Justice Breyer Questions Free-Speech Right to Burn Korans`
- Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:36pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
“Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos interviewed Justice Breyer this morning:
Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But 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?”
Stephanopoulos points out that Obama and Boehner gave at least grudging affirmation that Pastor Jones had the legal right to burn a Koran. Breyer isn’t convinced:
“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.”
(via Hot Air)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 700 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 537 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 357 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 274 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (110)
Everflame
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:32pmSo Justice Breyer and his ilk rate burning of the Koran akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater? Where were they when so called artists were displaying Jesus Christ in a bucket of urine or the representation of the Mother of Christ made from human excrement? And what about the constant degradation presented on the Comedy Channel? (Except for Muslims of course) Where were they then? I was just as offended and angry as these Islamists, maybe even more so but I never threatened anyone with bodily harm or retaliation of any kind.
Report Post »Maybe that is the problem with those of faith among us. Maybe it is time that we started putting the fear of God in people who degrade, ridicule and mock our beliefs.
Many in the Christian world will say that that is not what Christ would want of us. Well I‘m thinking that I don’t know that for sure. I’m ready and willing to start standing up for my religion in any way required. I’ll let God judge me later and hope that He says: “Well it’s about time people said enough is enough.”
anniekeys
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:12pmCommon sense, love God and love your neighbor as yourself—seems all is being set aside so everyone can be politically correct! I’m much older and am sad at what this country has become over the years. Make no mistake-God is in control, not man.
Report Post »redneckphilosopher
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:45pmEVERFLAME your my kind of people!!! Here in Texas we use to pray before High School football games then it became a moment of silence what a slap in the face! We can’t aknowledge God out loud for the safety of our children but the muslims can spill out into the streets to pray. Here’s a thought show up to the game 5 min. later. Here in my home town that would be about 2 people maybe the other 3000 would say amen.
Report Post »Docrow
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 5:15pmAmen!
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:30pm“ that opinion has to be based on reason”
Shouldn’t it be based on the Constitution?
Report Post »cubanbob
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:30pmit’s very simple people….it’s called being doubled standard…..the way of the democratic party. i‘m sure most of y’all have heard about the story about the frog and scorpion crossing the river, right? it’s very simple about dems and libs, it’s in their nature.
Report Post »carrera
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:28pmProgressives are opening the door to Blasphemy, they inserted religion in the hate crimes legislation. Blasphemy laws will make it a crime to speak out against Islam, the only way a Caliphate State can exist is with Blasphemy laws. Most Islamic groups speak of the importance of this legislation, we are currently witnessing the results. We have been told by our Administration and Imams that if we do not do what they say the “Muslim world will explode” and that “they are watching us” Communism and Islam are actually compatible. http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com chronicles the unholy alliance during Nazi Germany. They even have pictures so danglingbags can comprehend.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:26pmThen why does the Pentagon have the right to burn Bibles?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1160612
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=516980
There’s a lot of talk about “anti-Muslim” sentiment, but it seems like Christian persecution is alive and well.
Report Post »cruisemates
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:25pmThe foreign interests who want to build a mosque at Ground Zero are not American citizens and do not have Constitutional rights. Therefore they do not deserve equal protection under the Constitution.
We have the FREEDOM of speech and religion here, not the obligation of it. We can build and say what we choose, but we can’t be forced to allow foreign interests to build what they want in our country. That right of religious freedom is reserved for American citizens. Let them burn our flags overseas (they already do all the time anyway).
Is it wrong and stupid to burn Korans? Of course. But was it wrong for Islamic extremists to bomb the World Trade Center? Of course. And now they want to erect a place of worship there despite the disapproval of American citizens. They claim they want to “honor” us with their so-called peace monument? We don’t want that honor. If you truly want to honor us, then respect our wishes not to build it. Otherwise I must question your motives.
