Is Elena Kagan a Zionist? (split from "...explains the Holocaust")

[Saggy]

And this is why outsiders read this thread and think JREFers are "spastics" or whatever derogatory term they personally prefer.

What makes you think any 'outsiders' read this thread? I'd be surprised if any did. The whole point of the JREFers is to make the thread so idiotic that no one will read it. Thus, from their perspective, the more idiotic their posts, the better.

Just for fun, when you don't have anything else to do .... check out the first 10 pages of this amazing piece of crap by out next Supreme ....

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf

It's all about suppressing the truth about the Zionists, and they're after the First Amendment with hammer and tong . She starts out using words like 'normative' and 'propositional', she's an academic you know ....... but in just a few pages is railing against 'racists' and 'hate speech'.

[carlitos]

Just for fun, you discuss US Politics in the US Politics forum.

[dudalb]

A Holocuast Denier gets all upset because a Jew is nominated to the Supreme Court. Who could have guessed that?

[TSR]

A Holocuast Denier gets all upset because a Jew is nominated to the Supreme Court. Who could have guessed that?

.
And what's pitiful is that Saggy obviously hasn't actually read the document in question, which very clearly *supports* the First Amendment for all, including racists...

To get somewhat back on-topic, I note that Saggy has not responded to the ramifications of "a single 'liar' means the Holocaust is a hoax" thesis over in the "Remote Viewing" thread in Conspiracy Theories...
.

[Saggy]

.
And what's pitiful is that Saggy obviously hasn't actually read the document in question, which very clearly *supports* the First Amendment for all, including racists...
.

Here is a short assessment of the degenerate trash written by the next Supreme simple enough for the JREFers to understand .....

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Kagan-wrote-that-government-can-restrict-free-speech

One does not need to read past page 10 of Kagan's article to know that this is garbage straight from the ADL.

[TSR]

Here is a short assessment of the degenerate trash written by the next Supreme simple enough for the JREFers to understand .....

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Kagan-wrote-that-government-can-restrict-free-speech

One does not need to read past page 10 of Kagan's article to know that this is garbage straight from the ADL.

.
And this restriction is news to you? Try shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater which is not on fire, or writing to the White House about your plans to kill the President.

Once again, one notes that given the chance to actually *quote* Kagan on the matter, Saggy prefers to posit ulterior motives that zir source doesn't even support.

Do cite *specifically* which part of her opinion is "straight from the ADL" and support it.

*Then* we can get back to your "one liar" thesis.

Or maybe you've found those pics you knew you did not have when you made the claim? What is it called when one says something one knows isn't so, Saggy?
.

[carlitos]

Pathetic.

[Saggy]

.
Do cite *specifically* which part of her opinion is "straight from the ADL" and support it.
.

The entire paper is straight from the ADL because of it's constant use of the terms 'hate speech' and 'racist', entirely inappropriate in a discussion of constitutional law. This sort of name calling is typical of Zionists everywhere.

Now, let's look at this pile of crap a little more closely ... here is a representative quote ...

"The R.A.V. decision thus serves as a stark example of the importance of governmental motive in the Court's First Amend- ment analysis. Here, a debate about motive occurred in the open, revealing how a desire to punish impermissible purpose may explain and animate the Court's elaboration of doctrine."

This is just pure crap, an 'academic' rational of censoring speech based on the motive of the law .... if the motive is good, and what better motive is there than preventing criticism of Zionism, the law stands. That's not the Constitution of the US, that's Zionism.

[carlitos]

American politics >>>over that way (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175197). Not here.

[Thunder]

Zionist= anyone who accepts the existance of the State of Israel.

me thinks Saggy really means "right-wing Zionist".

[TSR]

The entire paper is straight from the ADL because of it's constant use of the terms 'hate speech' and 'racist', entirely inappropriate in a discussion of constitutional law. This sort of name calling is typical of Zionists everywhere.

.
When the topic is hate speech laws, however, it is difficult to avoid them. Free hint: What law, specifically, is she discussing?
.

Now, let's look at this pile of crap a little more closely ... here is a representative quote ...

"The R.A.V. decision thus serves as a stark example of the importance of governmental motive in the Court's First Amendment analysis. Here, a debate about motive occurred in the open, revealing how a desire to punish impermissible purpose may explain and animate the Court's elaboration of doctrine."

.
Second free hint: is she arguing *for* or *against* this doctrine?
.

This is just pure crap, an 'academic' rational of censoring speech based on the motive of the law .... if the motive is good, and what better motive is there than preventing criticism of Zionism, the law stands. That's not the Constitution of the US, that's Zionism.

.
Nor is that what she is arguing -- try *reading* the document, not just what you have been spoon-fed.
.

[Saggy]

.
When the topic is hate speech laws, however, it is difficult to avoid them. Free hint: What law, specifically, is she discussing?
.

.
Second free hint: is she arguing *for* or *against* this doctrine?
.

.
Nor is that what she is arguing -- try *reading* the document, not just what you have been spoon-fed.
.

The 'hate speech' laws were created by Zionists and are promoted by Zionists. Zionism is the sole source of 'hate speech' laws. She doesn't put quotes around 'hate speech' or 'racist', she uses them as accepted concepts in discussions of constitutional law, and uses them to critique the law and its consequences.

