Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
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.
|
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