Kagan's first question in an interesting case (free speech):

[usregimechange]

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Summers, Hustler seems to me to have one sentence that is key to the whole decision, and it goes like this. It says: "Outrageousness in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression."
How does that sentence -- how is that sentence less implicated, in a case about a private figure than in a case about a public figure?


Good question and good point she makes in asking it.

[mr_liberal]

1. You can't tell much yet, but

Kagan sounds good on this case. She seemed to be more for free speech and on the side of the Phelps than any of the other justices. Sotomayor, from what I read, was too.

The conservatives were all hostile towards the Phelps.

I hope the Phelps win.

[Tx4obama]

2. I hope the Phelps lose.

I see the protests at the funerals more of an invasion of privacy issue.
It is horrible for anyone to disrupt a funeral, especially with 'hate' speech.

[mr_liberal]

3. They werent invading privacy.

The guy that brought the suit didn't even know they were there. He found out from the news and from visiting the Phelps website. They were on the public sidewalk, away from the funeral, just holding signs, not even making noise.

"Hate speech" is a politically correct term, it has nothing to do with the law. You dont have a right not to be offended.

[Tx4obama]

4. It's targeted harassment. n/t

[mr_liberal]

5. Protesting, holding signs is not harrassment. nm

[Tx4obama]

6. Protesting at a funeral is harassment, it's disturbing, upsetting, & offensive.

Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behavior. It is commonly understood as behavior intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behavior which is found threatening or disturbing.

[DearAbby]

7. As much as I disagree with everything Phelps stands for

He has the right to assemble and free speech. He has the right to stand on a public sidewalk and protest. I would have to defend this right, thereby protecting the right for all.

[UTUSN]

8. So she's already got more questions logged than Clarence?!1 n/t

[Tx4obama]

9. Clarence Thomas hasn't asked a question in more than four years.

4th paragraph: http://www.timesonline.com/bct_news/news_details/article/1521/2010/october/04/elena-kagan-takes-her-place-on-high-court-bench.html

[Motown_Johnny]

10. If only there were cameras there, then we could watch the conservatives eyes glaze over

when an intelligent question like that is asked

[onenote]

11. it will be interesting to see how the conservative bloc votes on this

I'm sure it has occurred to Scalia and friends that they risk starting down a slope that would allow a woman confronted by anti-abortion protesters in front of a clinic claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress because they were waving posters calling her a murderer and showing pictures of fetuses. I don't think Scalia and company want to set that precedent.

[immoderate]

13. I think you have nailed it.

Sometimes the SCOTUS has to enforce the Bill of Rights.

--imm

[Tx4obama]

12. Photo: the new court

[JackRiddler]

14. Ginsberg looks creeped out by the guys to her right, no?

Sotomayor and Kagan are totally beaming.

[lunatica]

15. I see the Phelps more as being a public nuisance and there are laws against that

The Phelps are violating the rights of the people at the funerals to expect a certain kind of privacy. The Constitutionalists can't have it both ways. The public nuisance laws are perfectly good ones.