Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wrote in a 1996 article entitled "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine" that "redistribution of speech" is not "itself an illegitimate end" for government.
As first reported by Matt Cover at the Media Research Center's news wing CNSNews.com, Kagan offers up this gem:
"If there is an ‘overabundance' of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action -- which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate -- then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,' rather than skew, public discourse."
So if talk radio suffers from an "overabundance" of conservative voices, government action to "un-skew" this particular public discourse is just fine by her.
Hello so-called "Fairness" Doctrine. Not to mention Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's liberally "skewed" interpretations of FCC "media diversity" and "localism" rules.
Ms. Kagan also asserts that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.
"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."
Sounds a lot like a set-up for the fact-free assertions being made by the media and liberals against Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, the TEA Partiers and conservatives in general that they are all stoking the flames of racism and hate, does it not?
So perhaps they'd better shut us up. For the public good, you understand.
To the Senators on the Judiciary Committee I say, this raises a great many questions which should be asked of Ms. Kagan. By a stroke of luck, you will soon have her before you, in a forum where you are afforded the opportunity to ask her these questions.
We sincerely hope that you do.