|
September 15, 2010
Who is encouraging the trampling?
Speaking of constitutional rights that can't be taken for granted, via an email I learned that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has made an analogy between burning the Koran in protest, and shouting fire in a crowded theater: We... 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.First of all, there is a huge difference between an burning a Koran in protest and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. The former is an expression of a particular point of view -- an opinion -- while the latter is not the sharing of any viewpoint at all, but the deliberate fomenting of panic by falsely declaring an emergency when there is not one. It is no more "speech" or "expression" in the First Amendment sense than it would be to pull a fire alarm or phone in a fake bomb threat. I'm wondering what Breyer is smoking. He seems to be conflating the possibility of irrational and murderous reactions by angry Muslims to the burning the Koran with the act itself. Essentially, he is saying that the standard for when the government can prohibit opinions should be grounded in whether they might cause people to become violent. That could be said about any number of things. Like the assertion that Hitler was right to kill the Jews, that Muhammad was a child molester, that black people deserve to be enslaved, etc. We take for granted that no matter how wrong such opinions might be, they nonetheless are constitutionally protected speech. Breyer, though, seems to believe in true mob rule. If enough people resort to violence over an opinion they don't like, then it's fine for the government to prohibit the expression of the opinion. Imagine if what Breyer suggests were to become the legal rule. People who engaged in rioting and violence against opinions or even people they disliked could get them banned because of the violence they committed. As my friend put it in the email, it's the "rioter's veto." Those who trample the most on the rights of others become the winners. If enraged patrons who didn't like, say, the film "Fitna" were to start a riot and trample on people in a crowded theater, I guess Breyer would ban the movie. Far from saving us from such people, Breyer encourages their trampling by giving them their way. posted by Eric on 09.15.10 at 04:43 PM
Comments
That's pretty darn horrible. Veeshir · September 15, 2010 05:15 PM It's almost hard to believe that it's not some kind of huge conspiracy that we have these federal judges who go out of their way to show complete madness when it comes to defending those who wish harm or exploit America but disregard the Constitution when it comes to issues that are actually written in the document. Common sense issues too! People have been pissing on the bible, defiling the crucifix in the name of art for years...but don't mess with Allah! Lionel Turner · September 15, 2010 11:12 PM What if someone got a national endowment for the arts grant and suspended the koran in a big jar of urine? After all, they did it for "piss Christ" and although there were complaints, I don't believe there were riots or even one person killed over it. Oh, and according to historic islamic sources, Mohammed married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage at 9. If that doesn't make him a pedo, I don't know what would. The Truth About Mohammed by Robert Spencer is a great book using only islamic sources. eternalgreenknight · September 16, 2010 07:16 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2010
August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
All You Need To Know In Illinois
Clearing The Decks Who is encouraging the trampling? In Honor Of The Latest Tea Party Victories Because we are all suspects, we have "no reasonable expectation of privacy"! Advertising No Quarter Leyenda Hoyt On Heinlein - My Heart Belongs to Daddy Going Gaga over double standards in understanding death
Links
Site Credits
|
|
A thought experiment:
Let's say that some self-appointed authority of a potentially violent "religion of peace" based on the strict interpretation of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution as its holy document would . . . oh . . . I don't know . . . declare a "fatwa" against people who hold the sacrilegious (to them, anyway) belief in the legal theory of "a living Constitution" . . .
would this not, by Breyer's own "living Constitution" thinking, bring into question his very "right" to make Supreme Court decisions that do not conform to the Constitution's original intent? After all, doing so may be tantamount to shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, yes?
Wheels within wheels . . .