In other words, hyper-violence trumps freedom of speech

[Quantum Windbag]

It is pathetic that a street gang masquerading as a religion has gained such a reputation for violence that it is threaten the long established foundations of western culture.
Its embarrassing we fear violence more than we respect truth and freedom.

As if burning a Koran is one of the long established foundations of western culture. And, as if burning a Koran demonstrates respect truth and freedom.

It may, or may not, be one of the foundations of Western culture, but is definitely part of American legal culture. This was clearly established in Texas v Johnson.

a claim that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. Our precedents do not countenance such a presumption. On the contrary, they recognize that a principal “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or … even stirs people to anger."

Why is this concept so hard for some people to grasp? If you get to restrict speech because you find it offensive, then so do I, and I find almost everything you say offensive to my freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ever since I read the thing 30 years ago, I have felt Justice Holme's opinion was piss poor logic, worse law, and contrary to the plain text in front of him.

Especially in the case in front of the court, the damn theater was on fire.

It is one of the worst opinions ever to come out of the court.

 

[Charles_Main]

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. 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?”
Rest here>>>
​

That is some of the worst legal reasoning I have ever seen.

He should have just said. In a time of war not all speech is free. This will endanger our Troops in the field, and our National Security as a whole.

That would have held up better to legal scrutiny.

His logic in this is really flawed, and naive as hell.

 

[Nosmo King]

It is pathetic that a street gang masquerading as a religion has gained such a reputation for violence that it is threaten the long established foundations of western culture.
Its embarrassing we fear violence more than we respect truth and freedom.

As if burning a Koran is one of the long established foundations of western culture. And, as if burning a Koran demonstrates respect truth and freedom.

No, standing up to arm twisting bullies and holding truth above fear ,those are the traditions I was referring to.

And whenever you are offended, say by a flag burner or someone submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine, what is your reaction? Do you see these offenses as standing up to arm twisting bullies and holding truth above fear?

Would your defense of the long established foundations of western culture be as passionate then?

Or is it wiser not to offend and wrap yourself in a twisted view of patriotism?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

As if burning a Koran is one of the long established foundations of western culture. And, as if burning a Koran demonstrates respect truth and freedom.

No, standing up to arm twisting bullies and holding truth above fear ,those are the traditions I was referring to.

And whenever you are offended, say by a flag burner or someone submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine, what is your reaction? Do you see these offenses as standing up to arm twisting bullies and holding truth above fear?

Would your defense of the long established foundations of western culture be as passionate then?

Or is it wiser not to offend and wrap yourself in a twisted view of patriotism?

Ive never been offend by flag burning or art. I like Serrano, having seen more of it than just one lesser work.
I object to tax payer money going to support it.

Im offended by jingoistic clown parades , bank bailouts, the federal reserve bank and illegal aliens on the dole.

I also dont much care for internet psychics who couldn't find their own ass with both hand and a bloodhound.
I wrote what I meant .Rather than distort what I believe, spend your time in a more fruitful pursuit.,
Kill yourself, you bag of smashed assholes.

No, standing up to arm twisting bullies and holding truth above fear ,those are the traditions I was referring to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This time the case did not come before the supreme court; sometime in the future another person seeking publicity (or simply to be noticed), or one easily influenced by others and lacking reasoning skills will act out in a manner the Pator Roberts threatened.
Maybe a Mosque will be fired bombed, or an Imam assassinated, or an image of Muhammad desecrated and the result will be property damage and or the injury and deaths of innocents.
Suits will be filed and defendants, including s/he who uttered, published, harmed or desecrated will be named as well as insurance companies and government agencies and all others.
Eventually the matter will be 'settled', likely by a USSC decision, and likely one that is 5-4.
Will unfettered free speech survive? Will a local agency be able to restrain speech as The Court decided in Bong hits for Jesus? Will the right to yell fire in a crowded theater be restrined prior to being uttered (and how?).
How about them Justices!
Not being a member of the bar, I find legal arguments fascinating and entertaining; sadly sometimes decison using the tightest reasoning rejects common sense. Of course burning the Koran is tantamount to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The result of doing so is predictable and innocents will be harmed.
IMO the local sheriff ought to have taken Pastor Roberts into custody, and in a perp walk had a press conference informing the world that Pastor Roberts represented a danger to himself and others and was being detained in a local psychiatric hospital for evaluation.
It might not solve the problem, but in a very practical way demonstrate to the world not all Americans are fucked up, sadly too many are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And whenever you are offended, say by a flag burner or someone submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine, what is your reaction? Do you see these offenses as standing up to arm twisting bullies and holding truth above fear?

Would your defense of the long established foundations of western culture be as passionate then?

Or is it wiser not to offend and wrap yourself in a twisted view of patriotism?

Unless you can point to him advocating violence and terror it doesn't matter if he calls it sticking up to bullies or righteous anger. The problem is not the offensive action, it is the reaction to it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...or an image of Muhammad desecrated and the result will be property damage and or the injury and deaths of innocents.

Thanks, that was funny. Islam forbids images of Muhammad, the very idea is a desecration. How can you defend something that you know nothing about? That is the problem with everyone like you, you have no idea what Islam believes, says, or does, and you refuse to accept that anyone is smatrter, or more informed, than you, so you have to assume everyone is a bigot. The only possible alternative to coming to that conclusion is admitting you are misinformed and wrong, and that is impossible for you.

 

[Nosmo King]

And whenever you are offended, say by a flag burner or someone submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine, what is your reaction? Do you see these offenses as standing up to arm twisting bullies and holding truth above fear?

Would your defense of the long established foundations of western culture be as passionate then?

Or is it wiser not to offend and wrap yourself in a twisted view of patriotism?

Unless you can point to him advocating violence and terror it doesn't matter if he calls it sticking up to bullies or righteous anger. The problem is not the offensive action, it is the reaction to it.

I disagree. The problem is the offensive action. Every culture can be offended. Offending that culture is not a constructive thing but destructive.

Continually offending other cultures is not something enshrined in the constitution. It is something all humanity must come to grips with and try their level best to stop.

 

[daveman]

It is pathetic that a street gang masquerading as a religion has gained such a reputation for violence that it is threaten the long established foundations of western culture.
Its embarrassing we fear violence more than we respect truth and freedom.

As if burning a Koran is one of the long established foundations of western culture. And, as if burning a Koran demonstrates respect truth and freedom.

No more so...nor no less so...than burning the American flag.

I think you have a right to burn your own property should you so desire.

 

[daveman]

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. 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?”
Rest here>>>
​

I think that they will have to do a powerful lot of convincing to make anyone believe that this is equivalent to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Not really. Anyone who opposed the burning because it would insult Islam feels that way.

 

[daveman]

Its embarrassing we fear violence more than we respect truth and freedom.

I think this is one of the most astounding things I've ever heard. Great caption.

And yet the left told the right that anyone who opposed the GZ mosque did so because they fear Islam.

 

[daveman]

This time the case did not come before the supreme court; sometime in the future another person seeking publicity (or simply to be noticed), or one easily influenced by others and lacking reasoning skills will act out in a manner the Pator Roberts threatened.
Maybe a Mosque will be fired bombed, or an Imam assassinated, or an image of Muhammad desecrated and the result will be property damage and or the injury and deaths of innocents.
Suits will be filed and defendants, including s/he who uttered, published, harmed or desecrated will be named as well as insurance companies and government agencies and all others.
Eventually the matter will be 'settled', likely by a USSC decision, and likely one that is 5-4.
Will unfettered free speech survive? Will a local agency be able to restrain speech as The Court decided in Bong hits for Jesus? Will the right to yell fire in a crowded theater be restrined prior to being uttered (and how?).
How about them Justices!
Not being a member of the bar, I find legal arguments fascinating and entertaining; sadly sometimes decison using the tightest reasoning rejects common sense. Of course burning the Koran is tantamount to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The result of doing so is predictable and innocents will be harmed.
IMO the local sheriff ought to have taken Pastor Roberts into custody, and in a perp walk had a press conference informing the world that Pastor Roberts represented a danger to himself and others and was being detained in a local psychiatric hospital for evaluation.
It might not solve the problem, but in a very practical way demonstrate to the world not all Americans are fucked up, sadly too many are.

Ladies and gentlemen, the leftist version of "freedom": Offend somebody (but only a leftist special interest group) and go to jail.

 

[Trajan]

its always been my impression that it is far better and more in keeping with the republics spirit and const. that cultural machinations are handled by the elected branch(s), not legislated from the bench, any bench.

 

[Gunny]

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. 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?”
Rest here>>>
​

If anyone would know lefty, it'd be YOU and your ilk. So how come it's okay to burn the flag of this Nation but not literature from a religion you don't believe in?

If talking shit were fire, every Holy Bible in the world would have been destroyed by you God-haters.

 

[ConHog]

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. 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?”
Rest here>>>
​

If anyone would know lefty, it'd be YOU and your ilk. So how come it's okay to burn the flag of this Nation but not literature from a religion you don't believe in?

If talking shit were fire, every Holy Bible in the world would have been destroyed by you God-haters.

It's simple. They are so dumb that they hate a religion which has done nothing to them, while condemning anyone who takes any negative attitudes towards a religion which would gladly destroy them.

I compare the fools to the wife who is being beat up by her husband and then suddenly turns on any would be protectors and starts beating on them while defending the asshole who was beating her.

They are stupid and pathetic, and NO amount of reasoning will get through their heads.

 

[jillian]

There's already a thread on this subject... and he raised a question that he believes the court will have to address...

don't you people EVER read?

 

[jillian]

Not really. Anyone who opposed the burning because it would insult Islam feels that way.

you don't think there's a difference between opposing the burning of books and the acknowledgment that such act WOULD be constitutionally protected? really?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree. The problem is the offensive action. Every culture can be offended. Offending that culture is not a constructive thing but destructive.

Continually offending other cultures is not something enshrined in the constitution. It is something all humanity must come to grips with and try their level best to stop.

If I find something you say or do offensive do I get to shut you down?

Whether you like it or not, the Constitution does enshrine being offensive, because no one ever has a problem with unoffensive speech or actions. Humanity does not have to strive to stop offense, it needs to grow to the point that it is not offended by assholes. The problem is not the assholes, it is the jerks who let them push their buttons.

 

[daveman]

Not really. Anyone who opposed the burning because it would insult Islam feels that way.

you don't think there's a difference between opposing the burning of books and the acknowledgment that such act WOULD be constitutionally protected? really?

Generally speaking, the people afraid of insulting Islam don't much give a damn about the Constitution anyway.