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

[goldcatt]

Don't even need the CNN link, but it's a good find. If you look at Breyer's record it's pretty clear he was misrepresented by Stephanobrainus.

But hey, what do I know?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

okay here we go: stop reading the headline and read what Breyer says. Then go to the other link and see that Breyer is clarifying what people like you have miscomprehended.

STFU doucher.

I read the link from the OP, and I find the notion that he's even entertaining the slimmest of possibilities that burning a book might not be protected by the 1st Amendment to be outlandishly disgusting.

Good enough for you fuckface?

A judge talking about an issue that has never been before the court saying something is 'not a forgone conclusion' makes you sick?


gawd, you're still misunderstanding what the fuck is being said.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Don't even need the CNN link, but it's a good find. If you look at Breyer's record it's pretty clear he was misrepresented by Stephanobrainus.

But hey, what do I know?

The headline is what a headline is -- a headline. Steph does not misrepresent Breyer. The average educated American slob is misunderstanding what Breyer is saying because they posses poor critical thinking skill sets.

 

[manifold]

okay here we go: stop reading the headline and read what Breyer says. Then go to the other link and see that Breyer is clarifying what people like you have miscomprehended.

STFU doucher.

I read the link from the OP, and I find the notion that he's even entertaining the slimmest of possibilities that burning a book might not be protected by the 1st Amendment to be outlandishly disgusting.

Good enough for you fuckface?

A judge talking about an issue that has never been before the court saying something is 'not a forgone conclusion' makes you sick?


gawd, you're still misunderstanding what the fuck is being said.

It should be a forgone conclusion, so yes, I'm allowed to be sickened by it.

Sorry if that kicks up a sand storm in your vagina.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

STFU doucher.

I read the link from the OP, and I find the notion that he's even entertaining the slimmest of possibilities that burning a book might not be protected by the 1st Amendment to be outlandishly disgusting.

Good enough for you fuckface?

A judge talking about an issue that has never been before the court saying something is 'not a forgone conclusion' makes you sick?


gawd, you're still misunderstanding what the fuck is being said.

It should be a forgone conclusion, so yes, I'm allowed to be sickened by it.

Sorry if that kicks up a sand storm in your vagina.

Without legal arguments presented about the internet age, nothing like this should be a foregone conclusion.

Breyer was talking about the law and legal arguments, not the hysterical rantings of dopes like you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Not really sure what she doesn't get. Maybe it is the same thing Breyer himself doesn't get, since he clarified his remarks in a later interview to solidly back the right of the pastor to burn the Koran.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

I knew if I held back on this that sooner or later someone would give me an opportunity to zing them. That it was the boards resident troll only makes this more enjoyable.

Did Breyer ever say there was no right to burn the Koran?

What is it you do not get?

Your the one that said you don't get it, not me. Why am I suddenly the one that is confused?

 

[manifold]

A judge talking about an issue that has never been before the court saying something is 'not a forgone conclusion' makes you sick?


gawd, you're still misunderstanding what the fuck is being said.

It should be a forgone conclusion, so yes, I'm allowed to be sickened by it.

Sorry if that kicks up a sand storm in your vagina.

Without legal arguments presented about the internet age, nothing like this should be a foregone conclusion.

Breyer was talking about the law and legal arguments, not the hysterical rantings of dopes like you.

The internet age? Please negga!

The internet ain't got shit to do with burning a book you fucking idiot.

So why don't YOU regale us with why a freedom sacrificing fucktard would conclude that burning a book might not be protected speech?

 

[goldcatt]

It should be a forgone conclusion, so yes, I'm allowed to be sickened by it.

Sorry if that kicks up a sand storm in your vagina.

Without legal arguments presented about the internet age, nothing like this should be a foregone conclusion.

Breyer was talking about the law and legal arguments, not the hysterical rantings of dopes like you.

The internet age? Please negga!

The internet ain't got shit to do with burning a book you fucking idiot.

So why don't YOU regale us with why a freedom sacrificing fucktard would conclude that burning a book might not be protected speech?

That's the point - nobody concluded anything. It's unethical for Judges to say how they would rule on a case that doesn't even exist yet. So when speculating, Breyer couldn't say what he thought the answer would be should such a case arise.

Should he have been speculating at all? Probably not. Which is where my initial posts in this thread come in. But he didn't draw ANY conclusions - and for good reason.

The sole legitimate exception to that rule is a hypothetical posed in dicta - but Stephanobrainus' blog ain't exactly dicta.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It should be a forgone conclusion, so yes, I'm allowed to be sickened by it.

Sorry if that kicks up a sand storm in your vagina.

Without legal arguments presented about the internet age, nothing like this should be a foregone conclusion.

Breyer was talking about the law and legal arguments, not the hysterical rantings of dopes like you.

The internet age? Please negga!

The internet ain't got shit to do with burning a book you fucking idiot.

So why don't YOU regale us with why a freedom sacrificing fucktard would conclude that burning a book might not be protected speech?

Dear hysterical doosh, there are arguments coming before the court, both now and later that debate the exact nature of the flat earth we call the internet.

If you would stop fantasizing about my possibly having a vagina (I refuse to say so either way since it would only encourage more of your mental images masturbating over Dante with a vagina) and focus on what the article you are referring to actually said, you would magically become aware of teh contextual framework of the discussion.