Report Post »BeaconForTruth
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:18pmWatching the video (starting at time code 4:25), it seems to me that Breyer is not taking sides. He talks about in the age of the internet, the core values of disseminating information through debate are unchanged, but how that debate occurs changes. From my understanding, he is not saying that Koran burning is not a form of free speech, but that in this age of Globalization, one must acknowledge the affects one’s actions can have on Americans abroad. Breyer is using the Homles’ quote to add another aspect people must look to in this free speech debate. Knowingly putting people in harm’s way by screaming fire or danger when there is not any is illegal, because people can get hurt. In the age of the internet, does this same principle apply? If the actions of someone in Florida knowingly risks further attacks on soldiers by his actions, should that speech not be protected under the first amendment. I am not condoning apologizing to other nations or limiting what people can and can’t say, but it raises an interesting question. Breyer is ultimately saying he is undecided, because it will depend on the cases that make it to the Supreme Court.
Report Post »t00nces2
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:31pmFair enough. Does that mean that putting mosque in NYC at the site of islams victorious murder of Americans would be a beacon of islamic victory that would put Americans overseas at risk?
Report Post »boyydz
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:40pmThe Holmes quote has been badly abused over the years. Indeed, it is virtually incomprehensible that a SCOTUS justice would bring up the concept of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater without mentioning the “clear and present danger” concept. For free speech rights to be abridged under this doctrine, the speaker must incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the Koran burning case. Apparently Justice Breyer is considering the idea of either expanding the clear and present danger doctrine, or establishing additional doctrines for limiting free speech. Hopefully he does not intend to abridge free speech which merely tends to offend those with a tendency toward physical violence.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:20pmLet me try and translate:
Enter the age of Internet and web cams. Private property can now become a public spectacle for all the world to see. So now new laws may be needed to enforce responsible world wide uni-casting. As a result, censorship would escalate and our freedoms would transform in the name of “Think Carefully” as responsible new world citizens. Especially If peoples lives are in danger. But at least we can still debate about our freedoms in theory as long as we don’t practice them in public protest because it may encourage some radical nut job to go crazy.
The real issue I see under attack is our freedom of speech in acts of public protest.
Report Post »BeaconForTruth
Posted on September 15, 2010 at 3:13amt00nces2,
I’m not sure I am qualified to answer that question. My post was an attempt to share what I thought Breyer’s position to be. Personally, I can say that because of all the press coverage given the controversy, it will have an affect on Americans abroad whether it is built or whether it is moved. I do think that the the label of mosque is a misrepresentation of the facility. Yes, the building has a prayer space, but does that make it a mosque? Some YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) have prayer rooms, does that mean they are a church (these prayer facilities are often interfaith, yes)? Airports have prayer areas for all faiths, does that make them mosques, synagogues or churches? If an Indian store has a Shiva figurine, does that make it a Hindu temple? Of course not, those assumptions are absurd.
I believe, as the law stands, currently, they have the right to place the facility where they like. One cannot deny that Muslim-Americans died in both the WTC and the Pentagon, and that on floor 17 of tower two there was a prayer facility that allowed Muslim-Americans to pray to Mecca. However, the controversy surrounding it has polarized the debate into an overblown mess. On the left, there is the threat of more attacks unless this facility is built, because of the perceptions and misconceptions around the world. On the right, there is the idea it is that this facility is meant to symbolize a great victory (yes, during the crusades, Muslims would erect a mosque at the site of a great victory). Do I understand the concerns on both sides? Yes. Do I think the placement is insensitive? Yes. It seems to me, that the facility in question should be truly interfaith and bridge ideological and cultural divides. It almost seems like if a facility is to be built, it should have prayer facilities for all religions (like an interfaith airport analogy), perhaps partnered with other religious groups in the area, so that people of all faiths can remember people of all faiths that perished at the site of the WTC, together. At least, that is what I envision interfaith dialogue and connections to mean.
