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

[Father Time]

Here we go. We should have seen this coming.

Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.” Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.”

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

... 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?”

Justice Stephen Breyer: Is Burning Koran 'Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater?' - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line

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

How can you possibly compare the two?

Is Breyer senile or something? Did he just think 'wait both hypotheticals involve fire therefore they must be related'.

One of them makes people falsely believe their lives are in immediate danger, and thus may start a panic.

The other one will only offend people at most, but most sane people will not take it as a sign they're in danger (and I bet most insane people won't either)

 

[Liability]

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.

Oh for the love of God in heaven, YOU are smarter than THAT. Breyer isn't always going to sit on the bench.

And you can bet your life that they do as much politicking as many actual politicians -- maybe more. Floating a trial balloon for his liberal agenda is hardly a stretch merely because he happens to be on the SCOTUS bench. As a jurist he can't make it illegal to burn a Qur'an. But if he can get the liberoidal intelligentsia talking about it, a person with actual legislative capacity might give it a whirl.

IS Breyer going senile? I dunno. Neither do you. But he moronic comparison of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to the burning of a fucking Qur'an is possible evidence of mental slippage.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Oh for the love of God in heaven, YOU are smarter than THAT. Breyer isn't always going to sit on the bench.

And you can bet your life that they do as much politicking as many actual politicians -- maybe more. Floating a trial balloon for his liberal agenda is hardly a stretch merely because he happens to be on the SCOTUS bench. As a jurist he can't make it illegal to burn a Qur'an. But if he can get the liberoidal intelligentsia talking about it, a person with actual legislative capacity might give it a whirl.

IS Breyer going senile? I dunno. Neither do you. But he moronic comparison of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to the burning of a fucking Qur'an is possible evidence of mental slippage.

Actually you have it backwards. As a jurist he is the ONLY one who can make it illegal to burn a Qu'ran - provided they hear an appropriate case to overturn Brandenburg and at least four other Justices share his point of view - assuming that's even what his point of view is. Legislators cannot place restrictions on speech acts that violate the First Amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS. Period.

 

[Liability]

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.

Oh for the love of God in heaven, YOU are smarter than THAT. Breyer isn't always going to sit on the bench.

And you can bet your life that they do as much politicking as many actual politicians -- maybe more. Floating a trial balloon for his liberal agenda is hardly a stretch merely because he happens to be on the SCOTUS bench. As a jurist he can't make it illegal to burn a Qur'an. But if he can get the liberoidal intelligentsia talking about it, a person with actual legislative capacity might give it a whirl.

IS Breyer going senile? I dunno. Neither do you. But he moronic comparison of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to the burning of a fucking Qur'an is possible evidence of mental slippage.

Actually you have it backwards. As a jurist he is the ONLY one who can make it illegal to burn a Qu'ran - provided they hear an appropriate case to overturn Brandenburg and at least four other Justices share his point of view - assuming that's even what his point of view is. Legislators cannot place restrictions on speech acts that violate the First Amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS. Period.

Actually, you have it wrong. As a Jurist he CAN'T do that, because the Constitution forbids it.

As A jurist he might try (by ignoring the very thing we need him to uphold), but it would take more than just A jurist. He'd have to persuade a whole bunch of other weak minded liberal jurists to go along with his unconstitutional effort. (Reason enough to get started with his judicial musings in the form of a trial balloon, by the way.)

Legislators, by contrast, are the ONLY ones who can pass a law which forbids certain speech (which they will pretend is prohibiting conduct).

Period. Amen.

 

[goldcatt]

Oh for the love of God in heaven, YOU are smarter than THAT. Breyer isn't always going to sit on the bench.

And you can bet your life that they do as much politicking as many actual politicians -- maybe more. Floating a trial balloon for his liberal agenda is hardly a stretch merely because he happens to be on the SCOTUS bench. As a jurist he can't make it illegal to burn a Qur'an. But if he can get the liberoidal intelligentsia talking about it, a person with actual legislative capacity might give it a whirl.

IS Breyer going senile? I dunno. Neither do you. But he moronic comparison of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to the burning of a fucking Qur'an is possible evidence of mental slippage.

Actually you have it backwards. As a jurist he is the ONLY one who can make it illegal to burn a Qu'ran - provided they hear an appropriate case to overturn Brandenburg and at least four other Justices share his point of view - assuming that's even what his point of view is. Legislators cannot place restrictions on speech acts that violate the First Amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS. Period.

