Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

August 3, 2011 -

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently attended the Aspen Institute’s McCloskey Speaker Series, in Aspen Colorado. During a conversation with moderator Elliot Gerson, Kagan reflected on her experiences as a new Justice, the misconception that Justices don't like each other and the case she found the most difficult to rule on during this term. It turns out that the case she is referring to as most difficult was Brown v. EMA, commonly referred to as the California Violent Video Game Law."

Kagan told Gerson that this case was particularly difficult for her because she could see merit on both sides of the legal battle:

"It was the case where I struggled most and thought most often I’m on the wrong side of it," she said. "You could see why the government would have wanted to do this and you can see the kind of danger it was worried about, the kind of effects these extremely violent video games have on young people."

Kagan said that it was easy to see what the State was trying to do and by all accounts it seemed like a reasonable effort. Her problem was with its constitutionality at the end of the day:

"But I couldn’t figure out how to square that with our First Amendment precedence and precedence is very important to me," she said about her vote to invalidate the law. "I sweated over that mightily."

Kagan highlighted the court’s position on the First Amendment and how it has been "extremely protective" of free speech:

"I think what you have to say, and people have been saying this, is this is a court that is extremely protective of the First Amendment and extremely protective of speech," she said. "There is no question the court has a very expansive view of the First Amendment."

You can read more of Kagan's comments on Aspen Daily News.

Posted in

Comments

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

"I know a place where the constitution doesn't mean squat!"

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

So in other words, maybe this bill WAS a good idea but the 1st Amendment was the ONLY thing stopping it? 

How about the bill was a stupid idea from the start? How about the bill actually hindered parenting? How about games DON'T have "the kind of effects these extremely violent video games have on young people."

Thank God for the 1st Amendment because people have to fall back on THAT instead of common sense.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

As Scalia said in the decision of the case, "disgust is not a valid reason to restrict expression". I'm sure many of the justices were horrified by some of the extreme violence in some these games, i.e. - Manhunt, Postal 2, ect. but in the end they are still protected by the First Amendment, as the whole point of the Freedom of Speech clause is too protect unpopular speech from government regulations and restrictions.

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

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

"But I couldn’t figure out how to square that with our First Amendment precedence and precedence is very important to me."

Notice what she says is important to her: precedence.  Not the First Amendment itself.

"This is a court that is extremely protective of the First Amendment and extremely protective of speech.  There is no question the court has a very expansive view of the First Amendment."

The way she says that, it sounds like she thinks the court is too​ protective of speech, has a too​ expansive view of the First Amendment.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like she would give the green light to censorship if she thought she could get away with it.  Splendid.  :/

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

You need to read between the lines after you study up a bit more on the concept of common law and in common law precedence is everything which is what creates the common part of common law. There is no legal precedence for censoring art for violence anywhere but there is precedence for censorship for other reasons provided it is limited for that specific purpose and nothing more like banning children from having access to pornography while leaving it legal for adults to buy it. What her interview tells me is that she does sympathize with what they were trying to do but was willing to set aside her personal opinions so that she could do her job the way she is supposed to and using the interpretations and limitations of the first amendment that precedence sets before her.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Well yes.  In the US legal system, precedence trumps constitutional arguments.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Yes, but precedence can always be over ruled by a future court or legislation from the government. So it is not the end all be all.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

The easiest, simplest, most obvious case is the one Kagen sweated over the most?  Man, that's frightening beyond belief.

"Her problem was with its constitutionality at the end of the day:"

And, you know, a few other niggling facts like the problem the law was aiming to fix doesn't exist, it would have done nothing to alleviate it even if it did, and it would be wholly infeasible and impractical to actually enforce if passed.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Let's be fair: She joined Scalia's opinion which said all that and more.

On a legal discourse level, cases like this are always difficult for a legal mind to decide because there's no direct precedent of any kind.  There is now, though!

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Reasonable effort?  There is nothing reasonable about censorship. ever.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Hmm, if I'm reading right, I'm getting a "I may not like it ,but it is still speech and thus protected" vibe, which I may argue is the right way to look at this.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

I agree, and I'd actually like to see her on the parent groups' side of the debate, so that she could bring rational thought and they might actually see some of their goals accomplished. Because right now they go about it the wrong way, and the ESRB has been doing all the work to actually keep these products age appropriate.

Imagine if the groups that put thousands of dollars into promoting the law had instead promoted the ESRB ratings, and helped educate parents on how to make appropriate decisions based on the ratings and being involved. I think that's what Kagan would support and it makes sense.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
Infophile(cont'd) discriminatory. This can only be done for protected classes which are outlined in law (race, sex, religion, ethnicity everywhere, sexual orientation in some states). So, a gay person could be fired because they're gay and have no recourse there.07/07/2015 - 7:27am
Infophile@Goth: See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp for a good discussion on it. Basically, the problem is that in the US, most states allow at will firing, and it's the burden of the fired person to prove the firing was ...07/07/2015 - 7:25am
Goth_SkunkAssuming that's true, then that is a fight worth fighting for.07/07/2015 - 6:58am
Yuuri@ Goth_Skunk, in many states being gay is not a protected status akin to say race or religion. It's also in the "Right to work" states. Those are the states where one can be fired for any reason (provided it isn't a "protected" one.)07/07/2015 - 6:07am
Goth_Skunkregarded as a beacon of liberty and freedom that is the envy of the world, would not have across-the-board Human Rights laws that don't at the very least equal those of my own country.07/07/2015 - 5:47am
Goth_SkunkI find that hard to believe, Infophile. I have difficulty believing employers can *still* fire people for being gay. I would need to see some evidence that this is fact, because as a Canadian, I can't believe that the United States,07/07/2015 - 5:46am
InfophileFor that matter, even women don't yet have full legal equality with men. The US government still places limits on the positions women can serve in the military. And that's just the legal side of things - the "culture wars" are more than just laws.07/07/2015 - 5:43am
InfophileAnd that's just LGB issues. Get ready for an incoming battle on rights for trans* people. And then after that, a battle for poly people.07/07/2015 - 5:41am
InfophileA battle's been won. In many states employers can still fire people for being gay. And in many states, parents can force their children into reparative therapy to try to "fix" being gay. Those battles still need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:40am
Goth_Skunkand now they've switched to battles that don't need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:37am
Goth_SkunkIn my opinion, it was the final legal hurdle denying homosexual couples final and recognized statuses as eligible spouses. But even though this war's been won, some people are still too keen to keep fighting battles,07/07/2015 - 5:28am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician