Posted on 11/16/2010 3:58:34 PM PST by NormsRevenge
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Don't expect a Facebook friend request from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer any time soon.
The 72-year-old justice said in a speech at Vanderbilt Law School on Tuesday that he was perplexed when he recently saw the film "The Social Network" about the origins of Facebook.
But Breyer said the film illustrates his argument that modern conditions — like the development of the social-networking site — should inform justices when interpreting a Constitution written in the 18th century.
"If I'm applying the First Amendment, I have to apply it to a world where there's an Internet, and there's Facebook, and there are movies like ... 'The Social Network,' which I couldn't even understand," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
movies like ... ‘The Social Network,’ which I couldn’t even understand,” he said.
—
Here’s another nomination for a FR Movies thread
Movies I didn’t understand.
Godzilla V. Gamron
PS.. I bet Breyer did inhale.. v. Clinton
He just came out with a book.. his latest book, ‘Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View.’
Movies I didn’t understand:
Jacobs Ladder
If he really did die in Vietnam, but didn’t know it until the ghost of his dead son told him, then how the heck was he able to come home and conceive a son that would later get killed and return as a ghost to tell him he never came home???
arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Recommended movies: Ronin, Being There and Idiocracy.
Clinton appointee 1994
—
in a recent case dealing with a California law regulating the sale or rental of violent video games to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy pressed a skeptical state lawyer on whether the v-chip blocking device, rather than a state law, could be used to keep children away from the games.
“V-chips won’t work?” Kennedy asked, before the lawyer politely explained they are limited to television programming.
The part of the movie where he was back home was the delusions he had between the time he was wounded and the time he expired. He was in a sort of strange limbo prior to finding peace and letting go. Jacob’s Ladder title is the clime he made to heaven. The child i think is one that he had lost prior to the trip to Nam and gave him the reason to move on to see him.
Any excuse to extend the govt’s power via the cammerce clause is good enough for Breyer.
A judge’s view:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703376504575491871753235474.html
I despise this man.
ML/NJ
Wonder on which country that book is based? AFAIK, America is a Republic.
I think Breyer is a very smart justice, and I hope he stays on for two more years, then enjoys a happy retirement.
Breyer, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, said his views contrast with originalist members like Scalia, whose approach focuses on giving a fair reading to the words of the Constitution as they were meant when they were written.An argument that the Constitution can't be understood because society has changed is an argument that we have no basis for our law. We have Article V. It is up to SCOTUS to see to it that amendments to the Constitution are considered if practice diverges from constitutional theory. If the law is bad, enforce it and force it to be changed.. . . Breyer said he disagrees with those who argue that originalism is "a good system because it will keep the subjective impulses of the judge under control."
But the reality is that the Constitution is really quite good. For example, if we would adhere to the principle of freedom of the press as a right of the people, we would not allow monopolies such as AP to dominate the press.
That’s fine, as long as they always follow the Constitution in doing so.
“For example, if we would adhere to the principle of freedom of the press as a right of the people, we would not allow monopolies such as AP to dominate the press.”
Huh? What about Reuters and the other wire services? And what’s stopping you from starting your own wire service?
facebook=more efficient town crier
internet = comvergence of newspaper and coffee house/cafe
nothing is really changing Breyer is just technically foolish and is trying to fit his view by twisting reality.
Huh? What about Reuters and the other wire services? And what’s stopping you from starting your own wire service?“For example, if we would adhere to the principle of freedom of the press as a right of the people, we would not allow monopolies such as AP to dominate the press.”
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam SmithIn the source of that quote, Smith admits that it is impossible to entirely prevent tradesmen from communicating, but he emphasizes that nothing should be done by the government to facilitate, let alone instigate, such meetings.And of course when the "same trade" in question is newspaper printing, communication among them becomes all the mor inevitable. It is not that the AP is still able to exert the complete monopoly which it once enjoyed - but the crucial effect of the wire services has been to homogenize the newspapers (and other outlets of journalism).
Without wire services, newspapers had no information which the readers could not, in principle, obtain from other sources than the newspaper. As a result (and also a cause) of that, newspapers were not usually dailies - many were weeklies, and some had no deadline at all. So newspapers tended to be about the opinions of the printers, not about "hard news."
With a wire service - AP or other - comes the expense of paying for the service, and the need to exploit the strories it makes available. Suddenly the newspapers have incentive to promote the idea that the sources of the stories are trustworth - hence the fiction that all journalists are objective. The imperative to promote that fiction homogenizes all of journalism. If you accept and promote that fiction and you do not work for a newspaper or other journalism outlet, you are "progressive" or "liberal" or "moderate" - any positive label that they can promote you with - except "objective." If you accept and promote that fiction and you do work for a newspaper, you are in the clique, you are "an objective journalist."
If you do not accept and promote that fiction, you are "not objective, not a journalist." In fact, you are evil. The full propaganda power of journalism becomes focused on assuring that you have a negative image in the minds of the public. You are labeled a conservative who doesn't believe in progress, a Neanderthal, a "Right Wing Nut. And, of course, a racist.
Because of the existence of the wire services, journalism functions as a monopoly. The conceit of journalistic objectivity is absurd. If you claim that you are objective, you prove that you are not objective about yourself.
Journalism and ObjectivityWhy the Associated Press is Pernicious to the Public Interest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.