If you want to know what law she discusses first, read the document. It's unconstitutional on its face, but that doesn't stop Zionists like Kagan.

She is arguing that the doctrine is what has evolved, and hence she is arguing for it.

You wanted a quote, I gave you one, and you reply with nonsense. I know what she is arguing, you don't. If you want to argue against a quote, supply a counter-quote.

[uk_dave]

I know what she is arguing, you don't.

Actually, no you don't, because your view of the world is so skewed that you completely fail to perceive reality the way a normal person does.

[NoZed Avenger]

Zionist= anyone who accepts the existance of the State of Israel.

me thinks Saggy really means "right-wing Zionist".

That's where we disagree. I think what Saggy really means is "Jewish person."

[carlitos]

The 'hate speech' laws were created by Zionists and are promoted by Zionists. Zionism is the sole source of 'hate speech' laws.

Please provide sources for this assertion. Thanks. :)

[Saggy]

Please provide sources for this assertion. Thanks. :)

Happy to. From the top down ...

www.adl.org

For some specifics ...

http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/print.asp

http://www.adl.org/internet/print.asp

[carlitos]

You said Zionism is the "sole" source of 'hate speech' laws. You are wrong.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/

http://www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes.asp

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/25/NAACP-pushes-for-tougher-hate-speech-rules/UPI-16521227658045/

http://www.glaad.org/mission

[Thunder]

Saggy- do you know the difference between a Zionist and a Jew?

[Redtail]

Saggy- do you know the difference between a Zionist and a Jew?

Zionists live deep underground to hide from the machines?

[Saggy]

Saggy- do you know the difference between a Zionist and a Jew?

I agree with your previous definition of Zionist. And, there are a lot more Zionists than there are Jews. But, non-Zionist Jews are pretty rare I think. There are no non-Zionists, Jewish or otherwise, in or on the US media, or in US politics, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. I suppose I regard Jews as the real Zionists, and the rest just fellow travelers or some such.

[carlitos]

There are no non-Zionists, Jewish or otherwise, in or on the US media, or in US politics, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. Would you care to source this wild assertion as well? You are 0 for 1, and it's still the first page.

[Thunder]

. There are no non-Zionists, Jewish or otherwise, in or on the US media, or in US politics, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

you do understand, that by the classic definition of a Zionist, much of the planet Earth is Zionist..right?

what percent of the Earth do you believe wants to destroy the State of Israel? I'd say maybe 15-20%.

[marksman]

Having now read the Law Review article, that article isn't advocating that the government restrict speech. She's describing the current (well, as of 1996) state of First Amendment jurisprudence. She is also points out an inherent problem with the First Amendment...

All regulation impacts speech in some way, even if absurdly tangential. If I'm not allowed to walk into the Lincoln bedroom, I cannot speak there. If I am required to testify only under oath, that's a restriction on my speech. Clearly, the 1st Amendment doesn't require anarchy, so the Supreme Court had to come up with a way to determine what sorts of regulations pass muster. Her analysis is that the Court's current test is trying to indirectly determine the State's motivation in passing a law (because the Court isn't going to simply accept whatever motivation the government's attorneys offer) and weighing the State interest in that motivation against the impact the regulation may have on speech. The burden is on the State to show a strong motivation that far outweighs the impact on speech.

This doesn't really seem controversial. She doesn't even endorse the Court's current test; she merely cautions that any test one might devise is going to have the problems of being too broad in some areas and also too narrow in others.

[Saggy]

Her analysis is that the Court's current test is trying to indirectly determine the State's motivation in passing a law (because the Court isn't going to simply accept whatever motivation the government's attorneys offer) and weighing the State interest in that motivation against the impact the regulation may have on speech. The burden is on the State to show a strong motivation that far outweighs the impact on speech.

That's not what the First Amendment says, that is a load of crap promulgated by persons, Zionists, who want to circumvent the First Amendment and pass 'hate crime' laws and 'hate speech' laws which are clearly unconstitutional, but, as you say, are becoming the norm.

[carlitos]

Saggy, you made me sad. On the bright side, you refuse to prove the nonsense you say, so it probably doesn't mean anything when you lie here.

[Saggy]

you do understand, that by the classic definition of a Zionist, much of the planet Earth is Zionist..right?

what percent of the Earth do you believe wants to destroy the State of Israel? I'd say maybe 15-20%.

There are three alternatives ...
1. Support Israel
2. Destroy Israel
3. Dissolve Israel to a democratic non-racist non-religious state, you know, the kind the US is supposed to be sponsoring all over the world.

I think most of the non-Zionists favor option 3. As for percentages, I have no idea.

[Saggy]

Would you care to source this wild assertion as well? You are 0 for 1, and it's still the first page.

If you can name one non-Zionist in the US media, or in US politics, on even on the liberal blogs like Salon, Huffington, or the conservative blogs like ??? antiwar.com, or any of the popular blogs I'm not familiar with, then I'd like to see the name or names. They do not exist.

[dudalb]

There are three alternatives ...
1. Support Israel
2. Destroy Israel
3. Dissolve Israel to a democratic non-racist non-religious state, you know, the kind the US is supposed to be sponsoring all over the world.

I think most of the non-Zionists favor option 3. As for percentages, I have no idea.

I got a feeling Saggy really wants #2, but says #3 because it sounds better........

