Kagan argued for "Redistribution of Speech" in 1st Amnd Cases.

[Soul Crusher]

If a woman falsely accused you of rape, do you think you should have the right to sue her in a civil trial?

That has nothing to do with this. 

[Al Doggity]

That has nothing to do with this. 

It has everything to do with this.

[Al Doggity]

The problem with that is the left,led by people like Bill Clinton,believe Rush Limbaugh is a cause for violence.Clinton blamed Oklahoma city on Rush Limbaugh fanning the flames of hate.Again,the left wants to be able to deem what is harmful speech and what isnt.

She's not Bill Clinton.
Furthermore, without reading the entire paper, it sounds like she is trying to explain why certain speech that is already illegal is justified rather than convince anyone that more types of speech should be illegal. It's a scholarly paper ,not a ruling.

[Soul Crusher]

No it doesnt.  If you have a private cause of action against someone in civil court, it is based on common law law principles, not govt statute.  

What Kagen is arguing for is that when the govt passes a law restricting free speech, the SC should take into account the "governmental motive" in its analysis as to whether the law meets constituional scrutiny.

That completely shifts the burden in terms of how law is considered and intimates that so long as the govt as a good motive behind passing a law restricting free speech, that it can be upheld.  

No thanks.    

[Al Doggity]

No it doesnt.  If you have a private cause of action against someone in civil court, it is based on common law law principles, not govt statute.  

What Kagen is arguing for is that when the govt passes a law restricting free speech, the SC should take into account the "governmental motive" in its analysis as to whether the law meets constituional scrutiny.

That completely shifts the burden in terms of how law is considered and intimates that so long as the govt as a good motive behind passing a law restricting free speech, that it can be upheld.  

No thanks.    

I posed that question to you using civil trial- as opposed to jail time- as an example because I wanted you to answer honestly. If a woman publicly accused you of a crime as serious as rape, and if the circumstances aligned themselves properly, you would almost certainly exercise any legal remedies at your disposal.

That was just one overbroad example- there are tons of other much more subtle examples that reasonably support what she is saying. You shouldn't be able to yell "Fire!" in a movie theater because of the potential stampede it could cause. You can't legally give a former employee a false negative reference because of the harm it would cause to their potential livelihood. Etc, etc.

Her argument doesn't shift any burden- it's always been that way.

[Soul Crusher]

Not true at all.  In your case of the false reference, you dont need a govt law to pursue that claim.  Something liek that is based on common law, not statute   

What she is arguing for is what the SC will assess in determining whether or not a law infringing on free speech can be upheld. 

 

[BM OUT]

She's not Bill Clinton.
Furthermore, without reading the entire paper, it sounds like she is trying to explain why certain speech that is already illegal is justified rather than convince anyone that more types of speech should be illegal. It's a scholarly paper ,not a ruling.

SHE IS A LIB!!!!They are all the same.Thats why the tea party people are demonised when they havent done ONE THING wrong,but according to libs,they are dangerous.THATS the type of speech this little dyke would ban.

[Al Doggity]

I think you know that was just an example... but fine, here are a few more.

-not spraypainting "Slut" on your ex-girlfriend's car
-urinating in the lobby of a courthouse as a sign of political protest
-filming a 90-mph car chase for an independent film on public streets without a permit or proper safety precautions

[Al Doggity]

SHE IS A LIB!!!!They are all the same.Thats why the tea party people are demonised when they havent done ONE THING wrong,but according to libs,they are dangerous.THATS the type of speech this little dyke would ban.

Strong argument

[Skip8282]

Strong argument

You're really gonna mock his argument while throwing out 3rd grade examples yourself?

Every example you've posted is nothing more than de minimus, already deemed not to fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment.  Why not try some more sophisticated examples and explain the "harm" issue?

How about why a group can protest at a funeral calling a soldiers death a great thing is protected but burning a cross should not be protected?  How about the city of St. Paul law?  How about right wing radio talk show hosts (an example she uses in her paper)?  How about preventing a protest march on the basis that it may incite a riot?

Now how is "harm" defined?  How is "material harm" defined?  What should be the litmus?  Where is the line that the amount of harm is so great that the government can intervene?  Why can flag burning be prevented under the argument that it could cause material harm, such as in an enclosed space, a valid argument, whilst the emotional harm it could cause veterans (still very material) invalid?  She wrestles with the issue in her own paper and doesn't seem to be sure.

But no, you keep on mocking Billy whilst firing off some more grade school examples.