Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Justice Breyer Open to Banning Koran Burning
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 | Kristinn

Posted on 09/14/2010 6:19:55 AM PDT by kristinn

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has expressed a willingness to ban protesters from burning the Koran as the modern day equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The Supreme Court has ruled burning the American flag in protest is protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Breyer spoke to George Stephanopoulos on ABC's Good Morning America today:

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?”

Breyer is promoting his new book, Making Our Democracy Work.

Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; abcdisneynews; achillwind; aclu; aclumia; activistcourts; activistjudge; antiamericanism; antichristian; blackrobedtyrants; blasphemy; bookburning; boycottdisney; breyer; breyerdecision; censorship; churchandstate; clintonista; clintonlegacy; constitution; cordobahouse; deathofthewest; democrats; democratscandals; dhimmi; donttreadonme; doublestandard; establishmentclause; fail; firstamendment; flagburning; freespeech; groundzeromosque; islam; islamicsupremacists; judicialtyranny; justicebreyer; koran; koranburning; liberalfascism; liberalprogressivism; lifeamongthekufir; lping; moralabsolutes; mosqueandstate; progressives; proislamist; rapeofliberty; scotus; sharialaw; stephanopoulos; stephenbreyer; stephengbreyer; stupid; thegodsinblackrobes; tyranny; unamerican; unconstitutional; victorymosque; waronterror; whywefight
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-348 next last
To: kristinn

101 posted on 09/14/2010 6:51:21 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

For the unknowing, illinformed and the wary:

There is no such thing as moderate Islam.

All knowingly subscribe to Sharia which is a pillar of their societal structure.

When the founding fathers thought of America, their little baby, the last thing they wanted was an invasive force to stifle, smother it, and then overwhelm it and kill it.

Most people do not recognize that what happens in a mosque is sedition. Pure and simple. Islam is not just a “religion”, it is a cult. Larger than that though, it is a political system, it is it’s own government, a economic system (which includes funding new mosque construction), its judicial...all wrapped up in the word sharia. This is inclusive of its military (jihadis) all rolled into one with one intent ...and that is to rule wherever they take root. It is a invasive, systemic infection looking to take over the host once it has quantum.

This is not just a “religion”, but something that cloaks itself in those terms so it should not be given the same treatment contemplated under the first amendment. The Korans Sharia rules are to consume whatever government there is wherever it goes.
Islam is political, and it’s goal is to supplant and replace. Globally.

When the founding fathers thought of America, their little baby, the last thing they wanted was an invasive force to stifle, smother it, and then overwhelm it and kill it.

The sooner America learns this , the better. Some know and many do not, but it is a threat to everything America knows.

Obama? Obama and Company? Should be tried for treason in this issue for promoting the establishment of a foreign government on our soils. He is doing nothing to protect America as per his oath. Also, as a Muslim, he knows this, he know far better, he knows sharia, but is looking to deceive America.
For all interested...Wanna learn more?
On Sharia
http://thehayride.com/2010/08/louisiana-at-leading-edge-in-fight-against-shariah/#more-5392

On sharia global finance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7iHxl90CD0&feature=related

On sharia global Economy and huge financial fraud!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbb5s8hALVE&feature=related

this,
Three things about Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feature=player_embedded

and a little Bill Whittle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_iDPRud_c

Maybe we should talk about the birth of Pakistan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IstZSgniH8

I really dislike having my money or seeing other American money spent through VISA, HSBC, AIG et. al. products etc to prop up attacks against us through their sharia products.


102 posted on 09/14/2010 6:51:34 AM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

*Thanks. I try for a high signal-to-noise ratio*

You get a 599!


103 posted on 09/14/2010 6:52:15 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #104 Removed by Moderator

To: Genoa

This is a sophisticated rendering of “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”


Exactly. Now, do you think they would pursue the same logic if someone threatens to kill people over abortion, or any other provacative activity they’ve ruled is “constiutionally protected”?


105 posted on 09/14/2010 6:52:35 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
So now it is to be “Freedom of speech, unless your speech really really upsets irrational people?”
106 posted on 09/14/2010 6:52:44 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

That was my point.


107 posted on 09/14/2010 6:52:48 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: FrogMom

And that would only guarantee a huge boost in koran and lighter fluid sales.

I’ll bring the marshmellows...


108 posted on 09/14/2010 6:52:57 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Intimidation works. Self-censorship borne out of fear is the worst, most insidious form of restrictions on free speech of all.


109 posted on 09/14/2010 6:53:58 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Since just about everything insults these pigs and their religion where does it stop? Can I wrap the Koran in bacon? Can I feed it to the pigs? Can I use it for toilet paper?
110 posted on 09/14/2010 6:54:28 AM PDT by ladyvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Breyer made it sound like Breyer on his own, or the Supreme Court, can ban Koran burning. They don’t have that kind of direct authority. In order for such a ban to be put in place, Congress would have to pass a law banning Koran burning, and the president would have to sign it. Then challenges to that law would have to make their way through the sludge-like federal court system. When, and only when, it reached the Supreme Court could people like Breyer rule it to be Constitutional. I just don’t see that happening. I don’t see Congress doing that, although no doubt BO would sign it (and I don’t think even BO is dumb enough to try to accomplish this by executive fiat). I think such a law would cause the kind of uproar that has elected officials fearing a quick end to their political careers, and would die a slow, painful death if proposed. Had they not long ago endorsed flag-burning, it might have had half a chance.


111 posted on 09/14/2010 6:54:56 AM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

112 posted on 09/14/2010 6:55:52 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: moovova

“And that would only guarantee a huge boost in koran and lighter fluid sales.”

bacon fat or lard would be a better.


113 posted on 09/14/2010 6:56:02 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Don’t burn it, ban it. It’s a book of hatred urging murder. And it’s there in any language you translate it into.

Mohamed Atta carried just such a passage as his inspiration to kill.


114 posted on 09/14/2010 6:57:08 AM PDT by romanesq (For George Soros so loved the world, he gave us Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has expressed a willingness to ban protesters from burning the Koran

So the Christian Bible would be protected, too, right? According to the left, Christians are even more dangerous.

If our own government were to tell me I couldn't burn a koran, I'd burn one every week while praying for liberty. If everyone did it, they couldn't catch us all. In fact, burning the koran would become another ritual of remembrance - A remembrance of the Declaration of Independence.
Burn a koran day would become a national holiday for real, and the patriots would see to it that it was.

115 posted on 09/14/2010 6:57:39 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
*So, if we act violently...we get our way. Nice to know.*

Remember how Dr. Spock and virtually all experts on the behavior of children advised us to give in to tantrums and threats of violence from children so that they will grow up to be good people???

....neither do I.....

116 posted on 09/14/2010 6:57:51 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Texan Tory
Bad behavior is being rewarded when the law is adjusted to accommodate it. This just reinforces the use of increasing levels of bad behavior by the extremists to obtain their goals.

Not just the extremist,I think it invites everyone to use the same escalating levels of bad behavior to accomplish their goal.
If one group is not bound by the law why should another?

117 posted on 09/14/2010 6:58:01 AM PDT by jerwin63 (I once worked in an orange juice factory, but I got canned, ...couldn't concentrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GoCards

Weird, ain’t it?

So burning a flag is protected speech, but burning a Koran can be banned? Burning a Koran doesn’t meet the imminent and likely test. It isn’t intended to create an imminent and likely violation of the law.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action?qsrc=3044


118 posted on 09/14/2010 6:58:33 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

IMPEACH THE BASTARD!!!

THIS is where THEY are going with OUR Constitutional Rights.

They should read the Declaration of Independence - the part about whenever a government become abusive of these ends it is the right of the people to abolish it.

America was founded on Enlightenment Principles - the concept of all human beings have certain unalienable rights that come from their Creator, not from any government. The First Ten Amendments recognize those Rights, they don’t grant them, hence they cannot be abridged.

The idea that burning a filthy piece of crap like the Koran constitutes shouting fire in a crowded theater holds no water. The only threat comes from those individuals worshipping the Koran. Take away that right and the state in effect is recognizing Islam as a special case and Muslims as a protected class.

The mere fact that he has STATED this, shoudl REQUIRE this bastard to recuse himself from any future cases arising in the future with regard to such an idiotic idea.


119 posted on 09/14/2010 6:58:39 AM PDT by ZULU (No nation which tried to tolerate Islam escaped Islamization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
As the Supreme Court decides / defines our
Bill of Rights by votes of 5 - 4, Constitutionalists
are left out in the cold, soon, it does appear.

While the media repeats, "Move Along, Nothing to See Here"

120 posted on 09/14/2010 6:58:49 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Well let him run for a legislative seat if he wants to create law. Otherwise, he should shut up.


121 posted on 09/14/2010 6:58:51 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

We may have already crossed the line into a post-constitutional America where the supreme law of the land is whatever at least 5 SCOTUS Justices decides on any given day.


122 posted on 09/14/2010 7:02:01 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has expressed a willingness to ban protesters from burning the Koran as the modern day equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.”

Apparantly to get a similar law vis a vis out nations’ flag, the next time soime hippy sets it ablaze, the same needs to be done to hippies everywhere.

In short order our flag will be similarly protected.


123 posted on 09/14/2010 7:02:16 AM PDT by Grunthor (Name one country with a muslim majority that doesn't have brutal, repressive laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

That’s the long way. the short way is to seek an injunction against Koran burning on whatever grounds they think will sustain an injunction. Besides, the rule of law is passe in the Obama era.