[KoihimeNakamura]

The First Amendment has been abridged by supreme court decisions, like everything else.

[Donal]

I got a feeling Saggy really wants #2, but says #3 because it sounds better........

I thought the Paulites were opposed to sponsoring any foreign state, regardless of their form of government.

[TSR]

Zionist= anyone who accepts the existance of the State of Israel.

me thinks Saggy really means "right-wing Zionist".

.
No, Saggy has admitted elsewhere that when zie says "zionist," zie means "Jew," but believes it to be more PC to use the former.

What happened when you told the FBI you were going to kill the President, citing your First Amendment right to say so, Saggy?
.

[Thunder]

If you can name one non-Zionist in the US media, or in US politics, on even on the liberal blogs like Salon, Huffington, or the conservative blogs like ???

how about people who do not talk about Israel on a regular basis?

would that count as a non-Zionist?

[marksman]

as you say, are becoming the norm.

It's not just me. It's Kagan's article that you're agreeing with. But of course, speech has been abridged as early as 1798, only seven years after its enactment. So I'm not sure what mythical period you believe ever existed in which the First Amendment was some sort of absolute that prevented the Congress from passing any statute that affected free speech in any way whatsoever. It didn't exist. Even the folks who promulgated the document went and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[Cleon]

I got a feeling Saggy really wants #2, but says #3 because it sounds better........

I suspect the same, despite being a #3 myself.

[dudalb]

THing is 3 has about as much chance of happening as a snowball in hell, given HAMAS, a Fundie Islamic group, is pretty much calling the shots in the Palestinian community, and a secular state is about the last thing they want.

[Saggy]

how about people who do not talk about Israel on a regular basis?

would that count as a non-Zionist?

You're joking, right? Here is the fact - there is not one non-Zionist in the US media, on a popular blog, or in US politics. NOT ONE.

It is beyond Orwellian - because of Israel's existence the US is involved in 3 wars and threatening a 4th, hundreds of thousands have died in the middle east, the world is closer to a cataclysmic war then ever, the US is tossing 200 years of tradition into the waste bin, with secret prisons, torture, assassinations, wiretaps, etc., and one person in politics or the media will challenge Israel's 'right' to create this hell on earth.

[Thunder]

You're joking, right? Here is the fact - there is not one non-Zionist in the US media, on a popular blog, or in US politics. NOT ONE.
.

thousands of reporters, writers, news hosts, and not ONE of them is a non-Zionist?

how could you possibly know this? have you interviewed them ALL?

have you read ALL of their biographies?

are you for real...... or just playing games?

i am starting to doubt your sincerity.

[Saggy]

It's not just me. It's Kagan's article that you're agreeing with. But of course, speech has been abridged as early as 1798, only seven years after its enactment. So I'm not sure what mythical period you believe ever existed in which the First Amendment was some sort of absolute that prevented the Congress from passing any statute that affected free speech in any way whatsoever. It didn't exist. Even the folks who promulgated the document went and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I'm not agreeing with one word of Kagan's article, it is pure crap, phony 'analysis' disguising a naked attempt to circumvent the First Amendment. I'm saying the Zionists are having remarkable success as the article does show. The first law she 'analyzed' was prima facie absurd, a complete revocation of the First Amendment, and should never have been written, much less generated a case for the Supreme Court.

[Moss]

Interesting how this thread demonstrates the mental laziness of antisemites to attribute everything bad to the Jews. Who needs to deal with complexity when everything "bad" is the result of the actions of group that has "always" been blamed?
And it also makes for such a nice soapbox to stand on. The huge evil conspiracy that you fight (that somehow either ignores you outright or whose henchmen try to argue with you instead of giving you concrete shoes or acute lead poisoning) makes you the hero of this play, for who else but a hero could be the shining beacon illuminating the dark depths of this huge global all encompassing cabal?
And its also so helpful to gauge a person's personality just by his religious affilitiation or heritage. No need to deal with such stupid things like education, employment, affiliation with parties and clubs... Just reduce it all to that one all discerning question: Is he a jew? Or rather: could he be jew? If you answer with yes, that is all you need to know.

[Thunder]

I'm saying the Zionists are having remarkable success as the article does show.

i fail to see how the State of Israel is involved in anti-hate speech legislation in the USA.

how about I go outside, and yell the "N" word, and see if I get arrested.

how much u wanna bet...I won't?

[marksman]

I'm not agreeing with one word of Kagan's article, it is pure crap, phony 'analysis' disguising a naked attempt to circumvent the First Amendment. I'm saying the Zionists are having remarkable success as the article does show. The first law she 'analyzed' was prima facie absurd, a complete revocation of the First Amendment, and should never have been written, much less generated a case for the Supreme Court.

The first law to which I referred was the Alien and Sedition Act, enacted by Congress in 1798, seven years after enactment of the First Amendment, which barred speech that criticized the federal government. This was enacted by the very same people who helped draft and enact the First Amendment.

So nobody in this country ever thought the First Amendment was an absolute as you seem to believe.

[INRM]

I don't trust Kagan because she's totally inexperienced and has never sat as a judge on a regular court, she has never held any position such as a high-office that might provide a level of experience similar to what would be required such as being a Congressman/Senator/Governor/President, etc.

