Posted on 09/15/2010 5:31:32 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
In response to Justice Breyer’s comments that Koran-burning may be likened to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, I’d like to indulge in a bit of dime-store psychology.
Typically, American hecklers will merely shout down speakers, throw pies at them, issue largely empty threats, and vandalize. True political violence is (thankfully) quite rare. Consequently, when courts condemn the “heckler’s veto,” they’re simply codifying constitutional common sense. How can your speech be free if petty disruptions can silence you? Why not use law enforcement to protect free speech?
The violence from Islamic radicals, on the other hand, shocks the conscience. Thousands rioting? Dozens dying? Beheadings? Torture? This level of violence is terrifying. It’s orders of magnitude beyond heckling. The manageable heckler’s veto becomes the unmanageable beheader’s veto, and judges have trouble formulating a response that protects speech and human life.
But here’s the sad reality: The violence exists no matter what we do (or don’t) say. When thousands rioted in Kashmir — ostensibly because of Terry Jones — and 18 men died, can anyone argue that the region would have been peaceful but for the threatened Koran-burning? Islamic terror has existed through virtually every American administration since Truman. It is our very existence that inflames Islamic radicals, not any given act by even the crankiest citizens in our 300 million–strong community.
Bill Clinton had Yassir Arafat in the White House more than any other foreign leader, and radicals bombed the World Trade Center, bombed our embassies, attacked the USS Cole, and hatched the 9/11 plot. George W. Bush went out of his way to portray Islam as a religion of peace, and Hamas, Hezbollah, the Mahdi militia, Fatah, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban launched violent campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza, Indonesia, Britain, Spain, the West Bank, and Lebanon. Barack Obama “changed the tone” in Cairo, and we still face the same radicals with the same intentions while fending off attempted bombings in Times Square and in the air over Detroit.
If we can’t possibly appease the enemy, why even contemplate giving up our freedoms? If heads will roll even if Korans are handled with kid gloves (literally), why preemptively surrender a core part of our constitutional identity? No court ruling can stop Islamic terror, but court rulings can limit our liberty. Let’s leave our constitutional doctrine alone and trust our military to protect our lives.
The Supreme Court has ruled that we don’t even have any property rights if the govt. decides that someone else will pay them more in taxes for the same real estate. Forget about arguing with these people. We have only two choices: revolution via the ballot box, as happened yesterday, or revolution in the streets and fields, which our ancestors resorted to only a few centuries ago.
I’m really hoping (but a little pessimistic) that Breyer simply didn’t think the thing through. If the limit on any Constitutionally-protected right is what violent people may do when it is exercised, then there are no such rights. The purpose of government is to protect the citizen from violent criminality, not to justify it.
Did you know that during the French Revolution, approximately 60% of aristocrats who were apprehended were executed? This compares to 80% the Old Regime judiciary.
Just saying.
I’m really hoping (but a little pessimistic) that Breyer simply didn’t think the thing through.
************
He is not very smart. Truly, his is a plodding and mediocre intellect, to be kind. This is paired with being wrong in his moral and political instincts.
The guy is an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court . Isn't this what we pay him to do - think things through? Plus, he quoted a case that, in the intervening years, has been HIGHLY narrowed, to the point of virtual reversal.
The other part that really bothered me was the set-up of the question to Breyer, which was premised that speech matters more because global distribution is virtually instantaneous with the ubiquity of the internet. Is that a compelling reason to limit someone's speech - because a whole bunch of people can hear it quickly or in another country?
If the answer is yes, how long until Limbaugh is pulled off the air?
Islamic terror has existed through virtually every American administration since Truman.
That would be since the Washington Administration (the barbary pirates were raiding shipping since the 16th century,) while Jefferson was the first President to do something about it.
Mark
Sometimes I shake my head in wonderment that so many stupid people get on the bench to judge law. This jerk couldn’t outthink an 8th grader from a non government school..
I'd be a lot pessimistic. As they say, it ain't rocket science. He meant exactly what he said.
Exactly. Breyer also stated that "cases need to be brought" to settle the matter of "what the theater actually is." The Left wants control of the internet and all free communications so badly they can taste it. After what they witnessed yesterday, I expect them to bump up their efforts in that area a few notches.
Even if the answer is yes, it is still Breyer's answer. His alone. Essentially 'pulled out of his ass' in an inteview. There are eight more opinions to consider before we need to get too nervous. We also need a complaint, and that hasn't happened yet either. Breyer, in my uneducated opinion is not the brightest bulb on the tree. But if actual arguments on this issue were to take place before the court, I'm betting that his opinion would be different than the nonsense we have from him here.
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.