The mind of a liberal judge.

[falafel]

That's an entirely separate debate.

As an aside, the reasons that shouting "Fire!" in a theatre was not protected speech in the early 20th century don't apply today. If I were to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre, nobody would get trampled. We have fire exits, we're not using oil lamps, nobody would believe me, etc. There just isn't any real threat to public safety.

And if you can't see how a burning in protest is a type of speech more worthy of 1st amendment protection than the nuisance that shouting fire is, then I'd be happy to try to explain it.

Anyway, pretty much everybody agrees with me, I think. And just about any judge at any level would be able to throw this case out rather quickly. And that Justice Breyer doesn't think that's proper is an indictment of him. And a pretty serious one.

Justice Breyer isn't faced with a case right now. I think you're right that any judge would throw it out, right now, including Breyer. There's been no actual harm done. Nor has there been any act making Koran burning illegal. There's nothing to try, no facts to discover and apply law.

All Breyer is saying, and what I'm agreeing with, is that at some point there may come a point where burning the Koran will foreseeably result in deaths (in fact, people were actually killed in Afghanistan in protests over the planned burning). He's merely asking the question - how far do allow this to go? These events have led him (and me) to believe that what was once permissible speech might be becoming less permissible.

[creekster]

(For my part, I think burning the Qur'an is despicable, but protected, since it should not provoke otherwise reasonably-acting individuals to commit acts that would result in injury to other parties.)

You think that is why it is protected? I think that may be why it isnt restricted, but not why it is protected.

[All-American]

You think that is why it is protected? I think that may be why it isnt restricted, but not why it is protected.

Sorry, let me clarify. I do not believe that the protection which the first amendment offers to speech such as this is subject to the restriction one would place on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

[DU Ute]

Justice Breyer isn't faced with a case right now. I think you're right that any judge would throw it out, right now, including Breyer. There's been no actual harm done. Nor has there been any act making Koran burning illegal. There's nothing to try, no facts to discover and apply law.

All Breyer is saying, and what I'm agreeing with, is that at some point there may come a point where burning the Koran will foreseeably result in deaths (in fact, people were actually killed in Afghanistan in protests over the planned burning). He's merely asking the question - how far do allow this to go? These events have led him (and me) to believe that what was once permissible speech might be becoming less permissible.

I agree with this

[KillerDog]

And that Justice Breyer doesn't think that's proper is an indictment of him. And a pretty serious one.

I disagree. Justice Breyer's job is to keep an open mind and look at all sides of a legal question. He has to have mental agility which would allow him to determine the relative weight of the arguments. That's the point of his quote, unless you have misquoted him or taken him out of context. That said, I agree with him that the argument must be considered. I don't recall the standard for free speech and when it can be restrained due to imminent injury. The fact that this is political speech and yelling "fire" is not, weighs in favor of the freedom to make the speech. The fact that it is a farther removed action if independent actors cut throats in response versus a panicked crowd responding in the moment also weighs against it. Those things aside, the Justice is doing his job. I suppose you don't like him for other reasons and are blinded by those reasons.

[Levin]

Why should murderous people be able to hold our 1A rights hostage? We have two equivalent books: the Bible and Quran. You'd agree the government couldn't restrict the burning of the Bible. But it can restrict the burning of the Quran? Just b/c of the threat from an amorphous mob? That's not how the 1A works.

Breyer's analogy is way off. And I would love to read Scalia's retort.

[UtahDan]

Oh settle down. All I hear him saying is that free speech is not an unqualified right and that people should think about the idea that there are limitations. I took it as an effort to provoke thought. The right to burn a Qur'an is not, in fact, unqualified.

[Coach McGuirk]

All Breyer is saying, and what I'm agreeing with, is that at some point there may come a point where burning the Koran will foreseeably result in deaths (in fact, people were actually killed in Afghanistan in protests over the planned burning). He's merely asking the question - how far do allow this to go? These events have led him (and me) to believe that what was once permissible speech might be becoming less permissible.

So the mention of "Burning" and "Koran" should not be in the same sentence in light of people actually being killed.

[BigFatMeanie]

That's okay, and a good point. Once the threat is realized, however, things change. And more to the point, once a threat gets close enough to a certainty, even though it has not been realized, things change. In other words, at some point your liberties cannot outweigh a significant threat to someone's life. But really, would you even want it to?

The founding fathers who pledged their lives along with their sacred honor for liberties wanted to. Hmm, should I side with falfel or Patrick Henry?

[creekster]

The founding fathers who pledged their lives along with their sacred honor for liberties wanted to. Hmm, should I side with falfel or Patrick Henry?

On the one hand, Patrick Henry thought the other founding fathers had betrayed the ideals of the revolution with their mamby pamby government. On the other hand Falafel is a tasty fried vegetable treat. That IS a hard choice.

[falafel]

The founding fathers who pledged their lives along with their sacred honor for liberties wanted to. Hmm, should I side with falfel or Patrick Henry?

I don't know what falfel is, but I would side with preserving life over preserving the right to burn some paper and glue.

[All-American]

I don't know what falfel is, but I would side with preserving life over preserving the right to burn some paper and glue.

And ink! Don't forget about the ink!

[Jacob]

I disagree. Justice Breyer's job is to keep an open mind and look at all sides of a legal question. He has to have mental agility which would allow him to determine the relative weight of the arguments. That's the point of his quote, unless you have misquoted him or taken him out of context. That said, I agree with him that the argument must be considered. I don't recall the standard for free speech and when it can be restrained due to imminent injury. The fact that this is political speech and yelling "fire" is not, weighs in favor of the freedom to make the speech. The fact that it is a farther removed action if independent actors cut throats in response versus a panicked crowd responding in the moment also weighs against it. Those things aside, the Justice is doing his job. I suppose you don't like him for other reasons and are blinded by those reasons.

That must be it. I don't agree with you because I am blinded.

My simple retort is this. Any idiot can see that if burning or desecrating the bible is protected speech, so is burning the Koran. My guess is that at least 5 of the 9 justices on the court would answer that in a heartbeat. And I think that 3 of the remaining 4 would answer likewise.

Hell, even Barack Obama and every other national liberal leader agrees on this. But I'll allow that as burning is not speech per se, there is some room for interpretation here. But it has nothing to do with whether some crazy ass muslims want to kill people over it. If flag burning is protected, so is Koran burning, so is bible burning. It's that simple.

[UtahDan]

Any idiot can see that if burning or desecrating the bible is protected speech, so is burning the Koran.

Whenever someone seems completely irrational to you, especially someone as smart as a Supreme Court justice, you ought to be asking yourself if you might have missed the point. KillerDog laid out very nicely in one of his earlier posts some of the reasons why it is interesting to think about how doing this is like shouting fire in a crowded theater. Not how it is equivalent, but how it is similar. It is a thought exercise and in your righteous certitude I think you have missed that point.

[wuapinmon]

And ink! Don't forget about the ink!

Probably some gold leaf too.