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-
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s exactly my question.BREYER: Yes. Well, perhaps that will be answered by- if it’s answered, by our court. It will be answered over time, in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases.
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:
…Justice Breyer omits an even more significant point: the responses that he views as entirely predictable and understandable are in itself a violation of the law.
Arson. Vandalism. Assault. Disorderly conduct. Rioting. Inciting a riot. Attempted murder. Murder.
It’s a form of blaming the victim. “Yes, you didn’t break any laws when you burned that Koran. But you still had it coming. You pretty much deserved what will happen to you. We might try to protect you, but don’t count on it.”
I thought we were past that.
I guess not.
It’s just an absurd notion to think that the standard for when our government can prohibit speech and forms of expression is if it might cause people to act violently and illegally.
The guy shouldn’t of planned this book burning but he has every right to do it. Just as much as the liberal does to burn our flag.
I despise both acts but will defend their right to do it with every single breath.
See author page
You’ve hit the point right on target, Curt.
All over the planet (and now an attempt is underway in the UN) Muslims have made disparagement of the Koran a crime.
Note that disparagement is NOT telling LIES about the Koran.
Look it up.
Disparagement is merely talking about the Koran in a less than reverential manner.
One Aussie court judge ruled that a man could NOT use quotes from the Koran to defend himself from a hate crime (even though those quotes would have cleared him).
Why not?
Because the man was an EX-Muslim, and therefore ANY use by him of the Koran equaled a disparagement.
Later, after serving some time behind bars, his conviction was overturned, based partly on this issue.
In place after place across the globe people have pre-emptively put themselves under Sharia Law thinking that by being compliant they will have peace with the Muslims in their midst.
This has not worked anywhere it has been tried.
I hope other Supreme Court Justices are still more grounded in the US Constitution than some international law than this one.
The money part of the quote is where Breyer basically says it’ll just take a few cases to “force people to think”.
In other words it won’t be made illegal to criticize Islam in one fell swoop, No, it’ll just take a few cases to set de facto precedent.
No fuss, no muss.
So, if case by case it will become illegal to criticize Islam, will it also become illegal to be critical of Christianity or Judaism as all religions should be equal under the law?
Then a lot of liberals will be doing a stint in jail.
There really needs to be a way to get these judges thrown off the bench.
It was close enough to be disturbing for a Supreme Court Justice to be so unclear.
Er, um, oops……
Breyer asks for a do-over
Dawa and getting public school boys to pray in a Mosque in Boston.
One of those boys in the video is Jewish!
Can you imagine if a public school got caught even allowing Christian prayer?
SCOTUS robed ones don’t generally answer questions directly, and always give another question in response unless they are writing an opinion. As a liberal Supreme, Breyer’s slant doesn’t come in the least bit surprising. However before you leap to conclusions, you may want to figure out where his mentality comes from… and that’s Virginia vs Black 2003, where Breyer was part of the majority opinion that burning crosses is a Constitutional right, but that the intent to intimidate was not. Therefore nothing is clear cut. Was an act done to intimidate? Proof comes in court evidence… not assumptions or emotions. And like all SCOTUS opinions, addresses a specific set of circumstances/case, and not a one-size-fits-all opinion.
Therefore, while I am unsurprised at Breyer’s commentary, I’m not necessarily alarmed until he’s part of a case with specifics that are blatantly anti-Constitutional.
Now if you want to lynch mob someone for violating Constitutional rights, you better start heating up the tar and gathering the feathers for NJ’s Chris Christie instead. To approve, and not question, the transit authorities firing for the distasteful, but still Constitutional, actions of an idiot standing at GZ to burn Qu’ran pages for his 15 minutes of fame is blatantly out of line.
Could you please tell us, Mata Harley why was the person burning pages from the pedophile’s book on GZ an “idiot”?