Sorry, my musings seem to have gotten off topic. I believe that this issue of religious centers and their repercussions should need to be considered on any free speech ruling concerning the effects of globalization and the internet in this day and age. With luck, any ruling would not single out a single religion, but would make burning all religious texts protected under free speech or not protected under free speech, it would depend on who presents the better case and Constitutional support. Would this extend to controversial religious centers? If it could have the same effect as burning religious texts, probably. It really depends on a number of factors. Again, what I took away from the video was the Breyer is attempting to be tabula rasa and present position and factors that the court considers during cases dealing with free speech.
boyydz
As previously state, after watching all of the video, I got a different feeling from Breyer. His tone and body language seems to indicate he is preparing or even remotely excited to listen to a cause dealing with this issue. To me at least, it seems phrase of the question dealing with the Koran burning was a example of recent events and the issues courts could be tackling in the near future. Once again to me, Breyer uses that quote not as justification to limit inflammatory protests, but as an example of limited speech, the reasoning behind it and how it relates to other free speech cases. I think that he covers clear and present danger in relation to the quote by giving the “why” behind it being inappropriate to yell fire in a movie theater. He is attempting to point out that when considering issues of free speech, the court must decide who the speech could affect, how it could affect them and if the affect is sever enough to warrant limiting it.
rocktruth
I understand your viewpoint, but I think that is almost oversimplifying the issue. Yes, internet and webcams can be partially to blame, but I think that globalization and the news medias fixation with the “shock” factor also plays a role. Yes, anyone can make a video of their protest and post it on YouTube or other media sites, and it has the potential to be seen around the world. (I am going to step away from the Koran example for a minute, so if I make a statement about mainstream America, do not use the Koran burning as a basis for m explanation.) That video could potentially anger someone and breed misconceptions that everyone in America shares the poster’s viewpoint and this misconception could lead to backlash against Americans in that country.
However, when I mentioned globalization, I was referring to the information that is disseminated by the news media. Basically, their non-stop coverage and analysis and analysis of analysis surrounding issues. When the Constitution was written, information traveled at a slower pace. Protests that could be viewed as inflammatory today, burning religious text, etc. would have been long since passed by the time the news reached other countries. So controversy around protests and this non-stop coverage simply didn’t exist. However, in today’s world, where the average news store probably takes less than 30 minutes to break, protests can generate large controversy, because you can have feedback from across the globe in mere minutes. I seems like this phenomenon began during Vietnam with images of monks dousing themselves in gasoline and setting themselves on fire or pictures of combat and the wounded for that day would be available on the evening news cast. This coverage really polarized Americans against the war, because of the type of information being presented to them.
I guess I got off on another tangent, but my main point is not that it is simply a guy posting videos on YouTube, but the whole news media itself and the coverage that is beamed around the globe. I’m not sure that the right to free speech in acts of public protest are under attack. Again, this is simply what Interpreted Breyer’s responses to mean. Ultimately, I think he is outlining what needs to be considered by the court, if they are to hear a case dealing along the lines of the Koran burning. Basically, it is not a justification to limit rights, but something that must be considered in this day and age. Foreign relations can be tricky and it can be reasonably be said that taking another look at protected and unprotected free speech is a necessity to not complicate relations further.
Report Post »faktchekr
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:15pmnone of this sensitivity is necessary when lefties are burning flags, burning bibles, cutting down crosses in desert or throwing rocks.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:09pmSo, by virtue of his Book title, Justice Breyer is admitting that he is ignorant about the very structure of our federal government, which is, in fact, a Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy. Just the kind of willfully-ignorant or patently dishonest jurist (wrapped in an incredibly arrogant, condescending package) that liberals need.
Report Post »ClassicalLiberal
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:02pmYour talking about fascist/socialist progressives. Not real liberals.
“I use throughout the term ‘liberal’ in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control.
I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.”
—F.A. Hayek, in the Forward to “The Road to Serfdom” (1944)
Report Post »JJMinor
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:58pmAgree 100%. Unlike the Justice, you stated your point clearly and without need for lawyerish double-speak.
