The mind of a liberal judge.

[Jacob]

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.

I have run into lots of smart people who say really stupid things. I don't have much reason to think that Breyer is any smarter than them.

[UtahDan]

I have run into lots of smart people who say really stupid things. I don't have much reason to think that Breyer is any smarter than them.

You are obviously a smart guy but you have a lot to learn.

[Coach McGuirk]

You are obviously a smart guy but you have a lot to learn.

Don't we all.

[UtahDan]

Don't we all.

You more than me, me more than LA, LA more than Lindsay Lohan, so yeah.

[creekster]

I think both sides here are taking breyer's comments a bit out of context. He seems to be saying that if you overlay the INTERNET onto the speech equation the answer MIGHT not be the same. He recognizes "fire" in the theater as an exception to protected speech, but wonders if there is an equivalent to saying 'fire' or the equivalent to the theater itself on the internet. Time will tell. I do not think he says that there is no right to burn a Koran. Hardly. He says that we have this new forum and the answer to all of our speech questions might be different as a result.

OTOH, I have more to learn than Lindsay Lohan and, as an old dog, that is a very tall order. So I could just be wrong.

[Coach McGuirk]

OTOH, I have more to learn than Lindsay Lohan and, as an old dog, that is a very tall order. So I could just be wrong.

Wait, are you below me then? Woohoo!

[UtahDan]

I think both sides here are taking breyer's comments a bit out of context. He seems to be saying that if you overlay the INTERNET onto the speech equation the answer MIGHT not be the same. He recognizes "fire" in the theater as an exception to protected speech, but wonders if there is an equivalent to saying 'fire' or the equivalent to the theater itself on the internet. Time will tell. I do not think he says that there is no right to burn a Koran. Hardly. He says that we have this new forum and the answer to all of our speech questions might be different as a result.

OTOH, I have more to learn than Lindsay Lohan and, as an old dog, that is a very tall order. So I could just be wrong.

You were a couple more steps down that line but it just seemed gratuitous to go there.

[wuapinmon]

I think both sides here are taking breyer's comments a bit out of context. He seems to be saying that if you overlay the INTERNET onto the speech equation the answer MIGHT not be the same. He recognizes "fire" in the theater as an exception to protected speech, but wonders if there is an equivalent to saying 'fire' or the equivalent to the theater itself on the internet. Time will tell. I do not think he says that there is no right to burn a Koran. Hardly. He says that we have this new forum and the answer to all of our speech questions might be different as a result.

This is my interpretation of what was said.

[KillerDog]

If flag burning is protected, so is Koran burning, so is bible burning. It's that simple.

Constitutional law is never simple but there is an analysis that must be done. There are reasons to curb expression. There are types of expression that are harder to curb. Your analysis is that a Justice of the Supreme Court is stupid for not wanting to make a judicial decision without looking at the applicable law and standard in the area. Scalia's decision would be interesting but he would be the foremost proponent of looking at the entire body of caselaw and making a determination.

[Clark Addison]

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.

I am not sure why here and in your thread title you indicate that this is an issue with Liberals. The most recent comparable issue to this, I would think, is the right to burn the American Flag. In Texas v. Johnson, where the right was upheld, the justices that voted in the majority were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy. In dissent were Rehnquist, White, Stevens, and O'Connor. After that, there was a large amount of legislative effort to ban flag burning. This was led by the Republicans.

If you are concerned about abrogation of the right of free speech, I would say you are in as much danger from either side of the aisle.