Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Another Reason To Say No To Kagan

There's another reason to just say no to Elena Kagan.

No, this has nothing to do with her college paper that bemoaned the fall of socialism in early 20th century New York. You would be wrong if you thought this was yet another tirade about Comrade Kagan kicking military recruiters off of Haw-Vard's campus. Granted, these are things that should put her on an FBI watch list and not on a short list of Supreme Court candidates, but I digress. There's one big reason Elena Kagan should get the Bork treatment from the Imperial Senate.

Elena Kagan does not believe in Free Speech.

According to Politico's John Shinkle, Comrade Kagan attended a symposium at the University of Chicago (It's kinda funny how every scandal we have today has its roots in the Windy City, isn't it ?) where she called for hate speech and pornography regulation. Kagan said:

"We should be looking for new approaches, devising new arguments [for limiting pornography and "hate" speech]." She then counted herself among "those of us who favor some sort of pornography and hate speech regulation."

In other words, Inner Party member Kagan wants Big Brother to decide what is and what is not pornography, and more importantly, what is and what is not "hate" speech. (Does that word just sound too Orwellian for comfort, or what ? Jeez, I'll need a double shot of Victory Gin just to sleep tonight!) If that wasn't creepy enough, Kagan also adds "Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence. Such statutes may still be Constitutional."

Oh sure, that would be Constitutional....in the USSR!

Here's the reality of the situation, folks. We don't want or need the government to decide what is moral or what exactly constitutes "hate" speech. Judging morality or value of speech is not a line the Big Mommy Regime in DC should cross. The obvious limit should be when someone else's rights are hindered. Note how I said hindered, and not offended. For example, I could heckle Ed Schultz for being a talentless hack all I want, but I can't enter his home to heckle him, since that would be violating his property rights. My right to Free Speech ends the moment I begin to infringe on Ed's. Obviously, Free Speech is not absolute and there are certain societal mores that need to be followed in regards to pornography. Common sense needs to be the guide, not the whims of some politician or activist leftist judge. If I don't like what someone says or does, I simply tune them out, like I tune Ed out on a daily basis. I don't need the government to shut him down, I can handle that myself. As far as porn goes, as long as it doesn't involve children, who the hell cares ? If you like porn, knock yourself out. If you don't, then don't buy it. It's that simple. Do we need the government making yet another decision for us ?

Apparently, Elana Kagan thinks so.

God help us all.

No comments: