Only Fascists Assail Free Speech

[bedowin62]

PC is almost right: the fascists that want to limit speech in America are far right wing progressives that don't want any opposition from their opponents.

Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression.

I agree with your first statement. Based on my observations ... including postings on this board by people who identify themselves as "conservatives" ... the war on "political correctness" is waged by right-wing loony birds who demand the "freedom" to disseminate hate and to abuse the power of the government to feed their bigotry and to discriminate against minorities ... and to do so without criticism or challenge.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second statement, "Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression." Are you talking about their mere criticism of religious expression ... or did some "far left liberals" propose state or federal legislation that would outlaw or punish religious expression?

Don't try to reason with politicalchic, she has no interest in a genuine debate. She wants to rant about all liberals being fascists, while failing to understand fascism.

but can I mock her?

she deserves mocking ...

in my opinion ...

and free speech and all ...

and for all the space she wastes, I feel it is my "First Amendment" right to mock her ...

just saying ...

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

Go back to your source and copy and paste some "proof", put it in your pocket and claim it as your own, then try to substantiate your conclusion. I'm still waiting for that ....

YAWN

the whole IRS scandal was the Left interfering with the free speech rights of others

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is almost right: the fascists that want to limit speech in America are far right wing progressives that don't want any opposition from their opponents.

Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression.

I agree with your first statement. Based on my observations ... including postings on this board by people who identify themselves as "conservatives" ... the war on "political correctness" is waged by right-wing loony birds who demand the "freedom" to disseminate hate and to abuse the power of the government to feed their bigotry and to discriminate against minorities ... and to do so without criticism or challenge.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second statement, "Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression." Are you talking about their mere criticism of religious expression ... or did some "far left liberals" propose state or federal legislation that would outlaw or punish religious expression?

Don't try to reason with politicalchic, she has no interest in a genuine debate. She wants to rant about all liberals being fascists, while failing to understand fascism.

but can I mock her?

she deserves mocking ...

in my opinion ...

and free speech and all ...

and for all the space she wastes, I feel it is my "First Amendment" right to mock her ...

just saying ...

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

Go back to your source and copy and paste some "proof", put it in your pocket and claim it as your own, then try to substantiate your conclusion. I'm still waiting for that ....

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

How typical of Liberal slanderers.

 

[Debra K]

I agree with your first statement. Based on my observations ... including postings on this board by people who identify themselves as "conservatives" ... the war on "political correctness" is waged by right-wing loony birds who demand the "freedom" to disseminate hate and to abuse the power of the government to feed their bigotry and to discriminate against minorities ... and to do so without criticism or challenge.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second statement, "Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression." Are you talking about their mere criticism of religious expression ... or did some "far left liberals" propose state or federal legislation that would outlaw or punish religious expression?

Don't try to reason with politicalchic, she has no interest in a genuine debate. She wants to rant about all liberals being fascists, while failing to understand fascism.

but can I mock her?

she deserves mocking ...

in my opinion ...

and free speech and all ...

and for all the space she wastes, I feel it is my "First Amendment" right to mock her ...

just saying ...

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

Go back to your source and copy and paste some "proof", put it in your pocket and claim it as your own, then try to substantiate your conclusion. I'm still waiting for that ....

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

How typical of Liberal slanderers.

Another poster already posted sufficient proof ... why should I have to reproduce his work? Anyone can view your opening post #1, go to the survey results, and see that you copied the material from the source. You wouldn't even admit that you copied ... instead, you claimed that you studied the survey results, and now you own them. Then I asked if you had a magic wand that transforms plagiarism into the intellectual property of the plagiarizer ... Try to follow along ... your attention span is extremely short.

 

[FA_Q2]

Pick one word to represent America.....you'd probably pick some iteration of "freedom."
The aspect of 'freedom' most often mentioned is freedom of speech.

Sadly, the stronger the Left's influence abounds, the less of that free speech is available.




1. "Americans were asked what they believed was the single most important freedom that citizens enjoy. The majority (47%) of people named freedom of speech as the most important freedom, followed by freedom of religion (10%); freedom of choice (7%); right to vote (5%); right to bear arms (5%); right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (3%), and freedom of the press (1%). Women were twice as likely as men to name freedom of religion as the most important freedom. Thirteen percent of women named freedom of religion, whereas only 6% of men did.


2. Asked to name the five specific freedoms in the First Amendment, 59% of Americans could name freedom of speech, followed by 24% who could name freedom of religion, 14% freedom of the press, 11% the right to assemble, and 4% the right to petition. Thirty-six percent of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.




3. The majority of Americans believes that the First Amendment does not go too far in the rights it guarantees. The gap between those who believe it goes too far and not too far has generally increased over time; however, this year there was a significant increase in those who claimed that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting individual rights.

a. Higher percentages of young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. Forty-seven percent of 18-30-year-olds agree, while 44% of 31-45-year-olds, 24% of 46-60-year-olds and 23% of people over 60 agree that the First Amendment goes too far.

b. Additionally, African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to say that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Fifty-two percent of African-Americans and 50% of Hispanics agree, while only 29% of whites agree that the First Amendment goes too far.





4. Americans who identify as liberal or moderate are more likely than those who identify as conservative to agree that the news media attempt to report stories without bias. Fifty-one percent of liberals, 50% of moderates and 37% of conservatives support the statement."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SOFA-2013-final-report.pdf



Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech.

Since you are talking about the First Amendment, it might be wise to review the actual language: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment applies to Congress (federal government) and is applicable to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925):

"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press -- which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress -- are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States . . . It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom."

The title of your thread is "Only Fascists Assail Free Speech". Your post sets forth 4 premises:

Briefly, your 4 premises are:
1) 47 percent of people [of 1006 people who responded to a telephone survey] identified "freedom of speech" as the most important freedom; 2) 59 percent of people [surveyed] could identify "freedom of speech" as a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment; 3) The majority of the people [surveyed] believe the First Amendment does not go too far in protecting freedom; and 4) 51 percent of the "liberals" [surveyed, and without knowing how many of the 1006 people surveyed identified themselves as "liberal"], agreed with the statement, "the news media attempt to report stories without bias."

Based on these premises, you concluded: "Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech."

We can cut to the chase:
Are you a supporter of free speech, or one who would rather leave the determination of what is allowed to be said...or thought...up to those elected officials, bureaucrats, and unelected judges?

It's clear you didn't bother to read her post, spinning around and enjoying your own ignorance is typical of one like yourself. Almost all people in this country support free speech, people like yourself are creating a problem to attack those you disagree with. But then again, you worship one of the most retarded women to ever grace this earth.

Well, according to the source sited I think that idea (almost all in this country supporting free speech) is actually being challenged.

Over all the white noise this stuck out to me the most:

"a. Higher percentages of young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. Forty-seven percent of 18-30-year-olds agree, while 44% of 31-45-year-olds, 24% of 46-60-year-olds and 23% of people over 60 agree that the First Amendment goes too far."

That is concerning to me as I see the right to free speech as the cornerstone of all rights. Without free speech the government can essentially control what you think through eliminating opposing views. Where does the increasing trend in thinking that the first amendment goes to far come from? I think it should be damn near zero percent that hold such a view.

 

[FA_Q2]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't try to reason with politicalchic, she has no interest in a genuine debate. She wants to rant about all liberals being fascists, while failing to understand fascism.

but can I mock her?

she deserves mocking ...

in my opinion ...

and free speech and all ...

and for all the space she wastes, I feel it is my "First Amendment" right to mock her ...

just saying ...

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

Go back to your source and copy and paste some "proof", put it in your pocket and claim it as your own, then try to substantiate your conclusion. I'm still waiting for that ....

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

How typical of Liberal slanderers.

