Kagan Doesn't Believe in Freedom of Speech

For her it is all about government motive and harm:

Supreme Court should focus on whether a speaker’s message is harming the public, argued Kagan in her article.

While Kagan does not offer an exhaustive definition of ‘harm,’ she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words.

Unfortunately, we all know where this ends. Technically, Tea Partiers who call for us to "take back Washington" could be arrested for "incitement to violence" or even "government hate speech".