|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<< prev | goto page
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|