Another poster already posted sufficient proof ... why should I have to reproduce his work? Anyone can view your opening post #1, go to the survey results, and see that you copied the material from the source. You wouldn't even admit that you copied ... instead, you claimed that you studied the survey results, and now you own them. Then I asked if you had a magic wand that transforms plagiarism into the intellectual property of the plagiarizer ... Try to follow along ... your attention span is extremely short.

You're a liar.

Every item that required a link and/or quotation marks received same.

You lie is due to the fact that I revealed your ineptitude and lies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I agree with your first statement. Based on my observations ... including postings on this board by people who identify themselves as "conservatives" ... the war on "political correctness" is waged by right-wing loony birds who demand the "freedom" to disseminate hate and to abuse the power of the government to feed their bigotry and to discriminate against minorities ... and to do so without criticism or challenge.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second statement, "Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression." Are you talking about their mere criticism of religious expression ... or did some "far left liberals" propose state or federal legislation that would outlaw or punish religious expression?

Don't try to reason with politicalchic, she has no interest in a genuine debate. She wants to rant about all liberals being fascists, while failing to understand fascism.

but can I mock her?

she deserves mocking ...

in my opinion ...

and free speech and all ...

and for all the space she wastes, I feel it is my "First Amendment" right to mock her ...

just saying ...

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

Go back to your source and copy and paste some "proof", put it in your pocket and claim it as your own, then try to substantiate your conclusion. I'm still waiting for that ....

YAWN

the whole IRS scandal was the Left interfering with the free speech rights of others

There was no IRS scandal, except maybe the part where a bunch of rightwing political groups were trying to sneak through the tax system as non-political groups.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"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."

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.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Based on these premises, you concluded: "Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech." Your conclusion is not the same as your title: "Only Fascists Assail Free Speech".

Your argument is neither valid or sound. It is not valid because, even if we assume your premises are true, that does not mean your conclusion is true. It is not sound, because your premises do not support your conclusion.

None of your premises discuss "Fascists", so your title is deceptive. None of your premises include any facts showing that Liberals have abused the power of our state and federal government to deprive you or anyone else of "freedom of speech."

Now that's what a comprehensive refutation, aka a proper beatdown, looks like.

 

[sealybobo]

Pick one word to represent America.....you'd probably pick some iteration of "freedom."
The aspect of 'freedom' most often mentioned is freedom of speech.

Sadly, the stronger the Left's influence abounds, the less of that free speech is available.




1. "Americans were asked what they believed was the single most important freedom that citizens enjoy. The majority (47%) of people named freedom of speech as the most important freedom, followed by freedom of religion (10%); freedom of choice (7%); right to vote (5%); right to bear arms (5%); right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (3%), and freedom of the press (1%). Women were twice as likely as men to name freedom of religion as the most important freedom. Thirteen percent of women named freedom of religion, whereas only 6% of men did.


2. Asked to name the five specific freedoms in the First Amendment, 59% of Americans could name freedom of speech, followed by 24% who could name freedom of religion, 14% freedom of the press, 11% the right to assemble, and 4% the right to petition. Thirty-six percent of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.




3. The majority of Americans believes that the First Amendment does not go too far in the rights it guarantees. The gap between those who believe it goes too far and not too far has generally increased over time; however, this year there was a significant increase in those who claimed that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting individual rights.

a. Higher percentages of young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. Forty-seven percent of 18-30-year-olds agree, while 44% of 31-45-year-olds, 24% of 46-60-year-olds and 23% of people over 60 agree that the First Amendment goes too far.

b. Additionally, African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to say that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Fifty-two percent of African-Americans and 50% of Hispanics agree, while only 29% of whites agree that the First Amendment goes too far.





4. Americans who identify as liberal or moderate are more likely than those who identify as conservative to agree that the news media attempt to report stories without bias. Fifty-one percent of liberals, 50% of moderates and 37% of conservatives support the statement."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SOFA-2013-final-report.pdf



Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech.

Funny because its always religious people who don't cry too much when Muslims kill vocal athiests. For years churches punished free speech. When did that change?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"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."

