Justice Stephen Breyer: Is Burning Koran 'Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater?'

[jillian]

When lib zealots "ask" such "questions," they are actually making proposals for future action.

in other words, no one is supposed to question rightwingnuts because you have no answers.

only slogans.... and kneejerk reactions... and fauxrage.

thanks for your answer.

Since you appear not to be up to being at all honest tonight, let me publicly correct you.

Normally, when one says "in other words," one is under an obligation to restate what the other party actually said

You, of course, didn't even make an effor to do so.

So, no points for you, jilly.

Don't thank people for their answer when you can't even be bothered to be honest.

Now, go take a nappy.

i'm sorry. i was being honest. i don't think i'm here to phrase things in a manner you find acceptable.

and when someone calls stephen breyer a 'lib zealot', that person got the response he deserved.

and for the record... if stephen breyer is a 'lib zealot' (as opposed to a liberal justice, which probably would have been more accurate, since there is nothing of the zealot in justice breyer) then i say that i'd rather have 'lib zealots' making our decisions than rightwing extremists.

 

[Trajan]

fla. case last summer...august, sept. instructive pamphlets 'allegedly' written by nambla authors etc. on how to molest and skate etc.....it appears the DA felt he didn't have a case he could bring, siting the fight he'd have on his hands ala the aclu etc.

 

[Liability]

in other words, no one is supposed to question rightwingnuts because you have no answers.

only slogans.... and kneejerk reactions... and fauxrage.

thanks for your answer.

Since you appear not to be up to being at all honest tonight, let me publicly correct you.

Normally, when one says "in other words," one is under an obligation to restate what the other party actually said

You, of course, didn't even make an effor to do so.

So, no points for you, jilly.

Don't thank people for their answer when you can't even be bothered to be honest.

Now, go take a nappy.

i'm sorry. i was being honest. i don't think i'm here to phrase things in a manner you find acceptable.

and when someone calls stephen breyer a 'lib zealot', that person got the response he deserved.

and for the record... if stephen breyer is a 'lib zealot' (as opposed to a liberal justice, which probably would have been more accurate, since there is nothing of the zealot in justice breyer) then i say that i'd rather have 'lib zealots' making our decisions than rightwing extremists.

Bullshit. You said "in other words" and then launched into your own baseless diatribe, completely divorced from what I had posted. that makes you dishonest. You are full of shit. That's that.

And anybody who denies that Breyer is a fucking lib zealot is also full of shit on a whole other level.

You really need that nappy.

If burning a flag is pure freedom of speech then burning a fucking Qur'an can't be anything else. But Breyer floated his imbecile idea for a reason. It's what lib zealots do. Your insipid defense of that idiocy is noted, but it too is worthless.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since you appear not to be up to being at all honest tonight, let me publicly correct you.

Normally, when one says "in other words," one is under an obligation to restate what the other party actually said

You, of course, didn't even make an effor to do so.

So, no points for you, jilly.

Don't thank people for their answer when you can't even be bothered to be honest.

Now, go take a nappy.

i'm sorry. i was being honest. i don't think i'm here to phrase things in a manner you find acceptable.

and when someone calls stephen breyer a 'lib zealot', that person got the response he deserved.

and for the record... if stephen breyer is a 'lib zealot' (as opposed to a liberal justice, which probably would have been more accurate, since there is nothing of the zealot in justice breyer) then i say that i'd rather have 'lib zealots' making our decisions than rightwing extremists.

Bullshit. You said "in other words" and then launched into your own baseless diatribe, completely divorced from what I had posted. that makes you dishonest. You are full of shit. That's that.

And anybody who denies that Breyer is a fucking lib zealot is also full of shit on a whole other level.

You really need that nappy.

If burning a flag is pure freedom of speech then burning a fucking Qur'an can't be anything else. But Breyer floated his imbecile idea for a reason. It's what lib zealots do. Your insipid defense of that idiocy is noted, but it too is worthless.

Liability, are you really as stupid as you appear? I know from experience you're an arrogant jerk but I'm surprised you're dropping down to the level of a low-life RW troll. If you are a member of the bar I can only surmise you were a classmate of Monica Goodling.

 

[Liability]

i'm sorry. i was being honest. i don't think i'm here to phrase things in a manner you find acceptable.

and when someone calls stephen breyer a 'lib zealot', that person got the response he deserved.

and for the record... if stephen breyer is a 'lib zealot' (as opposed to a liberal justice, which probably would have been more accurate, since there is nothing of the zealot in justice breyer) then i say that i'd rather have 'lib zealots' making our decisions than rightwing extremists.

Bullshit. You said "in other words" and then launched into your own baseless diatribe, completely divorced from what I had posted. that makes you dishonest. You are full of shit. That's that.

And anybody who denies that Breyer is a fucking lib zealot is also full of shit on a whole other level.

You really need that nappy.

If burning a flag is pure freedom of speech then burning a fucking Qur'an can't be anything else. But Breyer floated his imbecile idea for a reason. It's what lib zealots do. Your insipid defense of that idiocy is noted, but it too is worthless.

Liability, are you really as stupid as you appear? I know from experience you're an arrogant jerk but I'm surprised you're dropping down to the level of a low-life RW troll. If you are a member of the bar I can only surmise you were a classmate of Monica Goodling.

Fly Catcher, I know from experience that you are just a piece of shit, but then again nobody expects a coherent argument or accurately-based attempts at factual refutations from an imbecile like you.

You knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) liberals are so blind to reality, it's really quite pathetic. But at least you are too grunting and ignorant to constitute too much of an embarrassment to other liberoidals.

 

[goldcatt]

Burning the flag? Free speech.
Burning the Koran? National security concern.

aside from your wacko knee-jerk reaction to the title, did you even read the article?

Oh no!!! Justice Breyer asked a question!!!! The horror!!! I realize that rightwingnuts hate when people ask questions. But really... what he ssaid was that his question:

will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Breyer, the author of “Making Our Democracy Work,” told me it’s a “rickety system” -- but it’s worked “fairly well” for a long time.

really... *shakes head*

It's the part that he thinks that there is a question that I'm having a problem with.

As has been said before, I will defend an American's right to open their mouths and act completely stupid. This extends to burning Korans, Flags, Bibles, Torah's, etc.

Look around this board just as an example, there were and are people trying to claim in the middle of the whole "debate" over koran burning that yes, it is a danger to Americans and should not be allowed. Which is patently ridiculous, but the question is out there.

Was Breyer foolish to bring it up even if he did not answer it? Maybe - no, definitely. But remember, the Justices aren't politicians - or aren't supposed to be, anyway. They don't live in the world of political doublespeak the same way an elected official does. They shouldn't get a pass, but it's wise to remember it's a different political world on the bench and the Justices aren't as used to the spotlight.

Looking at Breyer's opinions over time I highly doubt he'd come down against speech. But just in case he would, that's an extreme position that would go against all kinds of prior rulings and an example of why you need a majority to prevail. But I'm pretty confident this is a tempest in a teapot as far as any real changes in the laws are concerned.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Burning the flag? Free speech.
Burning the Koran? National security concern.

aside from your wacko knee-jerk reaction to the title, did you even read the article?

Oh no!!! Justice Breyer asked a question!!!! The horror!!! I realize that rightwingnuts hate when people ask questions. But really... what he ssaid was that his question:

will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Breyer, the author of “Making Our Democracy Work,” told me it’s a “rickety system” -- but it’s worked “fairly well” for a long time.

really... *shakes head*

He answered a question, which is a bit different than asking one. Maybe you shouldn't comment on his answer if you think it is a question.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is putting a crucifix in a jar of piss like yelling fire in a crowded theater?

 

[Liability]

Is putting a crucifix in a jar of piss like yelling fire in a crowded theater?

You seem to be overlooking the tax dollar corollary.

 

[goldcatt]

Burning the flag? Free speech.
Burning the Koran? National security concern.

aside from your wacko knee-jerk reaction to the title, did you even read the article?

