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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

1) We only have free speech in peace? 2) Though there is ample court precedence to back that theory, I really don't think it will fly in this day and age.

1) Why the question? The question is a challenge to the premise. 2) Though there is evidence that you acknowledge the factual basis of the premise, you still challenge it.

This sir is what I responded to, but you in your interwed/talk radio bullshit style of speaking, which you confuse for rational debate or reasonable argument, have jumped on taking apart your own statement which in your puny mind allowed you to straddle the fence on the issue.

Sir, I deconstructed that fence before you ever got comfortable on it. You are now and forever, the USMB Official Idiot.

yours always in search of a non puny mind
Dante, internet troll with style

That is because, if you look at history, you will see that during the Vietnam War all of those precedents were either ignored, or overturned. That is why I can say that, in this day and age it is not going to fly. Maybe if you got your head out of your ass you would be able to comprehend that things have changed.

Yet, somehow, I am the one who has trouble grasping reality. Since I no longer take you seriously, unless you can prove to everyone that you are not a troll who never really takes a position, I can point out your complete idiocy and laugh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh yeah, Quantie, stop PMing me? I don't read troll PMs anyway. You're wasting bandwidth

Why do you reply to PMs you don't read?

Never mind, you do it for the same reason you reply to posts you don't read.

You think you are smart.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That is because, if you look at history, you will see that during the Vietnam War...

The age of the internet. remember? That is the context of the statement when Breyer used the analogy of Holmes'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Quantie, I replied to a few PMs. Most I ignore.

you should seek help.

 

[Toro]

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.

Just guessing, but I can't imagine he speaks for the majority on the court.

As much as I don't think the Koran should be burnt, that retarded redneck pastor has every right to do so.

I wonder if he would make it illegal to ban the showing of the South Park episode which showed Muhammed.

 

[William Joyce]

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

This reminds me of a relative of Elena Kagan telling the New York Times that "nothing was sacred" at the Kagan dinner table -- they questioned everything.

As Ann Coulter reacted, "Yeah, right."

Imagine a table full of liberal Upper West Side Jews saying "hey, yeah, is prayer in school so bad? And what about that Charles Murray? Let's discuss!"

Nope.

Liberals can think what they want, but when they tell me they're "open-minded", I have to laugh. Conservatives at least don't try to convince you that they're open to anything.

Breyer, btw, is a Jew.

He's not going to be pondering or questioning anything that wouldn't be in line with shoring up the Jew cause. He'll "question" Christianity, the Boy Scouts and nationalism, alright. But he's not going to "question" Judaism, gay rights or the Holocaust.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Just guessing, but I can't imagine he speaks for the majority on the court.

As much as I don't think the Koran should be burnt, that retarded redneck pastor has every right to do so.

I wonder if he would make it illegal to ban the showing of the South Park episode which showed Muhammed.

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?” - from the link

What did Breyer actually say that the rest of the court would not agree with before arguments are made?




gawd, you people are all stuck on stupid

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What did Breyer actually say that the rest of the court would not agree with before arguments are made?

Asked and answered.

 

[manifold]

You guys shouldn't focus your attention on the obvious implication of what Breyer said, and just as importantly didn't say, when avoiding answering the question. Instead, you should focus on the fact that he did indeed avoid answering the question and therefore give him a pass. To discuss the obvious implication is just plain stupid.

That's just how all douchers with an agenda roll around here. Pay attention and they're pretty easy to spot.

Truth out

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

loser.

A Judge talking about something that has not been brought before the court gives an analogy of why something is not a forgone conclusion from a legal standpoint, and lightweights like mani wet their pants.

*sad

 

[manifold]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not analogous to burning a book.

You fail.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here we go. We should have seen this coming.



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.

Just guessing, but I can't imagine he speaks for the majority on the court.

As much as I don't think the Koran should be burnt, that retarded redneck pastor has every right to do so.

I wonder if he would make it illegal to ban the showing of the South Park episode which showed Muhammed.

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?” - from the link

What did Breyer actually say that the rest of the court would not agree with before arguments are made?




gawd, you people are all stuck on stupid

mani?

this post?

boringoldmani.png

and then xotoxi, your weirdo pal for this?

xolunatictroll.png






http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...lass-from-mani-right-here-12.html#post2771841 post #173

 

[saveliberty]

It is reasonable to conclude that in a crowded theater, injury and death may result from yelling fire. It certainly is NOT reasonable to conclude that an adult on a website is going to go out and kill a third party as a result of a post. IF you do come to that conclusion, I suggest you watch your own posts very carefully.