In short, government can ban your speech if “societal costs” outweigh the benefit of your freedom. I agree with what she was trying to accomplish in United States v Stevens. Your freedom isn’t unlimited and you can’t view/distribute child pornography. But read the full quote:

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.

That seems to indicate that the government has more power to limit freedom than simply in cases where videos show heinous crimes being committed. It seems Kagan believes any speech rights can be limited if the government decides undefined “societal costs” from the speech are too burdensome.

At the very least her position requires clarification before the Senate.

Via Ace.