Laughing City

Does playing softball mean she can't be a good Supreme Court Justice?
Yes!
10%
 10%  [ 1 ]
No!
70%
 70%  [ 7 ]
Ewww!
20%
 20%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 10

Author Message
mr pine
Vintage Newbie


I take it you like Jennifer Love Hewitt?
_________________
Wil's excellent description of me.

wilsmith wrote:
You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing...

Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
DRMS_7888
Vintage Newbie


Stephen wrote:
from a brief on the supreme court case US government vs Stevens, she is quoted as saying this.....

“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.”

You guys need to read up on this lady. She's kinda scary. This is far from the first quote she has made like this, but this one illustrates her feelings on the first amendment well. I'm not sure we want someone who feels this way about the first amendment in the supreme court. Supressing free speech is a can of worms I don't think we want to open up.


You are completely missing the context of that quote. The Supreme Court has dozens of precedents that either restrict or protect speech based on it's value vs. societal cost. Just because you have the freedom or speech, that doesn't entitle you to say anything you want ever.

-Commercial products face speech restrictions, they can't simply advertise falsehoods.

-Yelling "fire" in a theater or other imminent lawless action speech isn't protected by the First Amendment.

-Hate speech has generally been protected by the First Amendment, but calls to incite violence are not protected under the same umbrella.

-Libel and slander are two forms of illegal speech.

_________________
EisleyForever wrote:
you're A-list in my heart!


MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES
Vintage Newbie


Stephen wrote:
from a brief on the supreme court case US government vs Stevens, she is quoted as saying this.....

“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.”

You guys need to read up on this lady. She's kinda scary. This is far from the first quote she has made like this, but this one illustrates her feelings on the first amendment well. I'm not sure we want someone who feels this way about the first amendment in the supreme court. Supressing free speech is a can of worms I don't think we want to open up.


Copy of said quote can be found here, from the American Bar Association. I know that the right is jumping all over this (I am generally on the right, I've heard), they are clearly not putting the whole thing into context. So read it here. You can read all about the animal cruety issues of the case, or just jump to page 28 of 69 of the PDF. No, I don't agree with her. But the issue is not some smoking gun, like the right has protrayed it to be.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-769_Petiti oner.pdf
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7525 | Location: Wisconsin
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group