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.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

She is merely reiterated a standard view of the 1st Amendment. The Court has every right, and in fact a duty, to weight the 'societal costs' when making a free speech judgment.

That's why for example child pornography is not protected as free speech or freedom of the press.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pick one word to represent America.....you'd probably pick some iteration of "freedom."
The aspect of 'freedom' most often mentioned is freedom of speech.

Sadly, the stronger the Left's influence abounds, the less of that free speech is available.




1. "Americans were asked what they believed was the single most important freedom that citizens enjoy. The majority (47%) of people named freedom of speech as the most important freedom, followed by freedom of religion (10%); freedom of choice (7%); right to vote (5%); right to bear arms (5%); right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (3%), and freedom of the press (1%). Women were twice as likely as men to name freedom of religion as the most important freedom. Thirteen percent of women named freedom of religion, whereas only 6% of men did.


2. Asked to name the five specific freedoms in the First Amendment, 59% of Americans could name freedom of speech, followed by 24% who could name freedom of religion, 14% freedom of the press, 11% the right to assemble, and 4% the right to petition. Thirty-six percent of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.




3. The majority of Americans believes that the First Amendment does not go too far in the rights it guarantees. The gap between those who believe it goes too far and not too far has generally increased over time; however, this year there was a significant increase in those who claimed that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting individual rights.

a. Higher percentages of young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. Forty-seven percent of 18-30-year-olds agree, while 44% of 31-45-year-olds, 24% of 46-60-year-olds and 23% of people over 60 agree that the First Amendment goes too far.

b. Additionally, African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to say that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Fifty-two percent of African-Americans and 50% of Hispanics agree, while only 29% of whites agree that the First Amendment goes too far.





4. Americans who identify as liberal or moderate are more likely than those who identify as conservative to agree that the news media attempt to report stories without bias. Fifty-one percent of liberals, 50% of moderates and 37% of conservatives support the statement."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SOFA-2013-final-report.pdf



Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech.

Funny because its always religious people who don't cry too much when Muslims kill vocal athiests. For years churches punished free speech. When did that change?

You must have misread the thread title.....it didn't say "Calling all fascists!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

but can I mock her?

she deserves mocking ...

in my opinion ...

and free speech and all ...

and for all the space she wastes, I feel it is my "First Amendment" right to mock her ...

just saying ...

You've made a charge....twice now....and each time I've asked for proof.

Since you are both a liar and a fraud, you couldn't provide any.

Go back to your source and copy and paste some "proof", put it in your pocket and claim it as your own, then try to substantiate your conclusion. I'm still waiting for that ....

YAWN

the whole IRS scandal was the Left interfering with the free speech rights of others

There was no IRS scandal, except maybe the part where a bunch of rightwing political groups were trying to sneak through the tax system as non-political groups.

So THAT'S why you're known as the NYLiar!

haha the repetitive drone continues.

 

[eagle7_31]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"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."

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.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would be curious to know what freedom of speech exercise the Government has taken away from the author of this thread,

that affected her personally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"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."

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.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

She is merely reiterated a standard view of the 1st Amendment. The Court has every right, and in fact a duty, to weight the 'societal costs' when making a free speech judgment.

That's why for example child pornography is not protected as free speech or freedom of the press.

Your belief that government can and should restrict free speech is redolent of every fascist endeavor.

Your post could hardly be more appropriate for this thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"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."

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.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

Seen, and responded with a shrug.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"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."

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.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "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."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would be curious to know what freedom of speech exercise the Government has taken away from the author of this thread,

that affected her personally.

I respond this way because I am an American.

One can only attribute your lack of concern to being less of one.

 

[David_42]

I would be curious to know what freedom of speech exercise the Government has taken away from the author of this thread,

that affected her personally.

I respond this way because I am an American.

One can only attribute your lack of concern to being less of one.

I need to make some more popcorn, your posts are pure comedy gold. I'm a college student and most of my professors are liberal, guess that means I'm indoctrinated.. LOL.