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 4:50pmNo CLASSIC, I believe I’ll stand firm on my use of the term “liberal”. It has a very clear, simple meaning, “One who believes in a LIBERAL interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. As opposed to a “conservative”, “One who believes in a CONSERVATIVE interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Report Post »ironcowboy
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:09pmNALORA,
Yes, that is all you need, an angry mob. A Democracy is nothing more then an angry mob. In a Democracy, the majority shuts down the minority and dictates to them what rights they have, and forcibly hurts them if so desired.
The beautiful thing about a Constitutional Republic over a Democracy is that law is written for all people equally, and can not be removed from any single group. The law does not bend for or against the majority or minority.
If the majority has the right to burn US flags and Bibles in protest, the minority has the right to burn Qurans and effigies of Allah in protest. If this is not happening in your nation, you are not a Constitutional Republic; you have division and loss of equal rights. American has now become a Democracy, and some people have more rights then others.
Report Post »patrioticcitizen
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:03pmThis is so correct. This is just another nudge in the direction of mob/majority rule where progressives are trying to convince people that their rights come from the Supreme Court, in this case. However, we must stand firm that our rights come from Nature’s God and are unalienable. The great thing about the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is that anyone can understand it. We the People need to demand that these documents be followed. Let’s start by reading them, learning them, discussing them, and electing representatives who believe in these documents!
Report Post »dteam270
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:05pmWho’s really surprised at that one?
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:05pmBurning the Qur’an will be considered hate speech and become against the law. Eventually doing anything that makes someone angry will be become against the law like reading the bible in a public place. In the end, criminals will have more rights than law abiding honorable citizens. Backwards!
Report Post »redneckphilosopher
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:02pmYour on it you got it right!!!!!!!!! sad but true.
Report Post »Balihai
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 9:06pmTo late, they already do. Recall the BS lawsuits about thefts getting injured while breaking into someones house and then suing the home owner! Crap like this started to get corrected with bills like the castle doctrine, but sadly we have a long way to go.
Report Post »msctex
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:05pmI would be quite interested to hear the Judge or anyone else explain precisely why it would be all right to burn a copy of, say, Huckleberry Finn, but not the Koran. Because all it can conceivably boil down to the the relative nature of the responses. There would not be throngs of Twain readers hopping up and down and chanting in the streets, threatening to behead people. Even if the King James Bible were burned, there might be a response, but not one which would be cause for fear, as this would be antithetical to Christianity. And that is the nut of the issue: which is more important, concrete Free Expression, or the possibility of cause for lack of security.
The country was founded upon and has existed for 230+ years based upon the former. The latter is a European notion, and is the beginning of the slide to where they find themselves today.
Report Post »GraceSullivan
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:59pmThis church owned these books, so if they wanted to burn them there should be no problem. It is not like they were going to burn another person’s property. The problem I had with this church is that they were doing it only for the purpose of hurting others. I would not and do not support the “religion” of Islam, nor do I want that book in my house. If by chance I recieved one in the mail, I would get rid of it.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:28pmYes they should have the right. That was the originally purpose of our government, to protect our personal property.
But now we have the Internet and web cams. Private property can become a public spectacle to the world. So laws might be made to enforce responsible uni-casting and censorship would escalate. Especially If peoples lives are in danger. But at least we can still burn things in private….. What? Does that sound like the U.S. of A? Something is wrong.
The real issue under attack is our freedom of speech in public protest.
Report Post »JJMinor
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:58pmArgumentum absurdum! When logic fails, go for emotion. Next thing you know the internet will be taken over by the feds because a live vid feed from an Muslim terror group might cause a “fire” panic in the USA. Yes, your honor, that’s the kind of logic that you learned in law school, right? We should prevent free speech and expression because it might cause a panic? Somewhere? Sound like Big Brother wants to keep us all nice and calm.
Report Post »poppopschell
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:57pmNow I know a major reason why all the legal cases concerning Obama have been rejected by the Stupid Court NOT on the facts but on the issue of standing.
Report Post »tmarends
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:55pmApparently burning the flag or Bibles is OK, but not the Koran. Yelling “fire” in a crowded building and buring the Koran (or any other book) is like apples and oranges… you can’t compare them. Why have we been asleep for so long as to get Judges like this??
Report Post »cubanbob
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:03pmyou read my mind, amazing, you can burn the bible and you can burn the old glory but the left says you can’t burn the koran……i’m out of toilet paper, can i use the koran instead considering that the left has been wiping their asses with the constitution?
Report Post »Peraslax
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:52pmThe reason we get judges like this is elections have consequenses, Im from Cincinnati in southern Ohio, the area that gave Bush this state even tho we are outnumbered by liberals in central and northern Ohio, because we usually turn out in very high numbers.This election was different, So many republicans were so upset over the immigration issue and Bush’s role in the bail out that they decided to stay home to teach the republicans a lesson. I was actually told that it would do the republicans good to lose big and what harm can be done in just a couple of years of Democratic rule. My obvious answer was that we had some very old supreme court justices and that (At the time) Hillory would probably get 2 picks. That is for life, not just a few years, Sure enough, turn out was low and Obama got the state, And I dont think it was isolated to southern Ohio. EVERY election is important, Dont bite off your nose to spite your face, I dont know who McCain would have picked but I know it wouldnt have been Kagan.
Report Post »Daragon29
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:55pmSo he is saying it is not ok to burn the koran, but bibles and flags are okay? LMAO. Liberal Judges and their hidden agendas. I think you should be able to burn whatever you want, and say whatever you want.
Report Post »Flannery
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:37pmSo, if I want to stop a liberal from burning the American flag all I need to do is make a terroristic threat against all Americans because of the proposed flag burning. The otherwise Constitutionally protected act can then be prohibited because it “incited” my teroristic threat and possible terrorist actions.
Report Post »Greeny
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:54pmFirst of all I think the pastor in FL is an idiot. But let me get this straight, Koran burning equals bad use of freedom speach and should not be legal, but burning the Stars and Stripes is perfectly acceptable. I guess this is why they say ‘liberalism is a mental disorder’.
Report Post »urrybr
Posted on September 16, 2010 at 4:30pmAmen!! Liberalism is the worst kind of mental disorder.
Report Post »Nalora
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:51pmSo to shut down free speech, all you need is a murderous mindless mob who might get upset and hurt people. Free speech is to blame then, and not the murderous mindless mob.
Report Post »TaunTaun
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:05pmIt’s that the Democrat Party, ACLU, NAACP, et al?
Isn’t it?
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:06pmIt’s the new American way.
Report Post »sabichan
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:45pmYou’re absolutely right.
Is it acceptable for me to start killing people who burn flags now? Actually, you know, that’s not really the same either. Is it acceptable for me to kill any random Muslim over here because some Muslims burned a flag in Afghanistan? If a Muslim in Afghanistan, burns copies of the bible, should I be able to attack an Afghanistan Embassy?
I get the fire comment. If someone yells fire, people might panic to save their own lives and inadvertently harm people. But, if I yell “fire” in a crowded theater and someone gets upset that I yelled the word “fire” and starts killing people because they were upset, who’s really the one at fault?
Report Post »redneckphilosopher
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:40pmIt’s my opinon that all this talk about radical islam in America today is the shout of fire in the theater. People will be tolerate to a point but cramming it down our throat will lead to a backlash. They don’t want to just hijack planes they are hijacking our way of life as well. The bible and the christian way of life is about grace and mercy but it does talk about rightous anger as well Jesus did turn over a few tables and called people out for who they were.
Report Post »Peraslax
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:49pmSo basicly what he is saying is, we have no right to free speech if that speech angers a muslim enough to want to kill us. I missed that part of the constitution somehow. Yelling fire in a theatre is causing panic by your direct action. That’s not the same as burning a book and someone else taking enough offence to murder over it. I wonder if Breyer feels the same way about burning a bible or even the American flag? How long before we have our streets blocked off for dayly prayer and we will have no right to even complain about it because it may set off some jihadist
Report Post »Citizen
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:17pmI agree that’s such a horrible comparison that he should lose his job immediately.
Burning a religious text is nothing at all like yelling fire. You can see his agenda from a mile away.
Report Post »ClassicalLiberal
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:56pmTo clarify the theater example: its best to keep property rights rather than “free speech”. Otherwise we go down this slippery slope of “regulating” speech for the “public good”.
“The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.” And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.
For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there.”
Ethics of Liberty – Murray Rothbard
Report Post »http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp
wingedwolf
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:27pmcan you say, “shariah law?” I knew you could!
Report Post »Hokiedad
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:53pmToo late, they’re already blocking streets offin NY City for mosque prayer overflow.
Report Post »Clarke2012
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:48pmThis guy is as spooky as the GZM imam. A Clinton appointee. Certified Marxist.
Report Post »aesaac
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:47pmnon sense
Report Post »Watcher438
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:46pmAlso, since we all know that New Yorkers are world renowned for their patience, tolerance, and even naturedness, isn’t the victory mosque a permanent shout of fire? If they do build it, they will most likely get what they want. Any violence against the mosque is a chance to play the victim, and in America, the victim has more rights, privilege, and power than the normal citizen. The squeeky wheel gets the cash.
Report Post »SunnyJ
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:05pmAgreed. Moreover, I question the idea that we can already be at “war” with intolerance in the Muslim world (with hundreds of thousands of deaths and more threats coming in), and anyone can rationally make the argument that burning the Koran is more threatening for trampling us, than the war itself. Seriously, we are at war with radical Islam, and we don’t want to what? Make them mad at us because we might get hurt…is this for real? The facts are that there is no proof whatsoever that anything we actually do or say makes any difference to radical Islam. They are at war with the West. The fact that we breath everyday is an affront to these people. Where are they teaching this crappy logic…oh, wait….progressive colleges everywhere. What a joke.
Report Post »ClassicalLiberal
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:10pmYelling Fire is about private property violation, not free speech. Otherwise they will claim they need to “regulate” it for the “public good”.
“The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.” And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.
For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner’s property by disrupting the performance he is putting on.”
Murray Rothbard- Ethics of Liberty
Report Post »wesaidso
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 7:01pmThe mosqueketeers win ether way ,not built they will point to
Report Post »our so alleged hatred of the muslim religion.
If built they win as a reminder to all of there conquest brining
there ideology to ground 0. for all to see…
Pelosis_Nemesis
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 9:56pmI don’t recall us burning Korans on Sept 10,2001……they attacked innocent citizens without being provoked.. had we burned Korans and picked a fight maybe I could see the “logic” in this. The reality is that they hate us to the core and it has nothing to do with burning the Koran or protesting the Mosque or anything else other than us not being Muslim….however they feel just fine thumbing their noses at us by being so PIG headed about this @%$&ing Mosque..and I am starting to think they are trying to sucker us into a fight….just like the jerk in the school yard that knows the teacher is looking and provokes you into making the first move, you get detention and he goes home with the girl…in this case detention will be prison or death and the girl our beautiful country…..
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:45pmIf I were Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Cheif Justice Roberts, I’d hire a food-taster. The opportunity for Obama to replace any one of these is an opportunity I guarantee the left is coveting greedily.
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 12:53pmInteresting..
Report Post »peterMN
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:00pmBe afraid, be very afraid
Report Post »Eagle07
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:15pmBreyer is another liberal idiot.Its ok to burn the bible and the flag but not the koran. What an idiot.
carena1
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:06pmI was thinking the same thing! Good point! They only need one more to tip the court in their favor. Scary, isn’t it!
Report Post »dec143
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:34pmMy thoughts exactly…… Pray & Vote
Report Post »GOTT-EM-MAUSER
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 4:23pmSpoken like a true “Black Robed NAZI” “Vee Vill Decide Vaat It Means und let you Ounderlings Know Veen Vee are Reddi!!”
PRAY: YES
BE AFRAID: NO
LOAD MORE AMMO: YES
Report Post »