about-face Елены Каган

с похвальной прямотой в The Washington Post поясняется:

In contrast, the Robert’s Court pro-speech reputation mostly comes from a series of high-profile rulings about obviously hateful speech: animal crush videos (United States v. Stevens), brutally violent interactive video games sold to kids without parental consent (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association), bigoted military funeral protestors (Snyder v. Phelps), and false claims to possess the Medal of Honor (United States v. Alvarez). - Free speech and the Roberts Court: uncertain protections

и далее про роль одной Елены Каган:

In 2010, as solicitor general, she argued in Stevens that depictions of illegal animal cruelty should be deemed totally unprotected by the First Amendment. She urged the Court to reach that result by holding that “whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
...
In 2011, newly installed on the Court, Kagan provided Scalia with the crucial fifth vote in Brown, the violent video games case, for an opinion that decisively rejected the views she had espoused in Stevens as solicitor general. ... although the sale of obscenity to kids has long been regulated, quite the opposite is true of violent literature, music, and comic books (just consider Hansel & Gretel!). Because of this historic tradition, Scalia declared, the sale of gruesome videogames to minors had to be fully protected.

и еще:

As Breyer asked in Brown, for instance, “What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of [an] extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured, and killed — is also topless?”

см. также самый Верховный Суд в мире