The Amendment of No
Defending a 1999 federal ban on depictions of animal cruelty, Kagan boldly asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of speech that, along with such historical exceptions as defamation, incitement, and obscenity, is entirely outside the scope of the First Amendment. "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection," she wrote, "depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
Writing for the 8-to-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts called this claim "startling and dangerous," adding: "The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."
Great. Sounds like nation-wide campus speech codes. Again, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do people have a problem understanding?
Article printed from VodkaPundit: http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/5/12/the-amendment-of-no