Take on Kagan?

NigelTufnel said:
If all you need to hear is World Nut Daily's version of reality, you'll be making an ass of yourself more often than not.
Click to expand...

That's it, dismiss it because you don't agree with the messeger. You can google the statement and come up with several pages of hits on several different sites....guess they are all suspect *sarcasm*
 
Ice Dancer said:
That's it, dismiss it because you don't agree with the messeger. You can google the statement and come up with several pages of hits on several different sites....guess they are all suspect *sarcasm*
Click to expand...


Well, the article is available for a few bucks to anyone so inclined. The simple fact that the actual text of the article hasn't been posted anywhere and World Nut Daily instead writes some shitty "paraphrase" ought to tell you all you need to know: They're full of shit.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, the article is available for a few bucks to anyone so inclined. The simple fact that the actual text of the article hasn't been posted anywhere and World Nut Daily instead writes some shitty "paraphrase" ought to tell you all you need to know: They're full of shit.
Click to expand...

If YOU have not read the article how the fuck do YOU know it's a "shitty paraphrase" and not a statement that stands on its own?

*rhetorical question*
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'll be you dollars to donuts that she never wrote the statement in bold. First, it is World Nut Daily. Second, there is no link. Third, it isn't a direct quote. Fourth, it's World Nut Daily.
Click to expand...

you should have read her work first...no doubt the statement in bold is a paraphrase, yet you're trying to treat it as a direct quote...

p. 504 and i suggest you read the footnotes as well:

252P erhaps the same argument applies to hate-crimes
laws; indeed, the Court in Mitchell, though upholding such a law,
understood it in much this way, pointing to interests the government
had in restricting expression of racist messages.253 But
this view of hate-crimes laws is not necessary. The government
may have a non-speech-related interest for sanctioning racebased
assault, no less than race-based discharge: an interest in
eradicating racially based forms of disadvantage-in preventing
disproportionate harm from falling, by virtue of status alone, on
members of a racial group. Given this interest, existing apart
from any speech, the Court correctly treated hate-crimes laws as
laws of general application.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
Well, the article is available for a few bucks to anyone so inclined. The simple fact that the actual text of the article hasn't been posted anywhere and World Nut Daily instead writes some shitty "paraphrase" ought to tell you all you need to know: They're full of shit.
Click to expand...

Don't worry Dung. If you read the article it won't cause you to be struck stupid.





You're already there!


Hackalicious! :palm:
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, the article is available for a few bucks to anyone so inclined. The simple fact that the actual text of the article hasn't been posted anywhere and World Nut Daily instead writes some shitty "paraphrase" ought to tell you all you need to know: They're full of shit.
Click to expand...

actually, you're full of shit...the article is free and is posted on the scotusblog
 
Yurt said:
you should have read her work first...no doubt the statement in bold is a paraphrase, yet you're trying to treat it as a direct quote...

p. 504 and i suggest you read the footnotes as well:

252P erhaps the same argument applies to hate-crimes
laws; indeed, the Court in Mitchell, though upholding such a law,
understood it in much this way, pointing to interests the government
had in restricting expression of racist messages.253 But
this view of hate-crimes laws is not necessary. The government
may have a non-speech-related interest for sanctioning racebased
assault, no less than race-based discharge: an interest in
eradicating racially based forms of disadvantage-in preventing
disproportionate harm from falling, by virtue of status alone, on
members of a racial group. Given this interest, existing apart
from any speech, the Court correctly treated hate-crimes laws as
laws of general application.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf
Click to expand...



I'm not treating it as a direct quote at all. I'm treating it as a misleading and shitty paraphrase of something that Kagan never actually wrote. And it is.

This is the misleading paraphrase: Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

The portion quoted above offers no support whatsoever for the paraphrase. Indeed, the portion you quoted above concerns the governmental interest in passing hate-crime laws -- to suppress race-based violence, not laws suppressing speech -- race-based speech. Moreover, Kagan is merely describing the Supreme Court's unanimous holding in the Mitchell case, not espousing her personal view of the matter.

Compare what Kagan wrote to this:

Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm. For example, according to the State and its amici, bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness."
Click to expand...

That's Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for a unanimous Court in Mitchell. Apparently, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the entirety of the Supreme Court in 1993 (when that case was decided), like Kagan, can be said to support the notion that the government can suppress speech because it is offensive to society or the government.
 
Yurt said:
actually, you're full of shit...the article is free and is posted on the scotusblog
Click to expand...


Sorry I hadn't scoured the internets for a free version of the article. The only version I located was behind the paywall on JSTOR.

Thanks for the link though, douchebag.
 
Funny how this thread evolved from, 'she is no scholar... because she has not published." to an attack on her for her publications.

At one point Damocles was comparing this brilliant scholar to.... Harriett Meyers!
 
Jarod said:
Funny how this thread evolved from, 'she is no scholar... because she has not published." to an attack on her for her publications.

At one point Damocles was comparing this brilliant scholar to.... Harriett Meyers!
Click to expand...

no one said she wasn't publish you idiot...it was said she doesn't appear to have much published....and really, what is listed so far, isn't that much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top