Kagan: ‘Disappear’ Free Speech If The Government Deems It Offensive

Filed in Gold, Gold Spot Market by on May 11, 2010 0 Comments

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee agrees with Cass Sunstein – wants the state to regulate the First Amendment Paul Jsoeph 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). (ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW) “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 …

See the rest here:
Kagan: ‘Disappear’ Free Speech If The Government Deems It Offensive

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *