This one worries the heck out of me. A Supreme Court Justice told a reporter that Americans may not be free to burn the Koran, likening it to shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater.
As Zip writes:
So burning the American flag is considered protected free speech but burning the Koran is not? In other words, hyper-violence trumps freedom of speech…
So you have freedom of speech…unless some religious sect says they’re get all violent and crazy if you say something bad about them? Lunacy.
Weasel Zippers has the report from George Stephonopolis (I know it’s spelled wrong but I really don’t care) writes:
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?”
So while you thought the internet was a great advancement for speech in that it opened up millions of lines of communication, Justice Breyer sees that as dangerous. Liberals are all for free speech just not the kind that they don’t like.
But in reality this has nothing to do with the internet. That’s just the excuse. This is all about speech that Justice Breyer doesn’t like possibly being made illegal if he can get four of the other black robed oligarchs to agree. (A feat I don’t think he’ll have any trouble with sadly.)
If I say anything more about this right now it’ll just come out like “Arrrghghghghgghghghgh” which is the sound I make when I’m pulling my hair out.
September 14, 2010 at 4:24 pm
"… What is the being trampled to death?”
Our freedoms due to spineless politicians and activist judges. Next question.
September 14, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Lemmings. Liberals are lemmings.
September 14, 2010 at 5:12 pm
While I disagreed with the plan to burn the Koran, fearing it would put American service members in further danger in Afganistan and Iraq, I would not have denied the right of this group to do so. Imprudent, yes. Illegal, no.
Do they not see how crazy the logic is? No one is fearful of Christians freaking out and putting Muslims in danger of violence when Muslims burn Bibles, but no one doubts the Islamic world will freak if the Koran is burned. Tell me again, which is the religion of peace?
September 14, 2010 at 5:29 pm
C-3PO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it can't help you.
Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
Chewbacca: Grrf.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.
September 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Has Justice Breyer forgotten the legal argument for why yelling "Fire!" isn't protected by the First Amendment?
September 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm
A lot of sweeping generalizations here, kind of a bummer to see. All of my liberal friends are against koran burning morally, but staunchly for maintaining and protecting the right to burn your own property on your own land as an expression of speech.
As a side note, is there any actual physical precedent for the fire in a theatre argument? It seems contrived to me.
September 14, 2010 at 6:26 pm
You always must be willing to do something worse than your enemy does, or you will lose.
Christians are constrained by ethics, and they cannot do things that are intrinsically evil. Muslims are not similarly constrained, for anything is permissible in jihad, and winning is the only thing that counts.
It is very uncomfortable to put this syllogism together in your head. I think that the poor fellows burning the Koran have done it, and are doing it, out of the pure cognitive dissonance they feel as Christians facing an enemy with no limits. The desire to burn it is symbolic – even having the quality of magic. They seek a simple, childish solution to an unsolvable dilemma.
September 14, 2010 at 6:28 pm
So if burning a Kran (new spelling since there always seems to be one) is supposed to be illegal and yelling "fire" in a movie-house is illegal, then where does the eminent Breyer come down on the legality of yelling "there is no God but Yahweh, Muhommed is a heretic!" in a mosque?
September 14, 2010 at 8:18 pm
It's like the law of the jungle codified. Free speech only if it does not offend Muslims because they'll riot. But OK to put a Muslim trophy on the graves of terrorist victims. Must be the golden rule – the one with gold makes the rules.
September 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Blackrep – standing ovation there.
I will add that this childish solution is typical of the fundie mentality, which takes a childish view of everything; the world, history and of course theology.
September 15, 2010 at 12:28 am
The principle seems to be that if I threaten to kill a lot of people if something happens which I don't like, this something becomes subversive and it is not allowed to happen anymore.
It will be interesting to see what happens when Muslims declare that they'll kill Christians everywhere if American citizens sing "Star-Spangled Banner", or declare their support for Israel.
Your very powerful country is slowly shooting itself in the genitals, of its own accord and without any help from the outside.
M
September 15, 2010 at 1:17 am
ack. now, i'm not a fan of burning the koran, at all. i mean, why would somebody in their right mind feel that the symbolism behind burning a book that is very important to masses of people could have positive results?
but that is another argument. whether or not i like the idea of burning books, i like the idea of disallowing people from burning books much less. i would be in favor of, say, the federal government being banned from burning books, but not the people. we should really be able to do whatever we want, and make whatever statement we want. period.
September 15, 2010 at 2:21 am
Burn Baby Burn!
September 15, 2010 at 3:08 am
I don't think this has anything to do with the Koran, at least as such. The liberal elite could care less what that book says, or what the Muslims believe.
What they want is to warp and tear up the Constitution once and for all, and the Koran is a wedge to tear up the First Amendment in both aspects. Freedom of speech and religious expression will both be run roughshod over, just as those freedoms are fast becoming nonexistent in Europe.
September 15, 2010 at 3:18 am
Essientially Breyer argues that if one party precieves an offense, and said party raises enough hell, that offense should be censored. Or simply put, if enough Americans violently protested the burning of the Stars and Stripes, then by all means flag burning should be made a criminal offense.
Of course, Justice Breyer doesn't think flag burning should be made illegal. I'm sure the only exception to the 1stm Amendment is the Koran. And like AIG's very quiet implementation of Sharia for thier Muslim clients, Justice Breyer would be very discreet in how he writes his opinions. The good justice is a dhimmi and doesn't even realize it.
September 15, 2010 at 3:26 am
Prof. Arkes, writing for First Things, offers a very good conservative argument against the legality of burning the Koran. Justice Breyer may not have the right to be right, but, on this issue, I think he is. Even a broken clock…
September 15, 2010 at 4:00 am
Let's look at this a bit analytically.
First, it's wrong to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre because people will of course react by stampeding.
And, while Muslims react with violence to criticism, there is an essential difference with the theatre case. Their reaction is not a reasonable attempt to preserve their lives.
But, second, note that Justice Breyer is canvassing the possible outcome of an issue that could come before the court.
This strikes me as improper behaviour for a judge. It calls into question the perception of his impartiality if the issue comes before the Supreme Court.
September 15, 2010 at 4:06 am
Quran burning should be illegal, as should desecration of the Eucharist. Since we are called to be as cunning as serpents in addition to being innocent as doves, I say this is a perfect opportunity to ride the bandwagon.
September 15, 2010 at 9:31 am
"Quran burning should be illegal, as should desecration of the Eucharist".
The one doesn't follow from the other. Last time I checked, the US were a Christian country.
Following your train of thoughts no one should eat a steak anymore because the killing of the cow is a desecration to the Hindus; nor should anyone be allowed to use insecticides, because this is mass killing to a Jainist.
We must slowly free us from the very dangerous delusion that values be all equal. This leads to absurd consequences. Values are NOT all equal and NOT all equally deserving of protection.
I slowly have the impression that in the quest for equality we are losing basic common sense.
M
September 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm
"So you have freedom of speech…unless some religious sect says they're get all violent and crazy if you say something bad about them? Lunacy."
That's basically the German way. Blasphemy is legal as long as it isn't fit to disturb public peace. MTV's PopeTown was allowed because Catholics behaved like sane grown-ups protesting it. Official reason.