Posted on 09/14/2010 6:19:55 AM PDT by kristinn
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has expressed a willingness to ban protesters from burning the Koran as the modern day equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.
The Supreme Court has ruled burning the American flag in protest is protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Breyer spoke to George Stephanopoulos on ABC's Good Morning America today:
But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.
“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”
Breyer is promoting his new book, Making Our Democracy Work.
Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.
great point ExSoldier...so far, the intellectual 'safety' has been engaged...
tyrant wannabes keep talkin like this, they are removing the effective controls we have for self preservation...
That is such a cute looking kid...except for the expression of hate/determination and his jihad outfit.
Well, that’s so. But Dhimmitude is not going to sit well with Joe Sixpack or even with Jane Sixpack, the Obama-voting starry-eyed soccer mom.
“One man walking with God can change the world.” John Brown
But can you shout "movie" in a crowded firehouse?
It really shouldn't matter if we support his action or not. It is irrelevant in terms of the principle involved. Justice Breyer is what is wrong with this country and our judicial system. They want to impose their views on us regardless of what the Constitution says.
Yes. We threaten to cut off funding.
They threaten to cut off heads.
They get their way; we don’t.
It appears that the answer to that question is "yes."
yes, indeed, outnumbered, and no chance
I would bet a Sam Houston is in the wings.
can I type that?
This may be the reaction he is hoping for?
The money thing .....
Bring it on Breyer! and watch for massive nation wide civil disobedience. What a POS!
My birds don’t want that rag in their cages!
Not exactly. The case you're referring to is Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003). Breyer joined the 7-2 majority, lead by O'Connor. Oyez has a good description of the central legal holding(s) of that case. It reads...
Question:While I haven't been able to find the transcript from Breyer's conversation with Stehpi, it doesn't appear that Breyer referenced VA v. Black, but rather made mention of Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion in writing for a unanimous court in the very famous case, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?Conclusion:
Yes, but in a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, in which four other justices joined, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form, in which three other justices joined. Justice Antonin Scalia left the latter portion of the Court's conclusion to argue that the Court should vacate and remand the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court with respect to Elliott and O'Mara, so that that court could have an opportunity to construe the cross-burning statute's prima-facie-evidence provision. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concluded that the Virginia statute is unconstitutional and therefore concurred in the Court's judgment insofar as it affirmed the invalidation of Black's conviction. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
I could see an intellectual argument being made that recognizes a nexus between VA v. Black with respect to Koran burnings, but any nexus - implicit or explicit - with Schenck is laughable and frightening, all at the same time. Breyer's comments are most disturbing, and hopefully will be discussed at some length in the media.
so he’s saying (compared to shouting fire and people will die)
that burning a koran should not be allowed due to the fact people could die.
So what we have here is a flake of a judge and an American caving in like the cowards they are to islam due to them being afraid of them.
OK so if Christians now go on rampages and kill people does this mean no more making fun of Christians and no more putting crosses in piss?
So the result of this is that if you want to have the banning of speach to be legitimized, then all you have to do is get violent when someone does or says something you don't like.
The obvious response to this is to get violent when a flag is burned. Get violent when someone blasphemes Jesus or Moses or God.
Aren't these supreme court idiots supposed to be able to think things through before they speak?
was this idiot called on by the interviewer about him not following the law , the constitution or how much of a coward he is ????
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.