Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan-Anti-Free Speech

Seriously. She wrote in the University of Chicago Law Review, titled 'Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,'that the free speech clause allows the government to limit speech if the government can show "proper intent" to limit speech. I've linked to the actual paper so you can see for yourself how she justifies limiting free speech.

Reminder of what the Constitution says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

It's pretty clear that 'no law' means 'no law'. That freedom of speech cannot be "abridged".

In her paper she advocates for just such governmental restrictions on free speech, as long as it can justify itself by presenting "proper intent".

She wrote that government can restrict speech if it deems that the speech may cause harm. She advocates governmental restrictions on speech that it thinks is an incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words. If the government decides that your words cause harm, in their view, you can be shut down and punished. Some of my Statist friends may like this idea, along with Obama, the Jurassic Press and Dems would like to shut down Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, etc., so this could be a good thing. Hmmmmm, how about a Conservative president and Congress that see's the Statist reporting of MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo etc., show harm in their view?

Kagan: “The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression.” “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.” Prez and his boy and girls see harm-based reason, as they define it, can shut down free speech?

Do you really what a Supreme Court Justice that believes the government should regulate speech?

This alone disqualifies her.