is that really "nuh-uh, you are!".

well done, sir. i really don't have a defense for that nuclear bombshell of a debating tool. you're like a black belt ninja of stupid internet debate distractions.

if i answer this one, do you get to post another random link and insist i debate that non-relevant point also?

Woman.

Liberal.

Rumored lesbian.

End of world as we know it.

Forced abortions and gay marriages for all in less than five years.

How is that story not relevant? It is totally relevant. It is a real life case that involves all the issues that are being discussed.

I think it would be impossible to ascertain the principal's intent. There is no way to know how the principal would have responded had the students been Latino.

But I don't think the principal's intent is even relevant. If these kids sue and the case ends up going to the Supreme Court, I think it would be a mistake for the Court to try to decide the case based on the principal's intent. Either these students' rights were violated or they weren't violated. I don't think the intent of the principal is relevant.

there is no way that particular case, which i also believe has no connection to what kagan wrote, will go to the supreme court. the school board disagreed with the principal on what he had done, and the kids returned to school. based on what action would this then proceed? the board couldn't fight a battle, as they already conceded the principal made a mistake. as for intent, you'd have to find where the principal created a rule in the first place. his intent was to discriminate, he failed. the law might have been to keep the peace, but the intent was incorrect. how is that hard to discern? how does a bozo high school principal bely what she wrote? or was your entire point to just bring up this particular case, and this was the only possible segue you could find?

There is already way too many stupid-@ss lawsuits going around. Everyone should have a hot toddie and sleep on it. This broad may be ugly, but she may have a grasp of the constitution. How many times has a justice surprised their appointer and not quite ruled how they were thought to? I didn't expect O'bama to pick a conservative. He has no clue how she will rule on cases except what he knew of her in Chicago. I don't care what she does on Saturday night. She at least has played the American game of Baseball, as evidenced by her nice batting stance. That's a big plus in my book. $hit O'bama throws a baseball like he has never seen one in his life! O'bama throws a baseball like a Palistinian kid throws a rock! That's not a knock on his not being American.:D

You are right that since the school board disagreed with the principal, this case is probably over. But what if they hadn't disagreed? Is that such a far fetch? I'm sure there are plenty of liberals that would have agreed with the principal.

I'm sure the principal would have said that his intent was to keep the peace, not to discriminate against the American students because he didn't like their message. The truth of the matter is, we don't really know what his intent was. It is certainly possible that the principal feared that the shirts would cause a fight and that he would have acted in the same way had the roles been reversed (Latino students wearing Mexican flags).

To answer your question as to whether this would be the only case that would be an example of why using "intent" would be a slippery-slope, I would say not at all. Any type of free speech case would apply. My fear would be that local governments and Courts would censor speech that they don't like and would claim that their intent was noble. Since it would be difficult if not impossible to ascertain their true intent, I think it's a very slippery slope.

Speaking of free-speech, did you guys see this clown? This guy is a teacher at my alma-mater UCLA. That is scary that this guy is a teacher. He is a member of La Raza.

This has nothing to do with Kagan. This post should have actually gone in the thread about the new Arizona immigration law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s

their intent can be noble as hell, doesn't mean they'll be able to get away with censorship. it's why i mentioned the kkk, can anyone think of a group less tilted towards hatred? maybe nazi's...at any rate, the intent to suppress them would be considered noble, still hasn't happened, and won't. the law itself might sound reasonable (no hate speech), but the intent is to stifle any speech that is uncomfortable, or that you disagree with. not so noble after all.

and no doubt the principal had a good intent-it just wasn't good enough.

the dipshits are writing the laws.

tho I dont disagree with your opinion on this subject, I just wanted to point that out.

You are right. As of right now, free-speech cannot be suppressed by the government, even if the government's intent is noble. As of right now, intent is not important. The Constitution doesn't say anything about intent.

That is why people are concerned with Kagan's opinion. She said that when deciding whether or not it's ok for the government to suppress free-speech, the most important factor is the government's motive or intent.

That is a controversial stance. Most people that read the article are very concerned. Here is the link. Read the messages that the readers have left. People are very concerned with a new standard that would give the government more leeway to suppress speech as long as the government's motives are good in the Court's opinion. That is troublesome to most people. Read people's responses to this article:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

I'm sorry, but I don't see why it would make it easier to suppress speech.

Right now if a 1st Ammendment case makes it to the Supreme Court, the Court's focus is on the impact of the law they are reviewing. If the Court feels that a new law has the effect of restricting free speech, that law will probably be overturned by the Court.

Kagan is saying that the government's reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech. That is a real departure. That would make it easier for the government to restrict speech.

Right now, it's very hard for the government to restrict free speech because if they pass a law that restricts free speech, the law will probably be overturned because the Court is focused on the effects of the law. Any law that has the effect of limiting free speech will probably be overturned. If the Court starts changing the way they look at these cases and decides that it's not that important whether a new law restricts free speech as long as the "intent" of the law is good, then that would be a weakening of our 1st Ammendment protections.

'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.'


---that's from the article you linked. she's not saying only intent should be considered. she says it's the first, but not only, consideration in her opinion.

Yes, that is exactly correct.

I strongly disagree with Kagan's position that it is ok for the government to ban certain campaign related books and pamphlets depending on who paid for their publication.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ould-ban-books