As you well know or should, I posted that I think koran burning that endangers our troops is not 'fire' in a crowded theater. But were somebody to make an argument that could convince me that it is, I would not be so stuck on stupid and false principle that I would ignore evidence that contradicts my reason.


the earlier discussion was NOT about the limits on rights in the age of the internet.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not really sure what she doesn't get. Maybe it is the same thing Breyer himself doesn't get, since he clarified his remarks in a later interview to solidly back the right of the pastor to burn the Koran.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

I knew if I held back on this that sooner or later someone would give me an opportunity to zing them. That it was the boards resident troll only makes this more enjoyable.

Did Breyer ever say there was no right to burn the Koran?

What is it you do not get?

Your the one that said you don't get it, not me. Why am I suddenly the one that is confused?

maybe I misread your post and mixed it up with others I have open?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think koran burning that endangers our troops is not 'fire' in a crowded theater. But were somebody to make an argument that could convince me that it is, I would not be so stuck on stupid and false principle that I would ignore evidence that contradicts my reason.

I wouldn't ignore evidence that contradicts reason. So far there isn't any.

And still, the internet ain't got shit to do with burning a book.

If book burning is speech it does too. If book burning is action, it does too. Why? Because it ain't about the book burning alone. The book burning is not done in a vacuum. If it were there would be NO discussion. A public act is open to the public and accountable to the laws of the land.

QUOTE=manifold;2757447

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I wouldn't ignore evidence that contradicts reason. So far there isn't any.

And still, the internet ain't got shit to do with burning a book.

If book burning is speech it does too. If book burning is action, it does too. Why? Because it ain't about the book burning alone. The book burning is not done in a vacuum. If it were there would be NO discussion. A public act is open to the public and accountable to the laws of the land.

QUOTE=manifold;2757447

 

[manifold]

I think koran burning that endangers our troops is not 'fire' in a crowded theater. But were somebody to make an argument that could convince me that it is, I would not be so stuck on stupid and false principle that I would ignore evidence that contradicts my reason.

I wouldn't ignore evidence that contradicts reason. So far there isn't any.

And still, the internet ain't got shit to do with burning a book.

If book burning is speech it does too. If book burning is action, it does too. Why? Because it ain't about the book burning alone. The book burning is not done in a vacuum. If it were there would be NO discussion. A public act is open to the public and accountable to the laws of the land.

So free speech isn't about speech in public, it's about speech in a vacuum?


If it turns out that the internet (unprecedented access to the public domain) kills free speech as we know it, it was never a real right to begin with. Just a convenient ruse. And that would truly sicken me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I wouldn't ignore evidence that contradicts reason. So far there isn't any.

And still, the internet ain't got shit to do with burning a book.

If book burning is speech it does too. If book burning is action, it does too. Why? Because it ain't about the book burning alone. The book burning is not done in a vacuum. If it were there would be NO discussion. A public act is open to the public and accountable to the laws of the land.

So free speech isn't about speech in public, it's about speech in a vacuum?


If it turns out that the internet (unprecedented access to the public domain) kills free speech as we know it, it was never a real right to begin with. Just a convenient ruse. And that would truly sicken me.

You've either gotten stupider or dumber since the troubles at the homestead. I can't figure out which.

If the book burning, the speech, were done in private, or in a vacuum were the parameters of free speech were speech without limits it would not be an issue.

But all public acts invite scrutiny and challenges. Challenges to speech are as important or maybe more important, than the speech itself.

The internet as 'unprecedented access to the public domain' is a weird concept to introduce here, since we were speaking of the public square itself, not what is commonly understood by the term 'public domain.'

I doubt even Breyer taken out of context and misrepresented was entertaining the notion of killing free speech. Speech has it's limits. Always has.

Justice Breyer has been a defender of free speech and so has Justice Scalia.

You are entering into the wild area of Hysterical Territory and are losing me.

 

[manifold]

I definitely feel stupider now after trying to make sense of that jibberish.

You're off your rocker dude.

 

[manifold]

Clearly Dante is fresh out of brilliance, so he's in full on baffle'm with bullshit mode.

But please Dante, by all means, construct as outlandish a hypothetical as you can imagine that would lead you to believe burning a book as a political statement SHOULD NOT be protected speech.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Clearly Dante is fresh out of brilliance, so he's in full on baffle'm with bullshit mode.

But please Dante, by all means, construct as outlandish a hypothetical as you can imagine that would lead you to believe burning a book as a political statement SHOULD NOT be protected speech.

See? You keep inferring that is an argument I have made. I have not. I simply stated what Breyer has, that the right to do so "is not a foregone conclusion" in an argument involving the internet and what Justice Holmes is always quoted as saying.

You truly need to step up your game. You've lowered yourself to a use of the much dreaded we' tactic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If during war time, what happens as protest goes out over the internet and endangers what is viewed as national security, we will have an argument being made before the courts. Until then, there is no argument being made by anyone that I know of (with credibility) that the Koran burner was not entitled to burn his book, even with the inevitability of it being shown all over the world through the medium on the internet, print, broadcast, et al.

 

[manifold]

Clearly Dante is fresh out of brilliance, so he's in full on baffle'm with bullshit mode.

But please Dante, by all means, construct as outlandish a hypothetical as you can imagine that would lead you to believe burning a book as a political statement SHOULD NOT be protected speech.

See? You keep inferring that is an argument I have made. I have not. I simply stated what Breyer has, that the right to do so "is not a foregone conclusion" in an argument involving the internet and what Justice Holmes is always quoted as saying.

You truly need to step up your game. You've lowered yourself to a use of the much dreaded we' tactic.

Bullshit. That's exactly the argument you are implying. The fact that you cowardly backpedal only shows you know you were full of shit in the first place and are throwing a tantrum because I called you on it. Vintage Dante.

It is a fucking forgone conclusion, or at least it damn well should be.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I definitely feel stupider now...

and it's showing.