Link: http://kaganwatch.com/2010/05/12/kagan-argued-for-redistribution-of-speech/

Posted by Kagan Watch on May 12, 2010 Leave a comment (0) Go to comments
Posted here due to extremly high server load on the original server.

Kagan Says ‘Governmental Motive’ is Proper Focus in First Amendment Cases, Backs Limits on Speech That Can ‘Harm’

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent.

She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.

The first part of this framework involves restrictions that appear neutral, such as campaign finance laws, but in practice amount to an unconstitutional restriction. Kagan wrote that the effect of such legislation can be taken as evidence of improper motive because such motives often play a part in bringing the legislation into being.

“The answer to this question involves viewing the Buckley principle [that government cannot balance between competing speakers] as an evidentiary tool designed to aid in the search for improper motive,” Kagan wrote. “The Buckley principle emerges not from the view that redistribution of speech opportunities is itself an illegitimate end, but from the view that governmental actions justified as redistributive devices often (though not always) stem partly from hostility or sympathy toward ideas or, even more commonly, from self-interest.”
Read More

© ignoranceorapathy.com 11/07/2008
Open letter to all outgoing Republican U.S. Senators.

With the loss of the White House, more seats in the House and the Senate our nation faces what could be perilous if not radical socialist times. It therefore would be in the best interest of the nation if you Republican Senators who have lost your seats make one last effort on the part of our republic.

Philabuster the Senate!

Stop all proceedings in the Senate including the Electoral College process until the Senate brings to the floor votes on all of George W. Bushes Judicial appointments. Last I knew there are approximately 150 federal benches awaiting judges that the Senate has not voted on.

Read more »