Actually, you have it wrong. As a Jurist he CAN'T do that, because the Constitution forbids it.

As A jurist he might try (by ignoring the very thing we need him to uphold), but it would take more than just A jurist. He'd have to persuade a whole bunch of other weak minded liberal jurists to go along with his unconstitutional effort. (Reason enough to get started with his judicial musings in the form of a trial balloon, by the way.)

Legislators, by contrast, are the ONLY ones who can pass a law which forbids certain speech (which they will pretend is prohibiting conduct).

Period. Amen.

I disagree with the weak-minded part, but the rest of what you say in your second paragraph is pretty much what I said with a right twist. Assuming, of course, that the intent here is to persuade Justices who already presumably agree with what Stephadopealus said is his point of view to do what, agree further?

Only legislators can restrict speech acts? What part of "Congress shall make no law..." is a problem here?

 

[Liability]

Actually you have it backwards. As a jurist he is the ONLY one who can make it illegal to burn a Qu'ran - provided they hear an appropriate case to overturn Brandenburg and at least four other Justices share his point of view - assuming that's even what his point of view is. Legislators cannot place restrictions on speech acts that violate the First Amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS. Period.

Actually, you have it wrong. As a Jurist he CAN'T do that, because the Constitution forbids it.

As A jurist he might try (by ignoring the very thing we need him to uphold), but it would take more than just A jurist. He'd have to persuade a whole bunch of other weak minded liberal jurists to go along with his unconstitutional effort. (Reason enough to get started with his judicial musings in the form of a trial balloon, by the way.)

Legislators, by contrast, are the ONLY ones who can pass a law which forbids certain speech (which they will pretend is prohibiting conduct).

Period. Amen.

I disagree with the weak-minded part, but the rest of what you say in your second paragraph is pretty much what I said with a right twist. Assuming, of course, that the intent here is to persuade Justices who already presumably agree with what Stephadopealus said is his point of view to do what, agree further?

Only legislators can restrict speech acts? What part of "Congress shall make no law..." is a problem here?

Congress, despite that prohibition, HAS done so. They are the only ones who can pass laws. And if they fail to comply with Constitutional restrictions, then whatever they pass is bound to be an unConstitutional law.

Can you say McCain-Feingold?

What part of the legislative power is granted to the judicial branch again?

 

[goldcatt]

Actually, you have it wrong. As a Jurist he CAN'T do that, because the Constitution forbids it.

As A jurist he might try (by ignoring the very thing we need him to uphold), but it would take more than just A jurist. He'd have to persuade a whole bunch of other weak minded liberal jurists to go along with his unconstitutional effort. (Reason enough to get started with his judicial musings in the form of a trial balloon, by the way.)

Legislators, by contrast, are the ONLY ones who can pass a law which forbids certain speech (which they will pretend is prohibiting conduct).

Period. Amen.

I disagree with the weak-minded part, but the rest of what you say in your second paragraph is pretty much what I said with a right twist. Assuming, of course, that the intent here is to persuade Justices who already presumably agree with what Stephadopealus said is his point of view to do what, agree further?

Only legislators can restrict speech acts? What part of "Congress shall make no law..." is a problem here?

Congress, despite that prohibition, HAS done so. They are the only ones who can pass laws. And if they fail to comply with Constitutional restrictions, then whatever they pass is bound to be an unConstitutional law.

Can you say McCain-Feingold?

What part of the legislative power is granted to the judicial branch again?

McCain-Feingold...and what happened to that law upon review? Hmmm...

Interpretive power is vested in the Courts, of course. Not legislative. And defining the precise meaning of "speech" as used in the First is an interpretive power used to restrict legislation. The fox doesn't get to decide what kind of lock goes on the henhouse. That would be stupid - and the Framers were many things, but tree stump stupid wasn't among them.

Brandenburg being a prime example of the interpretive power of the Courts to safeguard just this type of offensive speech act. Tell me, do you think we're going to go back to Whitney or worse with this Court or any other in the foreseeable future? Or is that also up to Congress to decide?

Have you read Breyer's book yet? You know, the one the entire interview was about in the first place? Me neither. I'm sure it's a fairly good read. That old codger's been in a lot of interbranch wars in his time. Like the ones between the Court and the White House.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

McCain-Feingold...and what happened to that law upon review? Hmmm...

Yes. What did happen? At first, the fucking law got upheld. Eventually, almost by caprice, it finally got shot down as it ought to have been shot down. But put enough libs on that SCOTUS bench, and viola! The outcome would have been different.