124 posted on 09/14/2010 7:03:14 AM PDT by kristinn (Since Jul 31, 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
You got it.

It is OK to curtail speech we agree with, so long as they are also open to curtailing speech we disagree with?

How about “Congress shall make no law”?

125 posted on 09/14/2010 7:03:26 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AU72

I don’t entirely disagree with you, but I don’t think you read what I wrote.


126 posted on 09/14/2010 7:03:50 AM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: kristinn; All

Contact info for the court; remember folks to keep it civil or face the draconian forces. (I’m not kidding; remember who called Pastor Jones. . . .)

U.S. Mail:Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Telephone:202-479-3000
TTY:202-479-3472
(Available M-F 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern)

Where to Send Questions or Comments:

For time sensitive or urgent questions please contact the Public Information Office at the following number:
202-479-3211, Reporters press 1

For general questions that are not time sensitive, email: Public Information Office

Contact the Public Information Office by US Mail:

Public Information Officer
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Other Helpful Telephone Numbers

Clerk’s Office: 202-479-3011
Visitor Information Line: 202-479-3030
Opinion Announcements: 202-479-3360


127 posted on 09/14/2010 7:04:05 AM PDT by JoyjoyfromNJ (Psalm 121)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

His logic is incorrect. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is dangerous because the rational impulse is to save your life by running out of the theater. Burning a Koran may be offensive, but it is not a threat to someones life. So the irrational reaction of wanting to kill people who had nothing to do with the Koran burning is not an analogy to the theater example. How can you be on the supreme court and not see that?


128 posted on 09/14/2010 7:04:09 AM PDT by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

So... let me see if I’ve got this right; it’s perfectly okay to burn the American flag, but... we’re not supposed to burn the koran????

Sorry, Breyer, but you’re a moron.


129 posted on 09/14/2010 7:04:19 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

A ban on Koran burning is absurd.

Is the government going to enter every house and see who has a Koran? Are they going to check every bonfire or fireplace?

well maybe......


130 posted on 09/14/2010 7:05:47 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

Muslims were already exempted from ObamaCare’s mandate weren’t they?


131 posted on 09/14/2010 7:06:16 AM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <--- My Fiction/ Science Fiction Board)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Frickin’ retard.


132 posted on 09/14/2010 7:06:26 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JTHomes
How can you be on the supreme court and not see that?

Saudi Money.

133 posted on 09/14/2010 7:07:43 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: kristinn; FrogMom
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has expressed a willingness to ban protesters from burning the Koran as the modern day equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Only if he’s also open to banning flag burning!

[Sarcasm] Now, now! How could you? Don't you know the purpose of the First Amendment was written specifically to protect the burning of Bibles, American flags (burning anyone else's flat is a "hate crime"), and use of the "f-word?" Really! You "rednecks" think you own this country, don't you"? [Reminder: did you catch the SARCASM tag?]

You obviously don't understand the meaning of "equal treatment." This means creating a dichotomy in which the American majority is forced to act as the "host" and members of "outgroups" are to be treated as "guests." The "host" is required to put himself out and allow the "guests" to walk all over him. In cultural parlance this means the majority's sacred symbols must constantly be subject to desecration and ridicule (to prove this country doesn't belong exclusively to them) while the sacred symbols of the "guests" must be protected from the same desecration (to prove this country belongs to them as much as it does to those "redneck bigots").

Similarly, the religious symbols of the majority must be systematically excluded from all public space (to prove this country doesn't belong just to them) while the religious symbols of the "guests" must be prominently displayed in every public space (to prove that this country belongs to them just as it much as it does to those awful rednecks).

Now do you understand the meaning of the phrase "equal treatment???" [/End Sarcasm]

134 posted on 09/14/2010 7:09:00 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Shabbat Shabbaton hi' lakhem ve`inniytem 'et-nafshoteykhem; chuqqat `olam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Saudi Money.

bingo!

135 posted on 09/14/2010 7:09:15 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

If there was ever an example of the sort of thing that was explicitly intended for protection under the First Amendment, this Koran business is it.

Breyer shows himself to be a shallow Eurostatist who does not understand the Founding Fathers at all.


136 posted on 09/14/2010 7:10:14 AM PDT by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I guess Christians need to be more violent about protecting our religion... then they’ll be more respectful. /sarc

Same thing I was thinking, but I’d leave the Sarcasm tag off.


137 posted on 09/14/2010 7:11:42 AM PDT by mpackard (Read my Lip-Stick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
WTH is wrong with everybody?! Flag-burning has been a sort of sacrament to the left for forty years, but now one of their chief acolytes wants to ban Koran burning?

Is it too much to ask for a little consistancy?

