Skip to comments.Did Justice Breyer Say There Is No Right To Burn Korans In First Amendment?
Posted on 09/15/2010 3:47:03 PM PDT by Starman417
Eh.....I'm not really sure. To be fair to Justice Breyer he gives a non-answer to George Stephanopoulos's question, basically answering with a question, but his mention of Holmes is unsettling and the whole reason for this post. Maybe not to attack Breyer as much as to attack those who say burning Korans shouldn't be protected.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, when we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law. When you think about the internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30, can threaten to burn the Koran and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment, to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of what we can allow and protect?
BREYER: Well, in a sense, yes. In a sense, no. People can express their views in debate. No matter how awful those views are. In debate. A conversation. People exchanging ideas. That's the model. So that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot. Those core values remain. How they apply can-
STEPHANOPOULOS: The conversation is now global.
BREYER: Indeed. And you can say, with the internet, you can say this. Holmes said, it doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Well people will be trampled to death. What is the crowded theater today? What is-...
I understand that the Pastor's decision to do this book burning is in bad taste but for anyone to actually suggest that this act is akin to yelling fire in a building is ludicrous. One act is deliberately done to cause understandable panic and put people's lives in imminent danger due to this panic. Would anyone consider pulling a fire alarm in a building a form of speech or expression covered by the 1st Amendment?
The other act, the book burning, is definitely a form of speech and expression...as much as a flag burning is. Oh sure, it will piss Muslims off, and that could cause some nuts to commit violence, but there is no imminent danger, no panic.
Another point by Jay Tea:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
No it's not. The Constitution is not "global".
It still applies, and that means...who cares what the madmen think. Let them riot.
Justice Breyer, you are a Godless, lost soul. In no way do you have ANY right to incorporate the values of the world, almost all of which conflict with the values of the Bible, into our body of law or even into our thinking. If we do, we become like the world and will be governed and live as they do. This will lead to totalitarian government and constant violent conflict in society over disagreements. To even open your mouth and suggest such a thing is so far beyond words it escapes description. It clearly shows the complete deficiency in your upbringing and moral training.
That's the thing about professors in government and politics.
They love to deliver little speeches that only confuse things.
Breyer wanted to promote an abstract idea that may or may not have much to do with how the court might decide a specific case.
I can burn a flag or any book in the U.S.A. NO EXCEPTIONS!
Islam cannot tolerate Freedom of Speech. Why? Because there is no Free Will in Islam — Muhammed said so. There is no debate over the Qur’an or any of the other Muslim texts, unlike exists in Judaism and Christianity.
Islam’s major tenets violate the U.S.Constitution. It should be outlawed in this country.
Breyer went on to say determining “what the theater is” would be accomplished by cases being brought.
I’m telling you, folks, the next step these guys are going to take is to strangle free communication. The want control of the internet so bad they can taste it. I think after yesterday it might have been bumped several places up the list.
If there’s any lesson to be drawn from this it’s that Liberalism in particular and Authority in general always caters to the loud, the obnoxious, the lawyered-up and the potentially violent.
They’ll happily throw YOU in jail for protesting the Islamists, cause they know YOU will go quietly while the Islamists and their allies might riot and break things and will certainly scream at and threaten them from the dock.
This is already routine in the U.K. and Old Europe where Islamist (and other radicals) are allowed to rampage freely and any ordinary folks who dare to counter-protest are rounded up and thrown in the pokey.
Sorry folks, but turning the other cheek only lets them brand you on BOTH buns.
If the theater IS on fire you have a duty to shout ‘fire.’
No, I think he said something about free speech is not yelling fire inside a crowded koran...which is burning.
Recall the Yippie definition of freedom: The ability to shout theater in a crowded fire.
I like it, I like it!
Describes California perfectly.
The Thugs rule here because the cops and the politicians are afraid of them.
So laws are only enforced against those who agree to have them enforced against them!
As Kate says over on Small Dead Animals, ( http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/ ):
“Failing to show up to riot is a failed conservative policy.”
So what Justice Breyer is saying is that because Americans do not actually do anything violent when the flag is burned or a crucifix is exhibited in a jar of urine, we have fewer protections than people who do act violently in the face of provocations.
I’m thinking he’s asking real Americans to figure out a way to change that, he just doesn’t know it. Unintended consequences, anyone?
“...Justice Breyer is saying is that because Americans do not actually do anything violent when the flag is burned or a crucifix is exhibited in a jar of urine, we have fewer protections than people who do act violently in the face of provocations.”
Yes. That is why a white person using the “N” word goes to jail and a black person using “Cracker” goes on television but no jail.
Freedom of Speech should be allowed no matter how hurtful. Breyer, like all liberals, is flat-out wrong. Those ‘hate speech’ laws should be struck from the law books.
Muslims want themselves to be exempt BECAUSE the words of Muhammed are holy and cannot be questioned — and their first step to world-wide domination is to cow the whole world into that same thinking. The next step is Sharia world-wide, one of the most discriminatory forms of law on Earth.
“...the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law.”
Nothing short of treason! Screw globalization! We have a Constitution!!
The U.S. Constitution guarantees lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. Not so in other countries, however. Let us cite foreign precedent and rid ourselves of this traitor!
“Sorry, Justice Breyer, in Slavdonia they shoot Supreme Court justices who declare themselves to be morons. Any last requests?”
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.