In any event, the POINT is that -- if we are agreed that the law violated the first amendment -- then it should never have been passed by fucking Congress in the first place. Yet it was.

Similarly, in the name of thought-police law enforcement in many jurisdictions, "hate crime" legislation arguably violates the First Amendment already, yet it is strongly approved mostly by libs. It takes a LEGISLATOR to craft those laws. It takes judges committed to Constitutional law and principles AS INTENDED to shoot them down.

So when the proposed "law" that says burning a Qur'an is criminal gets taken up in some liberal Congressman's office, who has the ability to pass such a law? Only Congressmen (or state equivalents). Not jurists. And when a Supreme Court JURIST has already floated the notion that "burning a Qur'an is akin to crying 'fire' in a crowded theater, then simpleton legislators might feel emboldened enough to pass that idiotic legislation.

Interpretive power is vested in the Courts, of course. Not legislative.

So you claim. So says Marbury v. Madison. But the Constitution itself does not. IF I happen to agree that it is a reasonable IMPLIED power from the explicit grants given by the Constitution to the Judicial Branch, that doesn't necessarily mean that the power is exclusive to the judicial branch, however.

And defining the precise meaning of "speech" as used in the First is an interpretive power used to restrict legislation. The fox doesn't get to decide what kind of lock goes on the henhouse. That would be stupid - and the Framers were many things, but tree stump stupid wasn't among them.

Defining speech is not difficult at all. So, if I start by disagreeing with your initial premise, the rest of your argument kind of tails off to die a weak whimpering death on the outskirts of town.

Speech was understood in the day. It did not mean "the right to post glossies of beautiful naked women engaged in explicit sexual acts with other beautiful naked women." Not that there's anything wrong with that. Yet, somewhere along the line, the COURTS seem to have decided that "speech" does mean exactly that.

No.

Speech was understood to mean political speech. The First Amendment couldn't actually BE an "absolute" or we couldn't prevent idiots in the New York Times Company from publishing troop movements in times of war. And we couldn't sue each other for things like defamation and libel. But we can sue each other, so clearly free speech is not an absolute. IT WAS understood to be a big powerful ability against which governments could not defend themselves. Freedom of POLITICAL discussion. Can I say that President Obama is a freaking MORON? You bet I can. In the days before the Revolution here in the colonies, one could not say such stuff about the King, however, unless one wanted to get severely punished.

 

[jillian]

yes... speech is political speech first and foremost....

but corporations aren't people....

 

[Charles_Main]

yes... speech is political speech first and foremost....

but corporations aren't people....

They are owned and operated by people. so I am not sure what your point is.

Unions are not people either, yet they are allowed to make political statements, and not fear the government will shut them up or else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes... speech is political speech first and foremost....

but corporations aren't people....

People have free speech, unless there is more than one person.

The only reason Citizen's United is registered as a corporation is that the law required it in order for them to collect money for a political purpose. Your position that corporations do not have free speech would actually eliminate everyone's right to free speech since the law requires us to form corporations in order to say anything in the first place.

 

[Liability]

yes... speech is political speech first and foremost....

but corporations aren't people....

Yes, they are in the contemplation of the law. And there is a good deal of reason to make sure we continue to view them in that light, legally.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is it about endangering the troops and America's unsung heroes who do the dirty work overseas that people like stinky-chanel do not get?

Now I do not agree with all the arguments on all either side, but the Military Command has said the Koran Burning was a security issue.

What does burning an American Flag have to do with anything?

Why do people like Chanel disgrace the flag by hiding behind it?

Here we go. We should have seen this coming.

Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.” Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.”

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

... 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?”

Justice Stephen Breyer: Is Burning Koran 'Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater?' - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.” Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.”

“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?”

Justice Stephen Breyer: Is Burning Koran 'Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater?' - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line

you've managed to avoid debating or challenging the idea.

how fuckin' stupid is that?

 

[The Rabbi]

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 effort 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.

Ooh, she'll neg rep you for that one.
She has never defended a single statement she has made. Nor could she. Her statements all peg the bullshit meter. The idea that Breyer was "merely asking a question" is ludicrous.

 

[goldcatt]

So you claim. So says Marbury v. Madison. But the Constitution itself does not. IF I happen to agree that it is a reasonable IMPLIED power from the explicit grants given by the Constitution to the Judicial Branch, that doesn't necessarily mean that the power is exclusive to the judicial branch, however.

