Article

2010-05-11 Home Front: Politix

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

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2010-05-11 14:29|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 The 1st Amendment only applies depending upon whether or not the government decides so? Seems to me this is dangerous legal ground to tread on. Cost benefit analysis applied to the 1st Amendment? Who decides benefits? Who decides societal costs?

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-11 15:22|| 2010-05-11 15:22|| Front Page Top

#2 Our founding fathers are shaking their heads in disgust.

Posted by DarthVader 2010-05-11 16:11|| 2010-05-11 16:11|| Front Page Top

#3 Kagan and Napalotano...any relation, or do they both just like butchy haircuts?

Posted by Besoeker 2010-05-11 16:30|| 2010-05-11 16:30|| Front Page Top

#4 Sure would be nice if a Pub senator called her on this one at the confirmation hearing.

Posted by Steve White 2010-05-11 17:31|| 2010-05-11 17:31|| Front Page Top

#5 The reason the SCOTUS overturned that law was because it was written in a duplicitous manner, to placate PETA-type nuts. The law was so broad it would outlaw hunting and fishing videos, and because "animal cruelty" is a flexible standard, anytime it got a new definition, videos of that new definition would be automatically outlawed.

For example, more agitators than PETA hate circuses that feature animals, and often press to have them prohibited. And they have been, in some cities. If even a single State outlawed animal circuses, an argument could be made to ban any movies made in a circus of animals.

While the PETA nuts are fine with that, it would violate the hell out of the first amendment.

It should also be noted that the SCOTUS did say they were open to the idea of a law that would *specifically* ban stomping videos. But that was not the purpose of the exercise in the first place, just the excuse.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-05-11 19:50|| 2010-05-11 19:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Anymoose cuts to the heart of it.

I'm glad the SCOTUS overturned that crap. Free speech is free speech. No yelling "FIRE" in a theater, but pretty much anything else is fair game.

I don't agree with selling the videos, but the states can have laws against "excessive" abuse so the hunting and fishing ones would be ok. Either way, it isn't a First Amendment issue and the fact that someone is willing to put limits on free speech for "societal costs" leaves me wanting to pull their teeth out with pliers. <--Protected speech BTW, you fascist fuckholes

Posted by DarthVader 2010-05-11 20:00|| 2010-05-11 20:00|| Front Page Top

23:53 gorb
23:51 CrazyFool
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:45 gorb
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:26 trailing wife
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:10 gorb
23:04 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:54 gorb
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:50 Frank G
22:48 gorb
22:40 rammer
22:40 JohnQC
22:36 gorb
22:36 SteveS
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:28 Super Hose
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:15 JosephMendiola
22:13 SteveS