138 posted on 09/14/2010 7:11:55 AM PDT by jboot (Let Christ be true and every man a liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

I have a phrase I use to describe their goals in this area -

The only reason any entity desires to remove your ability to resist force is that that entity, at some time in the future, intends to use force to impose its will on you.


139 posted on 09/14/2010 7:13:12 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
*So the Christian Bible would be protected, too, right? According to the left, Christians are even more dangerous.

If our own government were to tell me I couldn't burn a koran, I'd burn one every week while praying for liberty. If everyone did it, they couldn't catch us all. In fact, burning the koran would become another ritual of remembrance - A remembrance of the Declaration of Independence.
Burn a koran day would become a national holiday for real, and the patriots would see to it that it was.*

We, as Americans, are EXTREMELY tolerant. We will allow ourselves to be pushed....for awhile.

Then like a giant Clifford-size pit bull we push the tiny puppy back with great force when we've had enough.

Warning to Islamic puppies: you're out-gunned, out-smarted, and out-Godded. Your 1 billion is a fly speck compared to the intelligence, technology, military superiority and wisdom of the West.
Stay in your own 9th century portion of the world.

140 posted on 09/14/2010 7:13:19 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Desecrating a Christian symbol by putting a crucifix in a jar of urine is protected speech, yet desecrating an Islamic symbol is not?

Either both get equal protection under the law or it is simply religious tyranny by the liberal elites.


141 posted on 09/14/2010 7:14:22 AM PDT by WaterBoard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: WaterBoard

Our elite rulers are nothing if not cowards.

If they feared us, they would not be able to do even a fraction of the nonsense they currently get away with.


142 posted on 09/14/2010 7:16:12 AM PDT by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: jboot

Is it too much to ask for a little consistancy?


They are consistent - both flag burning and prohibiting koran burning are constistent with their desire to destroy Western civilization.
See the D’Souza article on 0bama as an anti-colonialist, and you’ll see their mindset.


143 posted on 09/14/2010 7:18:25 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

n 1999, the city-funded Brooklyn Museum of Art came under fire when it exhibited a Chris Ofili painting of the Virgin Mary that featured sexually explicit cutouts covered with elephant dung. The Catholic Church, as well as New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, were outraged. Giuliani denounced the exhibit as morally offensive and threatened to cut off funding to the museum and terminate its lease if it did not cancel the exhibit that included Ofili’s painting. The city followed through and withheld the museum’s rent payment for October and filed a state lawsuit to get the lease revoked.

As a countermeasure, the museum filed a suit in federal court against the city claiming violations of the first ammendment, and seeking a permanent injunction against the city to keep it from withholding funds. U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon, sided with the museum, and granted them a preliminary injunction. The city was also ordered to resume the museum’s funding, and to stop any eviction proceedings.


144 posted on 09/14/2010 7:18:33 AM PDT by WaterBoard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Apparently, if we start killing random people every time someone burns a flag, we can get the Supreme Court to ban flag-burning.

Thanks, Souter, for telling our enemies that if they kill us when we do things they don’t like, you will allow the government to ban those things.

Hmmm. If more abortion doctors are killed, will he vote to support a ban on abortion? See how absurd his argument is?


145 posted on 09/14/2010 7:18:49 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Is it OK to shout “theater!” in a crowded fire house?

Back in college they were having an opening ceremony at a new firehouse and I actually almost did this to see if anyone understood.


146 posted on 09/14/2010 7:19:04 AM PDT by RadiationRomeo (Step into my mind and glimpse the madness that is me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

*Is the government going to enter every house and see who has a Koran? Are they going to check every bonfire or fireplace?*

Don’t burn, don’t tell?


147 posted on 09/14/2010 7:19:18 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

This guy doesn’t make sense.


148 posted on 09/14/2010 7:19:28 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
I thought the job of a SC judge was to interpret the law, NOT MAKE LAW!

Guess I was wrong!

149 posted on 09/14/2010 7:19:47 AM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Breyer's analogy of "screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater" is not appropriate. Burning of the koran is not something that would result in people panicing to get to an exit in an emergency situation.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems to me that Breyer's position on this issue fails on multiple counts:

1) can't respect an establishment of religion
2) can't abridge the freedom of speech
3) Anyone who reacts to a burning or desecration of the koran is not the same as someone in a theater who panics because they think a fire is there. With a fire, you feel in danger of your life. To see someone burn a koran does not cause anyone to panic from an uncontrollable catastrophe such as a fire.

The analogy fails, and to apply that analogy is but another extension of the meaning beyond its intent.

Either few are learning to apply logic anymore, or they only try to twist that logic to make language mean something that it doesn't.

150 posted on 09/14/2010 7:20:46 AM PDT by Real Cynic No More (The mighty zero, obama,does not warrant the respect necessary for his name to be capitalized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-348 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson