Comments on: Kagan’s “Low Value” Speech Could Be Expensive

By: Will

Will — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:58:05 +0000

Great point!

Anyone that is appointed to the Supreme Court that feels the Constitution as it was originally intended, can be “modified” or have a different “interpretation” to fit a political agenda poses a serious threat to our liberty.

By: NoahDavidSimon

NoahDavidSimon — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:39:14 +0000

Any idea in pure form is dangerous. Obviously there a limits to how far speech can go before it threatens the individual. The key to this issue is more complex then just weighing the value. What scares me is not that Kagan sees limitations to what can be said… what scares me is that she (and this is an assumption based on her other loyalties) will assume that violent speech can be policed in a centralized manner by the Federal government or worse… the U.N..

By: Wal

Wal — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:35:06 +0000

Just more control being threatened. It's funny how we can be so regulated in our speech but the congress and president who are paid by ALL of us can spit crap out of their mouths about tea-partiers just because we don't fit their "agenda" – but if some of us had stated the same things about any specific group we'd be slapped into court for "hate" speech.

It's time to elect someone that understands the concepts that WE have a right to free speech whether it's really convenient to someone else or not.

By: bill holston

bill holston — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:19:56 +0000

I think there's even no value speech, but that misses the point. The value is not in the speech its in the liberty. Holocaust denial has no intellectual value. The value is their right to say whatever they damn well please. The risk is that you look bigoted, or ridiculous. I'm sad to read this from a potential member of the Supreme Court. Free Speech, people died for that right.