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

[manifold]

I definitely feel stupider now...

and it's showing.

 

[Dante]

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.

Better go back to Logic 101.

Tantrum? You are the fond of emoting. The dream has broken? Sad. You seemed like such a happy family man. sigh

There is no back pedaling on either my part or Breyer's part.

from the OP link...

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It 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.”​

and I gave you a link to clear it all up, not a backpedaling, but an explanation of context.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Breyer say's it depends on what analogy you use...using the flag burning analogy it is a right.

"We protect expression we hate." - Breyer

 

[Dante]

I definitely feel stupider now...

and it's showing.

[IMGttp://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w18/PerdeMagus/dbag_fail.jpg[/IMG]

mani uses his pathetic and simpleminded overused images. yawn...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

And most other people.

 

[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.

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

 

[Dante]

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.

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

In this day and age? People were ready to give away the store after one event 9/11.

Can you imagine if there were a real all out war on the USA or one fought right here on our soil. Shit, people give up rights to speech all the time. War or no war. Same people then make statements about what they support. Words, not actions are what matters.

Free Speech is not absolute and never as been. Not in America. Not by law, tradition or theory. That said, we have less speech during war times. Don't take my word for it, ask history

 

[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.

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

In this day and age? People were ready to give away the store after one event 9/11.

Can you imagine if there were a real all out war on the USA or one fought right here on our soil. Shit, people give up rights to speech all the time. War or no war. Same people then make statements about what they support. Words, not actions are what matters.

Free Speech is not absolute and never as been. Not in America. Not by law, tradition or theory. That said, we have less speech during war times. Don't take my word for it, ask history

I already acknowledged that, idiot.

 

[Dante]

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

In this day and age? People were ready to give away the store after one event 9/11.

Can you imagine if there were a real all out war on the USA or one fought right here on our soil. Shit, people give up rights to speech all the time. War or no war. Same people then make statements about what they support. Words, not actions are what matters.

Free Speech is not absolute and never as been. Not in America. Not by law, tradition or theory. That said, we have less speech during war times. Don't take my word for it, ask history

I already acknowledged that, idiot.

Idiot. You jumped into my conversation, not the other way around. What you've said before is of no interest and little value.

how's them apples?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In this day and age? People were ready to give away the store after one event 9/11.

Can you imagine if there were a real all out war on the USA or one fought right here on our soil. Shit, people give up rights to speech all the time. War or no war. Same people then make statements about what they support. Words, not actions are what matters.

Free Speech is not absolute and never as been. Not in America. Not by law, tradition or theory. That said, we have less speech during war times. Don't take my word for it, ask history

I already acknowledged that, idiot.

Idiot. You jumped into my conversation, not the other way around. What you've said before is of no interest and little value.

how's them apples?

You just proved that you do not read the posts you reply to.

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.

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

Idiot.

 

[Dante]

I already acknowledged that, idiot.

Idiot. You jumped into my conversation, not the other way around. What you've said before is of no interest and little value.

how's them apples?

You just proved that you do not read the posts you reply to.

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.

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

Idiot.

Idiot. You jumped into my conversation, not the other way around. What you've said before is of no interest and little value.

how's them apples?

--------

now stop trolling and taking threads off topic

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Idiot. You jumped into my conversation, not the other way around. What you've said before is of no interest and little value.

how's them apples?

You just proved that you do not read the posts you reply to.

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

Idiot.

Idiot. You jumped into my conversation, not the other way around. What you've said before is of no interest and little value.

how's them apples?

--------

now stop trolling and taking threads off topic

You were not having a conversation, you were, and still are, having a delusion. No one on this board takes you seriously enough to converse with you. And, like I said, you do not even read the posts you are insulting.

 

[Dante]

You just proved that you do not read the posts you reply to.



Idiot.

Idiot. You jumped into my conversation, not the other way around. What you've said before is of no interest and little value.

how's them apples?

--------

now stop trolling and taking threads off topic

You were not having a conversation, you were, and still are, having a delusion. No one on this board takes you seriously enough to converse with you. And, like I said, you do not even read the posts you are insulting.

the dreaded 'we' tactic and from a dude who couldn't carry Ravi's water -- if she let him. LOL


"no one likes you!" "na, na, na, na, na, na..."


what a little fucking girl.

 

[manifold]

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.

Better go back to Logic 101.

Tantrum? You are the fond of emoting. The dream has broken? Sad. You seemed like such a happy family man. sigh

There is no back pedaling on either my part or Breyer's part.

from the OP link...

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It 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.”​

and I gave you a link to clear it all up, not a backpedaling, but an explanation of context.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Breyer say's it depends on what analogy you use...using the flag burning analogy it is a right.

"We protect expression we hate." - Breyer

I already watched it. And Breyer pussied out and didn't answer the question. It depends on the analogy you use? What kind of bullshit is that? A thing can only be an analogy if it's analogous. We gee, if we use taking a shit on Breyer's opinion briefs as our analogy, that might not be protected speech. The FACT remains, there is nothing analogous to burning a book that IS NOT fucking protected speech. Dipshit.

 

[manifold]

The more astute among us have by now figured out why I called Dante out while the Koran burning debate was raging.



Yes, I still fucking rule.

 

[Dante]

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

 

[Dante]

The more astute among us have by now figured out why I called Dante out while the Koran burning debate was raging.



Yes, I still fucking rule.

called Dante out? you begged Dante and Gunny to participate. I entered and you disappeared offering absolutely nothing of substance to the thread after my entry. As far as Gunny goes? I have no idea if he bothered to play with you in your little puddle.

 

[Dante]

Poor mani, succumbing to populist nitwitticism. ;/(

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.

Better go back to Logic 101.

Tantrum? You are the fond of emoting. The dream has broken? Sad. You seemed like such a happy family man. sigh

There is no back pedaling on either my part or Breyer's part.

from the OP link...

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It 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.”​

and I gave you a link to clear it all up, not a backpedaling, but an explanation of context.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Breyer say's it depends on what analogy you use...using the flag burning analogy it is a right.

"We protect expression we hate." - Breyer

I already watched it. And Breyer pussied out and didn't answer the question. It depends on the analogy you use? What kind of bullshit is that? A thing can only be an analogy if it's analogous. We gee, if we use taking a shit on Breyer's opinion briefs as our analogy, that might not be protected speech. The FACT remains, there is nothing analogous to burning a book that IS NOT fucking protected speech. Dipshit.

If a question is posed and has gone unaddressed or unanswered is proof of what? You are in a debate about the economy, somebody asks if you beat your wife (sorry, not really about you), and you do not answer. mani: "Ha! Gotcha!"

You have become infected with interwebitis (copyright waved), after being involved in online spats posing as discussion. Sad to observe, but par for the course. Maybe you need to tidy things up at home, or take an extended vacation, I do not know.

The context of Breyer's comments were in the legal and judicial sphere, where what ought to be in one man's opinion, or in the opinion of a majority, a mob, are of little to no consequence. Grant it that Justices at certain times in our history have given room in decisions for tradition and societal concerns and their inevitable repercussions, but those are the certain times that prove the rule -- exceptions.

Does the burning of the Koran as an expression of free speech, in the age of the internet, qualify as being protected speech or does it fall under the speech that is regulated by law?

There are many ways to look at this and Breyer commented upon it using an analogy of Holmes' 'fire in a crowded theater' argument. Breyer and everyone agreed the Koran burning was protected. Breyer commented on the fact that what is not a foregone conclusion, and should not be a foregone conclusion in the courts, is if the koran burning as protected speech were challenged in the courts today using Holmes' argument, mixed with living in the age of the internet during a war, would the obvious protections still apply.

What is not disputed by anyone, is the right to burn the Koran, absent a challenge in the courts that results in a decision that says otherwise.

You really must listen to what people are saying and not be so overly influenced by headlines or editorial opinion.

dD

 

[Dante]

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

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

 

[manifold]

Hey D-Bag,

Just so you know, I stopped reading your last post to me after the first sentence. You clearly have nothing of substance to impart and you're just being a douche. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course. But if I were a betting man, I'd wager a king's ransom that you actually agree with me on this one, but for reasons known only to you, you're feigning otherwise.


Carry on

 

[Dante]

Hey D-Bag,

Just so you know, I stopped reading your last post to me after the first sentence. You clearly have nothing of substance to impart and you're just being a douche. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course. But if I were a betting man, I'd wager a king's ransom that you actually agree with me on this one, but for reasons known only to you, you're feigning otherwise.


Carry on

don't read. because if you do you will have to admit how stuck you've become.

sad to see. There is nothing to agree on because you have made statements about myself and Breyer that are based on a misunderstanding -- yours.

Breyer and myself and most everyone in the world has said the koran burning was protected speech, but that was never what the discussion was about.