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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MechaTama31Re: Google+, wow. I never in a million years thought they would backpedal on that. I just resigned myself to not using commenting functions on any of their services.07/27/2015 - 6:21pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, are you saying all women are fat. ;)07/27/2015 - 5:38pm
benohawkMake it more adorable and more gender neutral! Widescreen Dog and 16:9 their 16 kitten sidekicks07/27/2015 - 5:15pm
Goth_SkunkOr, if you prefer, Widescreen Woman.07/27/2015 - 4:12pm
Goth_SkunkWho will save us from this abominable practice?! Introducing WIDESCREEN MAN and his sidekick 16:9!07/27/2015 - 4:10pm
Andrew EisenInteresting coincidence. I tweeted about the evils of vertically oriented video just last night. https://twitter.com/AndrewEisen/status/62549836960397312007/27/2015 - 4:01pm
PHX Corphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ_I9-CkzDE The Great Atari Ransack (The Jimquisition) Warning Vertical video syndrome in one scene07/27/2015 - 3:40pm
MattsworknameBout time google07/27/2015 - 3:33pm
james_fudgeugh. TG man :)07/27/2015 - 1:15pm
MechaCrashGoogle drops Google+ requirements for YouTube and other services: http://venturebeat.com/2015/07/27/google-is-dropping-its-google-requirement-across-all-products-starting-with-youtube/07/27/2015 - 12:55pm
benohawkThat still isn't Steam pay royalties. At best it is Bethesda not being willing to relicense the music,07/27/2015 - 12:51pm
Infophile(cont'd) different service. This often happened with TV shows, where music was only licensed for broadcast, but not for DVD release. So for many older shows, they either have to relicense it or use different/no music for the DVD release.07/27/2015 - 12:36pm
Infophile@benohawk: It most likely comes down to the original licensing agreement for the music in it. Often those agreements only license it for the medium it first releases in, so it has to be re-licensed if it's rereleased in a different form or through a ...07/27/2015 - 12:35pm
benohawkWhy would steam be paying royalties on anything in quake?07/27/2015 - 12:01pm
black mantaI recommend using the KMQuake II patch which supports .ogg music files, then downloading the music from someplace, then dropping it in to a music folder into the \baseq2 directory.07/27/2015 - 10:32am
black mantaI got Quake 2 during the Steam Quakecon sale. Funny thing is, there's no music for it! Guess Steam didn't want to pay the royalty fees or something.07/27/2015 - 10:30am
black mantaLike EZK, I also have a backlog of games. Right now I'm playing Crysis 3 for the first time, and replaying Quake 2.07/27/2015 - 10:29am
E. Zachary KnightZippy, No. It is because I have a backlog of games a mile long and have not bought to many new games, which includes Mass Effect.07/27/2015 - 9:28am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: Thats becuse you are in love with your Wii! or was that AE? LOL07/27/2015 - 9:01am
E. Zachary KnightGoth: I haven't even played Mass Effect!07/27/2015 - 8:43am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician