Supreme Court nominee Kagan's anti-porn strategy

[raymor]

In her one major scholarly paper, Elena Kagan, the political activist Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court,
lays out her strategy for the war on porn.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...-after-RAV.pdf


Kagan lists her four strategies for going after pornography in her paper "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V.":

(1) the enactment of new, or the stricter use of existing,
bans on conduct; (2) the enactment of certain kinds of viewpoint-
neutral speech restrictions; (3) the enhanced use of the constitutionally unprotected category of obscenity; and (4) the creation of
carefully supported and limited exceptions to the general rule
...
of particular relevance to pornography,
the Constitution may well permit direct regulation of speech

...
Such efforts will not eradicate all pornography or all hate speech from our
society, but they can achieve much worth achieving. They, and
other new solutions, ought to be debated and tested in a continuing and multi-faceted effort to enhance the rights of minorities and women.

She then goes on the argue that porn and obscenity are one and the same, and porn is therefore not protected under the Constitution.

If you think this anti-porn activist who has never been a judge should not be on the Supreme Court
deciding what your Constitutional rights are, send an email, letter, or phone call to your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

[Zester]

she reminds me of my mother in law

[Caligari]

She reminds me of the Taliban.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by raymor

In her one major scholarly paper, Elena Kagan, the political activist Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court,
lays out her strategy for the war on porn.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...-after-RAV.pdf


Kagan lists her four strategies for going after pornography in her paper "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V.":



She then goes on the argue that porn and obscenity are one and the same, and porn is therefore not protected under the Constitution.

If you think this anti-porn activist who has never been a judge should not be on the Supreme Court
deciding what your Constitutional rights are, send an email, letter, or phone call to your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

The minute you say rightwing talking points ,I turn off.

[dyna mo]

that paper is, what, 20 years old. since that time she's done zero re: anti-porn. the supreme court does not *go after* anything. they hear cases brought before them and render an opinion.

she's harmless re: the porn industry. i have no problem with her being nominated.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that paper is, what, 20 years old. since that time she's done zero re: anti-porn. the supreme court does not *go after* anything. they hear cases brought before them and render an opinion.

she's harmless re: the porn industry. i have no problem with her being nominated.

she might not do anything about it, but the fact that she thinks that way should give you cause for concern.

anyone in such a position who ever speaks of modifying the constitution to serve an agenda is pretty scary.

on edit- just to let you know, i am still fairly pro obama...with reservations. this is one of them.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by Caligari

she might not do anything about it, but the fact that she thinks that way should give you cause for concern.

anyone in such a position who ever speaks of modifying the constitution to serve an agenda is pretty scary.

this..

e-mailed my senators..

Hello,

As a regularly voting member of our state, I urge you to consider not nominating Kagan to the SCOTUS. Some of her views are far from objective, which invalidate anyone as far as I'm concerned for any public office, but especially SCOTUS.

[fatfoo]

"Regulation of hate speech" - sounds right.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by trevesty

this..

e-mailed my senators..

good job, i just dittoed that.

[Dirty Dane]

Isn't precedence already made?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Caligari

she might not do anything about it, but the fact that she thinks that way should give you cause for concern.

anyone in such a position who ever speaks of modifying the constitution to serve an agenda is pretty scary.

i am not aware of any of her papers that suggest modifying the constitution to serve an agenda.
she didn't advocate that in the anti-porn essay. she does not do so in her paper re: hate speech/1st amendment.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i am not aware of any of her papers that suggest modifying the constitution to serve an agenda.
she didn't advocate that in the anti-porn essay. she does not do so in her paper re: hate speech/1st amendment.

"neutral speech restrictions; (3) the enhanced use of the constitutionally unprotected category of obscenity; and (4) the creation of
carefully supported and limited exceptions to the general rule"

when people say "enhanced" this means modifying or bending the existing rule.

when people say "creation of carefully supported and limited exceptions to the general rule"
they are talking about modifying.

is that not clear?

she is lumping pornography in with hate speech...you find this acceptable?

[DaddyHalbucks]

I though all of you guys were in love with the Far Left?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Caligari

"neutral speech restrictions; (3) the enhanced use of the constitutionally unprotected category of obscenity; and (4) the creation of
carefully supported and limited exceptions to the general rule"

when people say "enhanced" this means modifying or bending the existing rule.

when people say "creation of carefully supported and limited exceptions to the general rule"
they are talking about modifying.

is that not clear?

she is lumping pornography in with hate speech...you find this acceptable?

no, that's not modifying the constitution whatsoever, that's clear. i've read both papers, i don't see her lumping the 2 together. either way, we disagree. no biggie eh.

[CynBabes]

why are people so afraid of nudity and sex?

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

I though all of you guys were in love with the Far Left?

if you're trying to imply that obama is far left, all he's done so far makes him look like a moderate republican.

he's a tool, albeit a smarter and more well spoken tool than his idiot predecessor.

[KillerK]

nudity and sex is bad ummmmmmmm k!

[GregE]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that paper is, what, 20 years old. since that time she's done zero re: anti-porn. the supreme court does not *go after* anything. they hear cases brought before them and render an opinion.

she's harmless re: the porn industry. i have no problem with her being nominated.

The Supreme Court doesn't "go after" anything but, they define everything.

Kagan has quite clearly telegraphed exactly how she'll vote re any obscenity cases that come before her.

The bible thumpers have good reason to rejoice today

[baddog]

Originally Posted by tony299

The minute you say rightwing talking points ,I turn off.

You mean the minute you say anything that is in the least bit negative towards Obama, you turn off.

[_Richard_]

she has never been a judge? i had assumed that was some sort of basic requirement