And defining the precise meaning of "speech" as used in the First is an interpretive power used to restrict legislation. The fox doesn't get to decide what kind of lock goes on the henhouse. That would be stupid - and the Framers were many things, but tree stump stupid wasn't among them.

Defining speech is not difficult at all. So, if I start by disagreeing with your initial premise, the rest of your argument kind of tails off to die a weak whimpering death on the outskirts of town.

Speech was understood in the day. It did not mean "the right to post glossies of beautiful naked women engaged in explicit sexual acts with other beautiful naked women." Not that there's anything wrong with that. Yet, somewhere along the line, the COURTS seem to have decided that "speech" does mean exactly that.

No.

Speech was understood to mean political speech. The First Amendment couldn't actually BE an "absolute" or we couldn't prevent idiots in the New York Times Company from publishing troop movements in times of war. And we couldn't sue each other for things like defamation and libel. But we can sue each other, so clearly free speech is not an absolute. IT WAS understood to be a big powerful ability against which governments could not defend themselves. Freedom of POLITICAL discussion. Can I say that President Obama is a freaking MORON? You bet I can. In the days before the Revolution here in the colonies, one could not say such stuff about the King, however, unless one wanted to get severely punished.

Not quite awake yet here, but I'll have a go at your main point here. You're missing the point of my argument. What physical act is protected "speech"?

The spoken word only? There are those who champion this point of view - mostly the strictest of strict constructionists. Otherwise referred to as "conservative".

The spoken word and the written word? There are those who believe this, with the freedom of press considered merely an extension of freedom of speech rather than a separate protection.

The spoken word, the written word, and symbolic acts? That is the currently accepted view and the reason book burnings are legal, but has not always been. And yes, it is a "liberal" interpretation.

What exactly is protected by the term "speech"? And who gets to decide? Congress, which is expressly prohibited from restricting speech? Or their counterbalance, the logical entity created to do so viewing the Framers' intent through their understanding of the contemporary Americanized British colonial common law system, the Courts?

First principles, my friend.

 

[jillian]

Ooh, she'll neg rep you for that one.
She has never defended a single statement she has made. Nor could she. Her statements all peg the bullshit meter. The idea that Breyer was "merely asking a question" is ludicrous.

I thought you ran off and took your toys and said you were 'ignoring' me because you were tired of getting made to look like the blithering idiot you are.

maybe if you ask liability nicely, he'll teach you how to have a linear and intelligent discussion.

until then, you're just everyone's bitch.

trollboy...

keep practicing, though.

 

[goldcatt]

Ooh, she'll neg rep you for that one.
She has never defended a single statement she has made. Nor could she. Her statements all peg the bullshit meter. The idea that Breyer was "merely asking a question" is ludicrous.

I thought you ran off and took your toys and said you were 'ignoring' me because you were tired of getting made to look like the blithering idiot you are.

maybe if you ask liability nicely, he'll teach you how to have a linear and intelligent discussion.

until then, you're just everyone's bitch.

trollboy...

keep practicing, though.

I dunno. Even Liability is a mere mortal. Attempting the impossible with the incoherent is asking a lot.

 

[jillian]

Ooh, she'll neg rep you for that one.
She has never defended a single statement she has made. Nor could she. Her statements all peg the bullshit meter. The idea that Breyer was "merely asking a question" is ludicrous.

I thought you ran off and took your toys and said you were 'ignoring' me because you were tired of getting made to look like the blithering idiot you are.

maybe if you ask liability nicely, he'll teach you how to have a linear and intelligent discussion.

until then, you're just everyone's bitch.

trollboy...

keep practicing, though.

I dunno. Even Liability is a mere mortal. Attempting the impossible with the incoherent is asking a lot.

i know. but i figured he had a better shot at it than the average. lol..

 

[Liability]

Ooh, she'll neg rep you for that one.
She has never defended a single statement she has made. Nor could she. Her statements all peg the bullshit meter. The idea that Breyer was "merely asking a question" is ludicrous.

I thought you ran off and took your toys and said you were 'ignoring' me because you were tired of getting made to look like the blithering idiot you are.

maybe if you ask liability nicely, he'll teach you how to have a linear and intelligent discussion.

until then, you're just everyone's bitch.

trollboy...

keep practicing, though.

I dunno. Even Liability is a mere mortal. Attempting the impossible with the incoherent is asking a lot.

Mere mortal?

You were not supposed to tell.