Haven’t heard about this on the nightly news, have you?

On one hand, she was just doing her job as Solicitor General and this may not reflect her personal feelings or how she might rule when on the Court. On the other hand, what’s up with Obama promoting crapola like this?

According to an explosive special report on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s views on the First Amendment right to free speech, in September of 2009 Kagan encouraged the Court to adhere to a new philosophy on the First Amendment that would allow the government to censor posters, pamphlets, and TV and radio content–and the Internet.

In a stunning news report issued today by CNS, the following information was disclosed:

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Even liberal Justice Ginsberg questioned Kagan about the policy, inquiring as to whether or not the same principle could be used to ban books.




  1. #29 – Buzz,

    • Corporations only gain Free Speech rights after they turn 21 and register to vote.

    Corps would be fine with this. Young corporations would simply find smaller older corporations to buy and thus acquire voting rights.

    • All corporations older than 110 years of age will be deemed senile.

    As many corporations have done, they will simply declare bankruptcy and open in a new name. Expect this about every 109 years.

    • All corporations must register with the Selective Service.

    The military industrial complex largely is selective service. They’ll probably be OK with this too.

    • No corporation under the age of 18 may drink or vote.

    Addressed above.

    • All corporations over the age of 18 may be fucked.

    But, so much more often, they are on the giving end rather than the receiving one. Gently with a chainsaw for me please Mr. Corporation.

  2. brm says:

    #13:

    “Free speech should apply to individuals even if they choose to join together in groups called corporations.”

    I wasn’t aware that you were forbidden to exercise your *individual* natural rights once you bought a share of stock.

    I guess putting the effort into exercising your right to political speech is such a time sink that you’d rather have an immortal legal construct do it for you by proxy.

  3. MikeN says:

    Now if the Supreme Court would get moving and throw out the ban on political ads that do not contain the words I am X and I approve this message.

  4. Benjamin says:

    #32 “I guess putting the effort into exercising your right to political speech is such a time sink that you’d rather have an immortal legal construct do it for you by proxy.”

    I would like to use my resources (printing presses, film cameras, etc) that are owned by the corporation I formed to create my speech.

  5. Phydeau says:

    #34 Benjamin, I really think you should research what exactly a corporation is. It’s not necessarily owned by any individual. It’s an independent entity.

  6. Greg Semos says:

    The crappolla referred to in the article is obviously the slated and biased manner in which the information is presented. The issue was if Corporation’s have a right to publish political matter using their general funds. Current law requires that they establish a political action group.

    Limit free speech, what crappolla.

  7. Mextli says:

    This was argued for corporations AND UNIONS.

    It must be OK for the AFL-CIO to buy time and influence Congress. I never hear them mentioned.

  8. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    #37. What this article is attempting to do is create a means for the far right to attack the nomination of Kagan to the SC. If they mentioned unions also being included, then the far right loonies would be conflicted and would not know if the arguement was good or bad.

  9. Mextli says:

    #38

    Looks like you got your left and right confused. We all know the left loons kiss the union label.

  10. brm says:

    #34:

    “I would like to use my resources (printing presses, film cameras, etc) that are owned by the corporation I formed to create my speech.”

    If your business is a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or even maybe an LLC, go right ahead.

    I don’t think you get what a corporation is, though.

  11. brm says:

    #34 Benjamin:

    And just to short-circuit any useless arguing, the fact that you say:

    “I would like to use MY resources that are OWNED BY THE CORPORATION” (emphasis added)

    proves that you’re confused.

  12. clancys_daddy says:

    Free speech for every one that I agree with.

  13. deowll says:

    #2 I said Bush was the enemy of liberty. Obama is the enemy of liberty and blindly partisan party stooges like you are the enemy of liberty.

    Of course people like yourself do make nice servants once the elite make them understand who their boss is. Who knows? They might even let you breed rather than just writing you off as surplus population? Somebody has to clean the streets and take out the garbage.

    I wish I were making a bad joke or just being a spiteful jerk but that is pretty much how I read the progressives and the underclass that supports them.

    Well at least you don’t have to worry. You masters well take care of you after all taking care of their inferiors is their social duty just as long as said inferiors know their place and keep it.

  14. bobbo, with kind regards to all spiteful jerks says:

    #43–do-ill==did you jump out of context or can you go one more time around the race track for us slow ones and connect the dots for how being against Corporations spending unlimited money in political contests is “anti-freedom.”

    -or- just more generally explain why you confuse “anything a corporation does” with “doing business” with “capitalism” with “freedom.”

    I don’t know if that better describes a Chain of Fools or a Circle Jerk.

  15. clancys_daddy says:

    43 dude the blue and red pills don’t go together. Its the blue and yellow ones you take together, and the red ones go with food.

  16. sargasso says:

    For confused foreigners, the Supreme Court is a non-representative house of government whose limited membership are nominated by a President. Only death and abdication can remove a Supreme Court Chief Justice; incompetence, insanity, dementia and mental disability are apparently OK.

  17. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    #39. What I was saying is the right wing loon who wrote the article is trying to rally other right wing loons against Kagan. If he put in that her argument also hurt unions, right wing loons would not know whether to oppose Kagan for hurting corporations or support her for opposing unions.

  18. Scarecrow413 says:

    Ummm…

    This article doesn’t say an effing thing. Quotations are so obviously out of context as to be meaningless.

    “The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts.

    Ok. Kagan is expressing NO opinion here. She’s quoting Roberts.

    Quotation continues…

    “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

    If I read this right… If this follows normal grammatical formatting, she’s repeating someone else’s opinion.

    What effing information is “disclosed?”

    What the hell is this original article saying?

    It attributes NOT A GODDAMN WORD TO KAGAN’S PERSONAL POLITICAL VIEWS ON ISSUES, IT ONLY QUOTES HER QUOTATIONS!

    Sheesh!

  19. MikeN says:

    Obama told us that Kagan took a special interest in this case because it is dear to her heart.
    The article quotes from Roberts’ opinion referring to the government case. They would have done better going to the actual Supreme Court oral arguments.

  20. MikeN says:

    No need to manufacture a case against Kagan. Her refusal to support the military while Dean of Harvard Law School is enough.

  21. jccalhoun says:

    MikeN said
    Her refusal to support the military while Dean of Harvard Law School is enough.

    That is a good reason to support her but it certainly isn’t enough since she’s has so little experience in a courtroom.

  22. Uncle Patso says:

    # 43 deowll, I do not get what you are saying. At all. It sounds like you are saying that progressives want to create and maintain a permanent underclass to keep the streets clean. Something like that? Your posts are usually very clear.

    – - – - -

    # 50 MikeN:
    “No need to manufacture a case against Kagan. Her refusal to support the military while Dean of Harvard Law School is enough.”

    Be fair: she eventually reversed that policy.