As for Thunder's comments, to the best of my knowledge he has me on ignore, I believe there is a very big issue regarding Israel. AIPAC is a lobby which is heavily influenced by Israel, and they did a couple of years back try to make it a hate crime not just to criticize Jews, but to criticize Israel, lumping it all under anti-semitism.

I believe people should be punished for advocating violence against a group of people, but I do not believe people should be punished for expressing views they hold even if they may be ignorant, stupid, or even repulsive.

I certainly do not think a person should be punished for criticizing the policies of another country.

[TSR]

AIPAC is a lobby which is heavily influenced by Israel, and they did a couple of years back try to make it a hate crime not just to criticize Jews, but to criticize Israel, lumping it all under anti-semitism.

.
And you can *cite* this (proposed) law making it a crime "to criticize Jews, to criticize Israel?"

No?

Then why make the claim?
.

[carlitos]

I would like to repeat - Pathetic.

[carlitos]

How in the world could this be construed as "Zionist?"

The first law to which I referred was the Alien and Sedition Act, enacted by Congress in 1798, seven years after enactment of the First Amendment, which barred speech that criticized the federal government. This was enacted by the very same people who helped draft and enact the First Amendment.

So nobody in this country ever thought the First Amendment was an absolute as you seem to believe.

[Thunder]

this is a very stupid thread.

[carlitos]

Well, look where it originated :)

[Thunder]

Well, look where it originated :)

and look at the main participants.

[KoihimeNakamura]

How in the world could this be construed as "Zionist?"

facts have a well known Zionist bias?

[dudalb]

Hey, what do you expect from an Holocaust Denier, Intelligent Debate?

[Saggy]

Just as a point of clarification .... The exceptions to the First Amendment are, ... I think ..

1. the 'shouting fire in a crowded room' case, I don't think there have been too many prosecutions for this exception and it's settled ....

2. libel and defamation - wiki reveals that the defamation laws were in place before the First Amendment and the FA was interpreted as guaranteeing 'freedom of the press' and not impacting defamation laws ... this too seems pretty settled .

3. disclosing classified material - the illegality of disclosing classified info proceeds from the Espionage Act of 1917 (I think) - and this has been an ongoing subject of court cases ... pretty quickly the criterion was established that the disclosure had to represent a 'clear and present danger' but I think that has been forgotten and this exception has been grossly abused with way too much classified material today ....

On the other side, FA protection sought for speech used to commit fraud is a new phenomenon (?) that is popping up in defense of the various Wall St. scams ... but it ain't gonna fly ...

[marksman]

From where do you derive these exceptions and not others? I don't see these exceptions in the First Amendment. Isn't the whole point of a Supreme Court to determine what exceptions there should be to an Amendment of the Constitution and not others? Why should Wikipedia trump the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court?

[TSR]

Just as a point of clarification .... The exceptions to the First Amendment are,

.
Ah, so there *are* exceptions.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Anything else?
.

[Saggy]

From where do you derive these exceptions and not others? I don't see these exceptions in the First Amendment. Isn't the whole point of a Supreme Court to determine what exceptions there should be to an Amendment of the Constitution and not others? Why should Wikipedia trump the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court?

I just mentioned it point of interest. I had never thought about it, and I have a female lawyer friend I'm trying to engage in debate on the subject as a way to .... well. If you interpret 'freedom of speech' to mean 'freedom of the press' than that's a start, and is probably what the originals were thinking about.

No, I don't think the Supremes determine exceptions. The Supremes should determine if legislation fits with the original intent (OI). A new law could agree with OI, it could violate OI, or it could be outside the scope of OI.

I think original intent on defamation is clear, it's an exception. I don't know if the originals considered military intelligence, probably not.

The 'hate speech' laws clearly violate OI but that doesn't deter the Zionists for a bit, just makes it more fun?

Funny note .... the case Kagan writes about first is on the ADL's website as one of their stumbling blocks .... as they proudly boast they been trying to circumvent the FA for 30 years ... and Kagan carries on the tradition....

[TSR]

The 'hate speech' laws clearly violate OI but that doesn't deter the Zionists for a bit, just makes it more fun?

.
No, it's not clear at all. Do try to support this claim.

Then we can talk about your implication that "Zionists" are responsible.
.

Funny note .... the case Kagan writes about first is on the ADL's website as one of their stumbling blocks .... as they proudly boast they been trying to circumvent the FA for 30 years ... and Kagan carries on the tradition....

.
"Proudly boast?" I'd ask you to cite these boasts, but your record shows you will not only be unable to -- you will ignore the fact that you cannot.

Shall we talk about your "Falsus in uno" stumble -- or maybe you'd prefer to explain why you claimed to have pics of Dachau you did not have?
.

[Thunder]

Saggy- do you hate "the Jews"?

[MaGZ]

A Holocuast Denier gets all upset because a Jew is nominated to the Supreme Court. Who could have guessed that?

Another commissar for the Court.

[Saggy]

.

"Proudly boast?" I'd ask you to cite these boasts, but your record shows you will not only be unable to -- you will ignore the fact that you cannot.
.

I would have given the link in the post, but the site is down .... if you google -adl hate laws- the first hit will be....

Hate Crimes Laws Introduction
ADL has long been in the forefront of national and state efforts to deter and counteract hate-motivated criminal activity. Hate crime statutes are necessary ...
www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp - Cached - Similar

but when you click on the link you get an error .... if it persists you can go to the wayback machine (web.archive.org) to get a copy .....it's worth it if you're interested in the fate of the FA

To get the ADL page where they grouse about the FA, google ..bigots racists and the law ... to get

Introduction: Racists, Bigots and the Law on the Internet
The explosion of the Internet, and especially the startling increase in the number of teenagers and even children online, has raised important concerns ...
www.adl.org/internet/internet_law1.asp - Cached - Similar

again, the site is down now and has been since my previous post ....

[TSR]

I would have given the link in the post, but the site is down .... if you google -adl hate laws- the first hit will be....

.
Your claim was that they have been "trying to circumvent the FA for 30 years."

Working for laws which are generally supported by most people is not "circumventing" the FA.

You have admitted that other exceptions exist. You just don't like *those* exceptions.

Care to detail why in a way which does not invoke the slippery slope fallacy nor assume your hate is rational?
.

[lionking]

We have Racial and Religious Vilification legislation in Australia. Before today I never knew we were controlled by Jews.......

[Skeptic]

That's where we disagree. I think what Saggy really means is "Jewish person."

Saggy is a holocaust denier, as he openly admits.

Like most holocaust deniers, he believes the usual antisemitic "evil Jews control the world" conspiracy theories. Only he calls them "zionists".

Amazingly, Parky accepts these conspiracy theories as correct -- he merely disagrees with Saggy on whether the guilty party is the "zionists" in general or the "right-wing zionists" in particular.

Clearly, both accept the "evil Jews control the world" conspiracy-theory worldview. That there IS such a conspiracy is, to both, beyond doubt.

Their disagreement is merely a matter of what to call those all-powerful evil Jews, or who exactly those Jews are.

[marksman]

If you interpret 'freedom of speech' to mean 'freedom of the press' than that's a start, and is probably what the originals were thinking about.
It absolutely isn't what the Founders were thinking about. They were thinkin about people being able to criticize the King of England without being thrown in the stocks. Of course, when they replaced the King of England, and they had to deal with their own rebellions, like the Whiskey Rebellion, they made clear they were not talking about incitement to treason or acts of treason -- only criticism. From the very beginning, they distinguished that some speech can be a crime. Exhorting someone to overthrow the government is criminal, and always has been.

No, I don't think the Supremes determine exceptions. The Supremes should determine if legislation fits with the original intent (OI).
Yes, and they do that be determining if the legislation fits within an exception that the founders woud have intended. The problem is that legislation is enacted that the Founders hadn't considered when they enacted the First Amendment. So they engage in a very complicated analysis.
The 'hate speech' laws clearly violate OI
Prove it. Show me a statement by any of the people who drafted or voted to enact the First Amendment that indicates they felt that the First Amendment prohibits people from being receiving a harsher punishment when their speech reflects that the crime was committed with an improper motivation.

(Here's a hint: there's no such statement on record. You're just making it up when you think the First Amendment can't encompass hate crime legislation.)

[Saggy]

We have Racial and Religious Vilification legislation in Australia. Before today I never knew we were controlled by Jews.......

Sarcasm is misplaced here. I couldn't google up anything about the passage of the Australian law, but Jews are sponsoring these laws all over the world, and clamoring for their enforcement, as they are in Victoria

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/hate-law-in-victoria-no-prosecutions/8254

[Saggy]

Prove it. Show me a statement by any of the people who drafted or voted to enact the First Amendment that indicates they felt that the First Amendment prohibits people from being receiving a harsher punishment when their speech reflects that the crime was committed with an improper motivation.

(Here's a hint: there's no such statement on record. You're just making it up when you think the First Amendment can't encompass hate crime legislation.)

A crime with an 'improper motivation'? What's the proper motivation for a crime? This is just total nonsense, thanks to the Zionists. It is attempting to criminalize thought or state of mind. It is antithetical to US law until the Zionists started trying to pass laws to prevent criticism of Zionism.

Thankfully, they have not been completely successful yet, and we don't have laws like Australia's Racial and Religious Vilification Law, precisely because of the FA.

[marksman]

A crime with an 'improper motivation'? What's the proper motivation for a crime? This is just total nonsense
No, it's not. "with malice aforethought" is a common phrase in criminal law dating back to the 18th century, and nobody thought it was problematic under the first amendment.

The only difference between killing someone with or without "malice" is the thoughts behind the crime.

we don't have laws like Australia's Racial and Religious Vilification Law, precisely because of the FA.
Quite true. We don't criminalize speech (unless it exhorts people to break the law) when unaccompanied by other illegal actions. But we do punish people more harshly if their speech evidences that the reason they committed the crime is something the legislature thought worthy of additional punishment.

Calling someone a "honkey" is not illegal. Beating them up is. Beating them up while calling them a honkey may get you a harsher sentence.

Saying "I've planned this out very caefully" is no illegal. shooting someone dead it. Shooting someone while saying "I've planned this out very carefully" may be the difference for being convicted of manslaughter or the harsher crime of first-degree murder.

The problem you're having is not that hate crimes violate the First Amendment. It's that you don't think hate crimes should be dealt with more harshly than other crimes.

[Saggy]

The problem you're having is not that hate crimes violate the First Amendment. It's that you don't think hate crimes should be dealt with more harshly than other crimes.

My problem with hate crimes, besides being prima facie unconstitutional and a foot in the door to criminalizing thought, is that the are just a stepping stone to hate speech crimes. The Zionists are relentless in their efforts to expand the hate crimes laws to create hate speech laws, but have been thwarted by the FA, so far, you can read the adl links given if they ever come up to see it in print. With enough Zionists on the SC, we'll have hate speech laws.

Here is a Kagan quote ....

“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.”

This in effect saying there is no FA, we can use our judgment to decide to ban speech if we want to. Typical Zionist cant. That's the whole point of the objection to Kagan of FA grounds.

[TSR]

Sarcasm is misplaced here. I couldn't google up anything about the passage of the Australian law, but Jews are sponsoring these laws all over the world, and clamoring for their enforcement, as they are in Victoria

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/hate-law-in-victoria-no-prosecutions/8254

.
Did you even read your source?


Changing Victoria’s laws will do nothing to affect hate crime unless police are prepared to act on the laws we already have, the Jewish community believes.


Doesn't sound like sponsoring to e.

And is your problem with these laws that you tnhink people should be allowed to target victims on racial grounds?
.

[marksman]

My problem with hate crimes, besides being prima facie unconstitutional and a foot in the door to criminalizing thought, is that the are just a stepping stone to hate speech crimes.
The slippery slope argument is weak. You might as well say that "criminalizing conduct" is a stepping stone to hate crimes. You'd be accurate -- after all, we couldn't criminalize hate speech until we first establish that we can criminalize anything.

Here is a Kagan quote ....

“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.”

This in effect saying there is no FA, we can use our judgment to decide to ban speech if we want to.
Not only is it saying it, it provides historical evidence that all First Amendment jurisprudence has been a balancing test of some sort. She even goes further and shows logically why it can't be anything but a balancing test,because the First Amendment has an inherent conflict between acknowledging the ability of Congress to regulate and the fact that nearly all regulation affects, however, tangentially, the ability of people to express themselves. the coercive power of the State is inherently in conflict with the individual right of expression.

You may not like it. You may decide to be anti-intellectual, and hope beyond all reason and logic that a bright line could be devised between permissible regulation and impermissible infringement on speech. But what she wrote is not a remarkable statement.

Taking issue with this statement is to attribute to your Zionist bogeymen the position of coherent argument and logic. It also places you against those two things and that is a bad place to stand.

[Zach Aviv]

It's all about suppressing the truth about the Zionists, and they're after the First Amendment with hammer and tong . She starts out using words like 'normative' and 'propositional', she's an academic you know ....... but in just a few pages is railing against 'racists' and 'hate speech'.

She is doing well. The more we suppress the debate of our Zionism in the press the more we can further our agenda of hegemony.

[dafydd]

Saggy- do you know the difference between a Zionist and a Jew?

He doesn't even know the difference between his arse and his elbow.

[Saggy]

But what she wrote is not a remarkable statement.


It is an absolutely remarkable statement .... here it is ...

“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.”

Let's parse it, when we do, the First Amendment to the Constitution disappears. It disappears functionally, that it, speech is not protected by the first amendment, it is decided by the courts on a case by case basis, by "balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs." But even before it disappears functionally, it disappears grammatically: the 'First Amendment' is a law, the First Amendment to the Constitution, however, in Kagan's sentence it becomes an adjective, "First Amendment protection", and a meaningless adjective at that. There is no difference between 'First Amendment protection' and 'government protection' or just 'protection'. Viola', the First Amendment has disappeared.

Of course you do not want to discuss the 30 year campaign by the ADL to circumvent the FA, and the way that Kagan has explicitly taken up that effort in the paper linked earlier, but, no matter, we have it in a nutshell in the sentence analyzed above, Kagan pretends not to understand the First Amendment in order to neutralize it.

[marksman]

It is an absolutely remarkable statement .... here it is ...

“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.”

Let's parse it, when we do, the First Amendment to the Constitution disappears.
It's not remarkable. Even you acknowledge the First Amendment has exceptions that aren't written into the text. Determining where these exceptions begin and end is necessarily going to be a balancing test of some sort. That's all she's saying.

[Saggy]

It's not remarkable. Even you acknowledge the First Amendment has exceptions that aren't written into the text. Determining where these exceptions begin and end is necessarily going to be a balancing test of some sort. That's all she's saying.

In her statement the First Amendment is no longer a law, a part of the Constitution, for crying out loud, it is an adjective. It has disappeared. That's the Zionist goal. Then we too can have 'hate speech' laws like Australia.

If we looked at her statement in isolation, it might be explained as a casual misinterpretation, a curious error. In the context of the 30 year war the ADL has waged against the First Amendment to the Constitution, it is the current front line, where Kagan wants the discussion to take place, with the original intent of the First Amendment not part of the discussion, a historical footnote.

[marksman]

In her statement the First Amendment is no longer a law, a part of the Constitution, for crying out loud, it is an adjective. It has disappeared.
It absolutely has not disappeared and her article makes it very clear that the First Amendment is a real and serious impediment on regulation. I'm not the one taking her sentence out of context.

If we looked at her statement in isolation, it might be explained as a casual misinterpretation, a curious error.
It's neither -- it's an accurate statement of First Amendment jurisprudence, and one with which you agreed with when you acknowledged the First Amendments has exceptions not found in the text of the First Amendment.

[Saggy]

Kagan writes in reference to R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul in the paper 'Private Speech - Public Purpose'...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf

Indeed, half hidden beneath a swirl of doctrinal formulations, the crux of the dispute between the majority and the concurring opinions concerned the proper understanding of St. Paul's motive in enacting its hate-speech law.26 The majority understood this motive as purely censorial-a simple desire to blot out ideas of which the government or a majority of its citizens disapproved. The concurring Justices saw something different: an effort by the government, divorced from mere hostility toward ideas, to coun- ter a severe and objectively ascertainable harm caused by (one form of) an idea's expression.27

And she goes on to say

What I have argued in this Article is that most of First Amendment doctrine constitutes a highly, but necessarily, com- plex scheme for ascertaining the governmental purposes under- lying regulations of speech.

But it appears to me that motive was not really an issue because both opinions (majority and concurring) in R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul ruled the law unconstitutional. That is, it was an issue as to why there were two opinions, but the final judgment of both opinions was the same, and hence motive was not such a decision point.

???? Any insight into this ????

Another point .... from wiki ...

"Therefore, the Court accepted the Minnesota court's conclusion that the ordinance reached only those expressions that constitute "fighting words" within the meaning of Chaplinsky."

Thus the court had to interpret the law as applying to 'fighting words', which is completely absurd as that is not how the law is written, ..... but given that that was the case, then Kagan's claim was that the government motive was to 'blot out' ideas seems absurd, as one doesn't blot out ideas by proscribing 'fighting words'.

Again, any insight there marksman ????

The law provided, as per wiki ....

"Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

[marksman]

it appears to me that motive was not really an issue because both opinions (majority and concurring) in R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul ruled the law unconstitutional.
That doesn't mean motive wasn't an issue. The majority and concurring opinions identified different motivations for the laws, each of which was deemed unconstitutional. That the outcome was the same doesn't change the fact that the reasoning differed. That's precisely why judges have the ability to write concurrences. if the outcome was all that mattered, every appellate decision would simply be a tally of votes with no explanation.

But because we live under a common law system, the judges have to write their reasoning down so it can serve as precedent for future decisions.

Thus the court had to interpret the law as applying to 'fighting words', which is completely absurd as that is not how the law is written, ..... but given that that was the case, then Kagan's claim was that the government motive was to 'blot out' ideas seems absurd, as one doesn't blot out ideas by proscribing 'fighting words'.
Sure it does... by broadly defining "fighting words", which is why the Court found the law unconstitutional. It found the statute's definition of fighting words too broad.

What exactly do you think is going on in the decision?

[Saggy]

The majority and concurring opinions identified different motivations for the laws, each of which was deemed unconstitutional.

The law was unconstitutional, not 'each' of the hypothesized motivations. That 'mistake' looks like another 'Kaganism'.... LOL ...



What exactly do you think is going on in the decision?

Starting from the beginning, the law is absurd. Prima facie unconstitutional, and that's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of my conservative lawyer friend. As the petitioner claimed "therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment." Facially?

So, that's the start. Then the Minnesota court upheld the law saying it construed it in a way that "limited the reach of the ordinance to conduct that amounted to fighting words". Again, patently absurd.

So, it should never have reached the SC. Given that the court had to accept the Minnesota courts interpretation, the case was absurd. The court should have overturned the Minnesota court's decision (I have no idea if they have the power to do this, I'm saying that 'logically' that is what should have happened).

Instead it found itself with this cockamamie piece of crap on its plate and had to deal with it.

Then following wiki ...

The Court began its substantive analysis with a review of the principles of free speech clause jurisprudence, beginning with the general rule that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech,[8] or even expressive conduct,[9] because of disapproval of the ideas expressed.[10]

Well, there you have it. The First Amendment. Case closed.

No, wiki continues ...

The Court noted that while content-based regulations are presumptively invalid, society has permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are "of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."[11]

The reference [11] takes you to the Chaplinksy case which I presume is a 'fighting words' case. So, here we've reached the point of absurdity.

What is happening is that the Zionists are trying to conflate 'fighting words' with 'hate speech', and that's what they succeeded in doing here.

Yet, the court managed to find some way to squelch this idiocy this time.

[marksman]

The law was unconstitutional, not 'each' of the hypothesized motivations.
The law was unconstitutional because none of hypothesized motivations ascribed to the law passed muster.

As the petitioner claimed "therefore facially invalid under the First Amendment." Facially?
yes, facially. Facially means in contrast to "as applied". Which means some laws you can tell are unconstitution merely by reading the text. but some laws don't appear to be constitutional until you find out the context in which they are to be applied. Then you realize it's unconstitutional.

For example.
"Landowners must pay an annual real estate tax equal to the rate applied for AAA bond redemptions."

This statute seems fine. I mean, nobody likes taxes, but nothing in the language screams "unconstitutional".... until one were to discover that the "rate applied for AAA bond redemptions" was 100%. Then you would realize that this amounts to a confiscation of lan in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

That's the difference between "facially" and "as applied" unconstitutionality.

So, yes, this statute was "facially" unconstitutional because we didn't need to look to see how the statute was actually enforced to determine its constitutionality. "Facially" does nto mean "very".

Then the Minnesota court upheld the law saying it construed it in a way that "limited the reach of the ordinance to conduct that amounted to fighting words". Again, patently absurd.

So, it should never have reached the SC.
The reason we have a Supreme Court (and intermediate appellate courts) is because lower courts and state courts make mistakes.

What is happening is that the Zionists are trying to conflate 'fighting words' with 'hate speech', and that's what they succeeded in doing here.
Except Kagan isn't criticizing the decision to invalidate the law. She's just explaining the reasoning behind it. It's almost as if you're faulting her for even writing about a Supreme Court decision. There's nothing remarkable in this article.

[Saggy]

The reason we have a Supreme Court (and intermediate appellate courts) is because lower courts and state courts make mistakes.

But here the SC had to accept the Minnesota's court's absurd interpretation and rule on the original case. Awkward, I'd say. The SC should have overturned the Minnesota court.


Except Kagan isn't criticizing the decision to invalidate the law. She's just explaining the reasoning behind it.

LOL.


It's almost as if you're faulting her for even writing about a Supreme Court decision. There's nothing remarkable in this article.

The first thing that is remarkable is that Kagan is writing about the case that stymied the ADL in its march to US 'hate speech' laws. The second is that she is giving a completely bogus 'explanation' of the case that neutralizes the First Amendment, thereby paving the way for the ADL to send up more trial balloons till one passes, which certainly will happen with enough Zionists on the court.

[marksman]

But here the SC had to accept the Minnesota's court's absurd interpretation and rule on the original case. Awkward, I'd say.
It happens all the time. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

The first thing that is remarkable is that Kagan is writing about the case that stymied the ADL in its march to US 'hate speech' laws. The second is that she is giving a completely bogus 'explanation' of the case that neutralizes the First Amendment
The first is unremarkable. She's a legal scholar. Legal scholars comment on Supreme Court cases.

The second is untrue. You keep saying she gave a "bogus explanation" but the explanation is not only not bogus, it's an unremarkable statement about 1st amendment jurisprudence.

[Saggy]

She's a legal scholar.

Sure, and I'm Jonas Salk.

Anyhow, she writes that the RAV case was 'controversial' and 'hotly debated'. I find this very hard to believe, as the law was, as I think you agreed, prima facie unconstitutional.

So, what was debated? There is only one reason for this case to have been debated, and that is that is squashed an ADL 'hate speech' law. So we can expect the Zionists to agonize over it forever, witness Kagan's article. Who debated this farce? What were the issues? Or were Kagan's comments wishful thinking.

[marksman]

Sure, and I'm Jonas Salk.
She was dean of a law school. By definition, that makes her a legal scholar.

Anyhow, she writes that the RAV case was 'controversial' and 'hotly debated'. I find this very hard to believe, as the law was, as I think you agreed, prima facie unconstitutional.
I don't agree. The state court clearly thought it was constitutional. It was unconstitutional on its face, but that doesn't mean that its unconstitutionality was obvious.

So, what was debated?
The constitutionality of the statute, of course.

we can expect the Zionists to agonize over it forever, witness Kagan's article
Kagan doesn't appear to be in agony over the article.
What were the issues? Or were Kagan's comments wishful thinking.
She describes the issues in the article. The fact that you wish first amendment jurisprudence was as simple as basic arithmetic does not change the fact that it is not so simple.

[Saggy]

I don't agree. The state court clearly thought it was constitutional. It was unconstitutional on its face, but that doesn't mean that its unconstitutionality was obvious.

Ahhh .. now I see the difference between facially and prima facie ... and as applied ... I think ! This law was clearly and obviously unconstitutional to all but Zionists. To Zionists, it is their fondest dream, and they don't give a damn about the Constitution.


Kagan doesn't appear to be in agony over the article.

Her logic was tortured. In any case, it was thoughtful of her to explain the Supreme Courts reasoning to .... the Supreme Court.


She describes the issues in the article. The fact that you wish first amendment jurisprudence was as simple as basic arithmetic does not change the fact that it is not so simple.

She revealed the 'issues' as if she had discovered them, which I think she actually invented. These were not the 'issues' mentioned in the wiki article. So, I'd be surprised if this was the case. But, I've been surprised before.

[marksman]

This law was clearly and obviously unconstitutional to all but Zionists.
That's a circular argument. You think it was clear and obvious, so you label anybody who disagrees a Zionist.

In any case, it was thoughtful of her to explain the Supreme Courts reasoning to .... the Supreme Court.
It was a University of Chicago Law Review article. The only people to whom she was explaining it were subscribers to the University of Chicago Law Review. Since she was a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, that seems the appropriate periodical for her to publish a paper about First Amendment jurisprudence.

She revealed the 'issues' as if she had discovered them, which I think she actually invented. These were not the 'issues' mentioned in the wiki article. So, I'd be surprised if this was the case. But, I've been surprised before.
Then be surprised. Her article is not a remarkable piece of jurisprudence. What it is, is thoroughly researched and referenced. The 106-page article has 286 footnotes which list all of the sources from which she derived the principles of First Amendment jurisprudence she cites. Those references are federal and Supreme Court decisions stretching back 200 years, as well as other articles written by legal scholars stretching back more than a century.

Wikipedia on the other hand, is not so thoroughly referenced, and is written merely to give the very basic understanding to a layperson.