Yee Backs Kagan

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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

16 comments

  1. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    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.

  2. 0
    thelobbyist.net says:

    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.

    http://www.thelobbyist.net

  3. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    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

  4. 0
    Neeneko says:

     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.

  5. 0
    MonkeyPeaches says:

    "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!

  6. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    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-freedom-of-speech/

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/kagan-disappear-free-speech-if-the-government-deems-it-offensive.html

    "…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-

  7. 0
    Avalongod says:

    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.

  8. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    "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

  9. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    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

  10. 0
    Mr. Blond says:

    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."

  11. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    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.


  12. 0
    Neeneko says:

     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.

Leave a Reply