Oh no!!! Justice Breyer asked a question!!!! The horror!!! I realize that rightwingnuts hate when people ask questions. But really... what he ssaid was that his question:

will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Breyer, the author of “Making Our Democracy Work,” told me it’s a “rickety system” -- but it’s worked “fairly well” for a long time.

really... *shakes head*

He answered a question, which is a bit different than asking one. Maybe you shouldn't comment on his answer if you think it is a question.

I think jillian was pointing out he didn't answer the Big Question - how does he think the rulings should go? Of course he wouldn't and can't. But if you consider that an answer it's a non-answer answer.

Breyer isn't a politician. The world of the Courts uses language in a very different way than the world of Congress or the White House. It's very precise, for one thing. Words have exact meanings as terms of art and the perspective is highly theoretical. Should Breyer have kept his audience in mind and been wiser about what he said? Absolutely. But don't read this like a campaigning Congressman's indication of intent to vote for a bill, it's a very different situation. That's all I'm saying.

Yep, Breyer should have been aware of how his words could be construed and kept his big mouth shut. But when you step back and look at it this really is no big deal.

 

[Liability]

aside from your wacko knee-jerk reaction to the title, did you even read the article?

Oh no!!! Justice Breyer asked a question!!!! The horror!!! I realize that rightwingnuts hate when people ask questions. But really... what he ssaid was that his question:

really... *shakes head*

He answered a question, which is a bit different than asking one. Maybe you shouldn't comment on his answer if you think it is a question.

I think jillian was pointing out he didn't answer the Big Question - how does he think the rulings should go? Of course he wouldn't and can't. But if you consider that an answer it's a non-answer answer.

Breyer isn't a politician. The world of the Courts uses language in a very different way than the world of Congress or the White House. It's very precise, for one thing. Words have exact meanings as terms of art and the perspective is highly theoretical. Should Breyer have kept his audience in mind and been wiser about what he said? Absolutely. But don't read this like a campaigning Congressman's indication of intent to vote for a bill, it's a very different situation. That's all I'm saying.

Yep, Breyer should have been aware of how his words could be construed and kept his big mouth shut. But when you step back and look at it this really is no big deal.

That is just not the case. When you step back and look at what he said and the implications that flow from what a SCOTUS Justice saying it entail, it is a potentially very BIG deal.

 

[Si modo]

So, as the right is accused of 'hate speech' and even of inciting hate, thus violence (what we hear about Beck, Hannity, etc.), same deal. The right can make the left stop talking?

Cool.

(Not really.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But what if someone burns a Koran in a crowded theater?

 

[goldcatt]

He answered a question, which is a bit different than asking one. Maybe you shouldn't comment on his answer if you think it is a question.

I think jillian was pointing out he didn't answer the Big Question - how does he think the rulings should go? Of course he wouldn't and can't. But if you consider that an answer it's a non-answer answer.

Breyer isn't a politician. The world of the Courts uses language in a very different way than the world of Congress or the White House. It's very precise, for one thing. Words have exact meanings as terms of art and the perspective is highly theoretical. Should Breyer have kept his audience in mind and been wiser about what he said? Absolutely. But don't read this like a campaigning Congressman's indication of intent to vote for a bill, it's a very different situation. That's all I'm saying.

Yep, Breyer should have been aware of how his words could be construed and kept his big mouth shut. But when you step back and look at it this really is no big deal.

That is just not the case. When you step back and look at what he said and the implications that flow from what a SCOTUS Justice saying it entail, it is a potentially very BIG deal.

But that's exactly what I'm saying here. There are no signals or indications here from which an implication can be drawn, other than that Breyer expects to see cases and they will be carefully considered and decided. Not if you read it remembering how the Justices look at things. You know if they really want to send a signal, they have other and far better methods for doing that.

I could read that just as easily as a signal to supporters of free speech not to get their panties in a bunch, that speech will be reaffirmed and a bright line drawn as far as speech and national security in a series of cases over time. There's a lot of wiggle room in that non-answer he gave.

But the bottom line is this, in a world where liberal Justices have been smacked around over and over again for their "activist" expansion of civil rights over perceived national security, do you really think a Breyer will suddenly change his mind and come down for censoring speech in favor of a national security argument that holds no legal merit whatsoever? Think about his authored decisions over time, and do the math.

 

[chanel]

Stephanopolis thought it was a big enough deal to write about. His interview; his blog. Just sayin...

 

[airborneandy]

I'm going to excercise my 1st Amendment rights. This judge is a stupid f'ing poor excuse for a judge. There...I feel better, especially knowing that he can't sue me for libel.

On the serious side, this guy knows that what he's saying is BS. The speech/expression must be intended and likey to create lawless action before it is illegal. And that stipulation is also intended to only apply to the United States of America. Who gives a crap what some nut-job towel-head in the middle east is going to do if an American burns a book? That's terrorism at it's finest, and in my opionion, the judge is a big f'ing Islamass kissing wimp.

It's OK for 100 white-hooded rednecks to walk down the streets of Meridian Mississippi with buring crosses, chanting racial slurs directed at blacks that make me so made I want to go kick their asses, and I'm white. But let's be concerned about the camel rider who wipes his ass with his hand and how he feels about it? SHUT THE F UP!

I don't agree that he should burn the books. It's distasteful and as a Christian, I think he should follow Christ's example. WWJD, right? BUT, I do support his right to do it, along with the dirtbags that picketed the funerals of my brothers-in-arms that died fighting for that right. It's a tough one, but the right choice.

 

[Liability]

But what if someone burns a Koran in a crowded theater?

Desecrating a PLACE of ART?!? Intentionally causing air pollution (i.e., smoke in the form of CARBON?)

The libs would have a fit!

 

[Liability]

I think jillian was pointing out he didn't answer the Big Question - how does he think the rulings should go? Of course he wouldn't and can't. But if you consider that an answer it's a non-answer answer.

Breyer isn't a politician. The world of the Courts uses language in a very different way than the world of Congress or the White House. It's very precise, for one thing. Words have exact meanings as terms of art and the perspective is highly theoretical. Should Breyer have kept his audience in mind and been wiser about what he said? Absolutely. But don't read this like a campaigning Congressman's indication of intent to vote for a bill, it's a very different situation. That's all I'm saying.

Yep, Breyer should have been aware of how his words could be construed and kept his big mouth shut. But when you step back and look at it this really is no big deal.

That is just not the case. When you step back and look at what he said and the implications that flow from what a SCOTUS Justice saying it entail, it is a potentially very BIG deal.

But that's exactly what I'm saying here. There are no signals or indications here from which an implication can be drawn, other than that Breyer expects to see cases and they will be carefully considered and decided. Not if you read it remembering how the Justices look at things. You know if they really want to send a signal, they have other and far better methods for doing that.

I could read that just as easily as a signal to supporters of free speech not to get their panties in a bunch, that speech will be reaffirmed and a bright line drawn as far as speech and national security in a series of cases over time. There's a lot of wiggle room in that non-answer he gave.

But the bottom line is this, in a world where liberal Justices have been smacked around over and over again for their "activist" expansion of civil rights over perceived national security, do you really think a Breyer will suddenly change his mind and come down for censoring speech in favor of a national security argument that holds no legal merit whatsoever? Think about his authored decisions over time, and do the math.

No implications that can be drawn? Please.

Of course there are. Otherwise he wouldn't have said it.

It was the trial balloon.

Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was an example of unprotected speech because of the panic that could ensue and the risk to people's health and lives.

But almost anything we say or do -- from burning a flag which can surely evoke massive emotional reactions from a whole bunch of people, to desecrating the holy book of a major religion -- can also evoke emotional reactions. This latter is especially true when the religion in question is predicated on violence, like Islam is. So the "example" offered by Breyer is very much inappropriate.

What that moron was suggesting is that because some "speech" may cause a commotion, it is therefore properly subject to limitations like the limits we (rightfully) impose on (falsely) yelling "fire" in that crowded theater.

It is a bad idea to start a discussion on that topic especially on such a false basis of comparison because sooner or later some lib (with the "hate crime" mentality) is going to seek to pass a law to penalize such "speech" very much on the basis of that very invalid "analogy."

 

[jillian]

Stephanopolis thought it was a big enough deal to write about. His interview; his blog. Just sayin...

any academic/politico would... because smart people actually think about things... ponder issues... question....

try it sometime......


minus the wingnuttiess and with actual thought

 

[goldcatt]

That is just not the case. When you step back and look at what he said and the implications that flow from what a SCOTUS Justice saying it entail, it is a potentially very BIG deal.

But that's exactly what I'm saying here. There are no signals or indications here from which an implication can be drawn, other than that Breyer expects to see cases and they will be carefully considered and decided. Not if you read it remembering how the Justices look at things. You know if they really want to send a signal, they have other and far better methods for doing that.

I could read that just as easily as a signal to supporters of free speech not to get their panties in a bunch, that speech will be reaffirmed and a bright line drawn as far as speech and national security in a series of cases over time. There's a lot of wiggle room in that non-answer he gave.

But the bottom line is this, in a world where liberal Justices have been smacked around over and over again for their "activist" expansion of civil rights over perceived national security, do you really think a Breyer will suddenly change his mind and come down for censoring speech in favor of a national security argument that holds no legal merit whatsoever? Think about his authored decisions over time, and do the math.

No implications that can be drawn? Please.

Of course there are. Otherwise he wouldn't have said it.

It was the trial balloon.

Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was an example of unprotected speech because of the panic that could ensue and the risk to people's health and lives.

But almost anything we say or do -- from burning a flag which can surely evoke massive emotional reactions from a whole bunch of people, to desecrating the holy book of a major religion -- can also evoke emotional reactions. This latter is especially true when the religion in question is predicated on violence, like Islam is. So the "example" offered by Breyer is very much inappropriate.

What that moron was suggesting is that because some "speech" may cause a commotion, it is therefore properly subject to limitations like the limits we (rightfully) impose on (falsely) yelling "fire" in that crowded theater.

It is a bad idea to start a discussion on that topic especially on such a false basis of comparison because sooner or later some lib (with the "hate crime" mentality) is going to seek to pass a law to penalize such "speech" very much on the basis of that very invalid "analogy."

Oh for goodness' sake, you're smarter than that. Justices don't NEED to float trial balloons, Liability. They're not Congresscritters who have to worry about popularity. Nobody's voting for them and they know damn well people can and do bark at the moon over every move they make and they'll still keep their jobs. The salvos they do fire aren't directed at the public, they're aimed primarily at the entities they preside over or balance - the lower Courts and Congress, occasionally the White House. Where is the pending legislation on this? Where is the Executive Order or bureaucratic reg being drafted? Where are the cases percolating thrugh the lower Courts? Put on your thinking cap for a minute.

What did Petraeus say about this? What rhetoric was out there among many of the book burning opponents long before Breyer opened his yap? "You can't do this because terrorists will get riled, we'll get attacked and Americans will get hurt". A national security argument - and one with with no legal merit whatsoever. How exactly did Breyer "start" a conversation that's been taking place in the media, what passes for the national dialogue and on the net since that dumbass in Florida announced his little barbecue?

Care to guess how Breyer voted in the Gitmo cases pitting civil rights against national security?

"Hate crime" implies there is a crime being committed in the first place. Where is the crime in torching a book, other than the fact that attempting to destroy thought by destroying the paper it's printed on should be considered criminally stupid? It isn't a crime. Period. And unless they're going to toss Brandenburg, it will not be a crime. How do you suppose Breyer's voted on speech cases invoking Brandenburg in his time on the bench? Do you seriously believe he's a fan of going back to Whitney or equivalent?

Look at the facts and the man's record, then tell me he feels the need to float a "trial balloon" in his haste to overturn speech protection he's spent a career supporting. Or prove he's gone totally senile. Or there is a third possibility...which is that pointy headed political pundits aren't equipped to read anything from a point of view other than that of pointy-headed politicians.