Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

August 3, 2011 -

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently attended the Aspen Institute’s McCloskey Speaker Series, in Aspen Colorado. During a conversation with moderator Elliot Gerson, Kagan reflected on her experiences as a new Justice, the misconception that Justices don't like each other and the case she found the most difficult to rule on during this term. It turns out that the case she is referring to as most difficult was Brown v. EMA, commonly referred to as the California Violent Video Game Law."

Kagan told Gerson that this case was particularly difficult for her because she could see merit on both sides of the legal battle:

"It was the case where I struggled most and thought most often I’m on the wrong side of it," she said. "You could see why the government would have wanted to do this and you can see the kind of danger it was worried about, the kind of effects these extremely violent video games have on young people."

Kagan said that it was easy to see what the State was trying to do and by all accounts it seemed like a reasonable effort. Her problem was with its constitutionality at the end of the day:

"But I couldn’t figure out how to square that with our First Amendment precedence and precedence is very important to me," she said about her vote to invalidate the law. "I sweated over that mightily."

Kagan highlighted the court’s position on the First Amendment and how it has been "extremely protective" of free speech:

"I think what you have to say, and people have been saying this, is this is a court that is extremely protective of the First Amendment and extremely protective of speech," she said. "There is no question the court has a very expansive view of the First Amendment."

You can read more of Kagan's comments on Aspen Daily News.

Posted in

Comments

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

"I know a place where the constitution doesn't mean squat!"

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

So in other words, maybe this bill WAS a good idea but the 1st Amendment was the ONLY thing stopping it? 

How about the bill was a stupid idea from the start? How about the bill actually hindered parenting? How about games DON'T have "the kind of effects these extremely violent video games have on young people."

Thank God for the 1st Amendment because people have to fall back on THAT instead of common sense.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

As Scalia said in the decision of the case, "disgust is not a valid reason to restrict expression". I'm sure many of the justices were horrified by some of the extreme violence in some these games, i.e. - Manhunt, Postal 2, ect. but in the end they are still protected by the First Amendment, as the whole point of the Freedom of Speech clause is too protect unpopular speech from government regulations and restrictions.

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

"But I couldn’t figure out how to square that with our First Amendment precedence and precedence is very important to me."

Notice what she says is important to her: precedence.  Not the First Amendment itself.

"This is a court that is extremely protective of the First Amendment and extremely protective of speech.  There is no question the court has a very expansive view of the First Amendment."

The way she says that, it sounds like she thinks the court is too​ protective of speech, has a too​ expansive view of the First Amendment.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like she would give the green light to censorship if she thought she could get away with it.  Splendid.  :/

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

You need to read between the lines after you study up a bit more on the concept of common law and in common law precedence is everything which is what creates the common part of common law. There is no legal precedence for censoring art for violence anywhere but there is precedence for censorship for other reasons provided it is limited for that specific purpose and nothing more like banning children from having access to pornography while leaving it legal for adults to buy it. What her interview tells me is that she does sympathize with what they were trying to do but was willing to set aside her personal opinions so that she could do her job the way she is supposed to and using the interpretations and limitations of the first amendment that precedence sets before her.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Well yes.  In the US legal system, precedence trumps constitutional arguments.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Yes, but precedence can always be over ruled by a future court or legislation from the government. So it is not the end all be all.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

The easiest, simplest, most obvious case is the one Kagen sweated over the most?  Man, that's frightening beyond belief.

"Her problem was with its constitutionality at the end of the day:"

And, you know, a few other niggling facts like the problem the law was aiming to fix doesn't exist, it would have done nothing to alleviate it even if it did, and it would be wholly infeasible and impractical to actually enforce if passed.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Let's be fair: She joined Scalia's opinion which said all that and more.

On a legal discourse level, cases like this are always difficult for a legal mind to decide because there's no direct precedent of any kind.  There is now, though!

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Reasonable effort?  There is nothing reasonable about censorship. ever.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

Hmm, if I'm reading right, I'm getting a "I may not like it ,but it is still speech and thus protected" vibe, which I may argue is the right way to look at this.

Re: Justice Kagan Talks About Free Speech, Brown v. EMA

I agree, and I'd actually like to see her on the parent groups' side of the debate, so that she could bring rational thought and they might actually see some of their goals accomplished. Because right now they go about it the wrong way, and the ESRB has been doing all the work to actually keep these products age appropriate.

Imagine if the groups that put thousands of dollars into promoting the law had instead promoted the ESRB ratings, and helped educate parents on how to make appropriate decisions based on the ratings and being involved. I think that's what Kagan would support and it makes sense.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightWii U Games finding Solidarity with PC Gamers :(08/19/2014 - 6:09pm
Zenbuy all of the bad DLC before they even showed the main content everyone was waiting for. I paid for it, I wanted it, and I got tossed aside.08/19/2014 - 4:10pm
ZenIanC: Yep, both Call of Duty games did the same thing holding back all DLC and then releasing the day one map 2 YEARS later out of the blue. Why play what they won't support. Warner Bros canceled their DLC after promising it because Wii U owners didn't08/19/2014 - 4:09pm
Andrew EisenShe's the developer of Depression Quest. It's an interesting game (although I wouldn't call it fun) and you can check it out for free at depressionquest.com.08/19/2014 - 2:48pm
Sleakerwhat's all this Zoe quinn stuff all over and should I even bother looking it up?08/19/2014 - 2:37pm
IanCExactly Zen. The third one had random delays to the DLC and they just came out seemingly at random with no warning, and the 4th they didn't even bother.08/19/2014 - 2:31pm
ZenI may have bought both AC games on Wii U, but WHY would anyone be expected to get the game when they came out MONTHS before release that they were skipping DLC and ignoring the game? They poisoned the market on themselves then blamed Nintendo players.08/19/2014 - 1:27pm
Papa MidnightIn review, that's fair, Andrew. I just tend to take Gawker articles with a lot of salt, and skepticism.08/19/2014 - 12:07pm
Matthew WilsonFor one has a English speaking support team for devs. Devs have said any questions they have, were translated in to Japanese. then back in to English. 08/19/2014 - 11:41am
Adam802they need to realize the "wii-fad" era is pretty much over and start rebooting some old great franchises like they are doing with star fox08/19/2014 - 11:39am
Adam802unfortunatly, this seems to represent 3rd party's position on the wiiU in general. Nintendo has always sucessfully relied on 1st party but now since 3rd parties and console "power" are so important this gen, they're in trouble.08/19/2014 - 11:38am
IanCOkay, so what can Nintendo do to these 3rd parties? Huh? If a company release games late with missing content then of course it won't sell. Seems simple to me.08/19/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenSakurai and Co. REALLY need to go back in there and re-pose Samus. She is so incredibly broken.08/19/2014 - 11:06am
ZippyDSMleeUntill Nin starts paying out the azz or doing much much more to help 3rd party games development, the WIIU is dead in the water.....08/19/2014 - 11:03am
ZippyDSMleehttps://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=316135481893472&id=22417313775637408/19/2014 - 11:02am
ZippyDSMlee*gets out the popcorn* this will be fun08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenIt's not as simple as "Nintendo gamers don't buy AC games."08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenACIII was late, missing DLC (so was IV) and was on a brand new platform that had never had the series competing against two platforms that had an install base of 80 million a piece who had all the previous games.08/19/2014 - 11:01am
Andrew EisenI'd say TechDirt is being a bit unfair towards Kotaku's article to the point of slightly mischaracterizing it. It's not really bad but, while a little muddled, neither is the Kotaku article.08/19/2014 - 10:59am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician