Yee Backs Kagan

May 11, 2010 -

California State Senator Leland Yee (D - San Francisco), the man behind the original legislation that’s now made its way to the Supreme Court, has offered his thoughts on SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan.

Noting that Kagan has “argued for very limited exemptions to the First Amendment including areas of hate speech, pornography, military recruitment, and animal cruelty,” Lee said of the nominee:

I commend President Obama on the selection of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  Ms. Kagan is well-qualified for this important post and should be immediately confirmed by the US Senate.  While championing First Amendment rights, she has correctly opined that there is a need for very narrow exceptions to protect society and children.

 

I look forward to her consideration of our law to ensure parents have a voice in determining which video games are appropriate for their children.


Comments

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

Awww...  does poor widdle Society need mommy to hold its hand so it can tinkle?  Please...  "Society" doesn't need to be protected by a bunch of censor-happy nitwits.  If anything, it needs to be protected from them.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

You guys are way over analyzing this.  Yee isn't backing Kagan because of her interpretation of the Constitution.  He's backing Kagan because she is an appointee by a Democratic president and Yee is a Democrat.  I promise you it doesn't go any deeper than that.

www.thelobbyist.net

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

I Think We should Oppose Kagen, by telling our senators To don't support her

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

"I look forward to her consideration of our law to ensure parents have a voice in determining which video games are appropriate for their children."

Um, they already do it's called BEING A PARENT!

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

 Heh.

What he really means is he wants to ensure that 'leader' parents have a voice in determining which video games are appropriate for other people's children.

I have noticed a rising trend in this behavior as we have gotten away from the highly centralized parenting communities (usually built around churches) where parents generally took their cues from a small number of influential 'leader' parents.  I think much of this is coming from people who would traditionally be in that role and are frustrated that not as many people are hanging on their every word.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

As noted in an earlier post, I actually read Kagan's manuscript on pornography and hate speech.  Overall, I was not reassured.  She does seem to argue that these kinds of speech (which she makes clear at the beginning of her article, she herself finds offensive), could be regulated in ways that don't violate the First Ammendment. 

So although I don't think we can say 100% on her one way or another, her appointment is more worrisome than comforting.  So Yee may have a reason to be happy here.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

"I look forward to her consideration of our law to ensure parents have a voice in determining which video games are appropriate for their children."

If you feel you need a law to ensure you have that voice then you completely suck as a parent.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

You mean Yee backs someone thats not against censorship? What a shocker.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

Glad shes pro free speech. :D This makes me worry less and I hope she will say games are protected under free speech.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

But she's not, though. Even worse, she supports holding someone without a trial just for being a "suspect."

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/scotus-nominee-kagan-argued-against-f...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-disappear-free-speech-if-the-governmen...

"...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.”

Of particular worry is this 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."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=152305

Do you really think that she would think that video games, especially violent ones, have "value"?

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

There's an article on Kagan linked to in the Shout Box:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64A0AJ20100511

It's called "Why Hollywood should be Nervous About Court Pick", but it mostly focuses on her views on intellectual property, and her liberal support of the fair use doctrine. However, the closing of the article gives some reassurance:

"And finally, Hollywood's got at least one reason to cheer. Her history in academia suggests she'll be an extreme supporter of free speech under the First Amendment."

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

Hey I was the one that posted it in the shoutbox

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

Of course Yee backs her, she may well give him what he wants. If the person spoke out against censorship he'd be saying the choice would only lead to dissaster.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

Does Leland Yee know something we don't?  

 "No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

 Possibly.

Though it is starting to sound a bit like she is less for the first ammendment, and more for finding ways to censor without technically crossing it.  She would have been a big fan of the 'Marihuana Tax Act of 1937' which got around the pesky contitution via creating an impossible to obtain tax stamp... so it did not technically outlaw something that they could not, it simply made it illegal to sell without a paying a tax that could not be paid.

This could potentially make her very dangerous when it comes to 1st ammendment cases.. she is wise in the letter of the law but seems to be against the spirit.

Re: Yee Backs Kagan

There isn't that much chap stick in the world for Yee.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician