellbent on destroying free speech « previous next »
Page: 1

DynaMike Glennon

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1689
Offline
: May 11, 2010, 02:54:58 PM

Why can't he just select someone who's normal, believes in the constitution, loves their Country. No, he can't do that, he has to select another radical bee-auch who is hellbent on throwing us into a totalitarian type Government with no civil liberties.  This guy makes me sick.



Kagan: ‘Disappear’ Free Speech If The Government Deems It Offensive
                
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 11, 2010

President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is perfect in every way – perfect that is if you think the role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to ban free speech, indefinitely detain Americans without trial, resurrect command and control socialism, while urinating on everything the Constitution stands for.
We already discovered Kagan’s penchant for treating Americans as guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”
So under that definition, if you send money to a charity later linked with some nebulous terrorist group then you are financing Al-Qaeda and could be thrown in Gitmo or some other CIA black site never to be seen again. And this is the woman being forwarded to sit on a body that is supposed to safeguard civil liberties? That would be like hiring Charles Manson to coach the high school basketball team.
But it gets worse. Now we learn that Kagan thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?


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.

ranman

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1193
Offline
#1 : May 11, 2010, 03:23:55 PM

TB40,

Consider the source.  Beck looks flat out moderate in comparison to the wacko south of waco.

cyberdude557

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11834
Offline
#2 : May 11, 2010, 04:54:01 PM

TB40,

Consider the source. Beck looks flat out moderate in comparison to the wacko south of waco.

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.”

If she really did say that, it should disqualify her immediately.

People have a constitutional right to be a complete racist, bigotted, SOB. And if we start allowing the government to ban that kind of speech, where does the line get drawn?



Guest
#3 : May 11, 2010, 05:10:42 PM

I'm conservative and I think that folks need to actually understand the key word in her sentence.  "uncoerced - not brought about by coercion or force".  I truly believe that she was asking for people to self-censor certain forms of speech that were perpetuating the inequalities. I see nothing wrong with "being elated" if people would stop denegrating minorities or making racial hate speeches under the protection of the First Amendment. I saw nothing about stripping us of the right to free speech.

This is a blatant smear job.  I have not formulated an opinion on her yet, but this article doesn't rate as a factual contribution to my research.

Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 23002
Offline
#4 : May 11, 2010, 05:22:10 PM

Is it just me or does this Elena Kagan look an awful lot like a chubby Brendan Fraser with pearl earrings?





Guest
#5 : May 11, 2010, 05:26:27 PM

I think Brendan had bigger knockers in this picture, can you zoom out so we can compare?     

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27656
Offline
#6 : May 11, 2010, 06:22:28 PM

TB40,

Consider the source. Beck looks flat out moderate in comparison to the wacko south of waco.

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.”

If she really did say that, it should disqualify her immediately.

People have a constitutional right to be a complete racist, bigotted, SOB. And if we start allowing the government to ban that kind of speech, where does the line get drawn?

There is nothing in what she said that remotely refers to banning bigoted speech.  She said if it weren't around, the world would be a happier place.  And she's correct.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#7 : May 12, 2010, 11:31:24 AM

TB40,

Consider the source. Beck looks flat out moderate in comparison to the wacko south of waco.

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.”

If she really did say that, it should disqualify her immediately.

People have a constitutional right to be a complete racist, bigotted, SOB. And if we start allowing the government to ban that kind of speech, where does the line get drawn?

There is nothing in what she said that remotely refers to banning bigoted speech.  She said if it weren't around, the world would be a happier place.  And she's correct.


True. the author clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "uncoerced".

The majority of the article is unsubstantiated crap. Few to no quotes, no evidence, just his innuendo.


Quote
“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.

No quotes from her paper, just a reference to the highly biased World Net Daily.

Quote
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.

Again, where are the actual quotes from her that back up this allegation?


I know nothing about her other than she has never been a judge, but I do know hack journalism when I read it.


bucsense

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#8 : May 12, 2010, 11:59:39 AM

Is it just me or does this Elena Kagan look an awful lot like a chubby Brendan Fraser with pearl earrings?



No, she/he looks more like Chaz Bono......

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#9 : May 12, 2010, 12:29:48 PM

I'm pretty sure the single biggest reason the Rs will oppose her is the one thing no one wants to talk about.

I'll give you some clues, she has never been married, loves softball and cigars, hates sausage, and her favorite show was "Cagney and Lacey".

The 300lb gorilla in the room has the Rs terrified but they won't go the non-PC route of actually mentioning it so they'll just have to make stuff up.

Page: 1
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Obamas SC Judge nominee is hellbent on destroying free speech « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools