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

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician