Skip to comments.Supreme Court Justice Breyer Open to Banning Koran Burning
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 doesnt 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.
Indeed. But you know, I suspect many of the guys at the Alamo for example had to be a little nutty, too.
Any other constitutional amendments he wants to do away with while he’s at it?
Jones has shamed others into standing up to the bully, though.
Both bullies, actually - the leftists in general, and the Islamists in particular.
So if I threaten to become violent and go on a killing spree when a liberal burns the American flag, are we going to ban flag burning?
Is the right to free speech and freedom of expression dependent upon whether or not a group of people becomes angry enough to respond violently?
What if burning a koran is a legitimate tenet of my religion? Don’t I have the right to practice my religion even if it makes others angry?
This proposal to ban koran burning is ignorant!
Precisely. Please take this moron's job.
If I write down a passage of the Koran and then highlight and delete it... have I destroyed a Koran?
If my 1st grader uses her colors to write Koran on a piece of paper that I later throw away... Have I desecrated a Koran?
If I post a picture of a Koran on a website, with flames licking at it... have I burned a Koran?
If a Jew who runs a publishing company prints Korans... Does that make the Koran tainted... and if their is a typo and he discards all the printings in the trash... has he committed a hate crime?
This is nuts.
Excellent comment. Thanks.
This person is unfit for such a duty, what a shame we have such dumb people in powerful positions.
Well, the upside is that he's comparing the danger that is "Islam", to a raging inferno inside a confined space. He's right about that, although I'm sure that's not what he meant.
Perhaps, but then they would have to find someone with standing to file an injunction.
great point ExSoldier...so far, the intellectual 'safety' has been engaged...
tyrant wannabes keep talkin like this, they are removing the effective controls we have for self preservation...
That is such a cute looking kid...except for the expression of hate/determination and his jihad outfit.
Well, that’s so. But Dhimmitude is not going to sit well with Joe Sixpack or even with Jane Sixpack, the Obama-voting starry-eyed soccer mom.
“One man walking with God can change the world.” John Brown
But can you shout "movie" in a crowded firehouse?
It really shouldn't matter if we support his action or not. It is irrelevant in terms of the principle involved. Justice Breyer is what is wrong with this country and our judicial system. They want to impose their views on us regardless of what the Constitution says.
Yes. We threaten to cut off funding.
They threaten to cut off heads.
They get their way; we don’t.
It appears that the answer to that question is "yes."
yes, indeed, outnumbered, and no chance
I would bet a Sam Houston is in the wings.
can I type that?
This may be the reaction he is hoping for?
The money thing .....
Bring it on Breyer! and watch for massive nation wide civil disobedience. What a POS!
My birds don’t want that rag in their cages!
Not exactly. The case you're referring to is Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003). Breyer joined the 7-2 majority, lead by O'Connor. Oyez has a good description of the central legal holding(s) of that case. It reads...
Question:While I haven't been able to find the transcript from Breyer's conversation with Stehpi, it doesn't appear that Breyer referenced VA v. Black, but rather made mention of Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion in writing for a unanimous court in the very famous case, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?
Yes, but in a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, in which four other justices joined, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form, in which three other justices joined. Justice Antonin Scalia left the latter portion of the Court's conclusion to argue that the Court should vacate and remand the judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court with respect to Elliott and O'Mara, so that that court could have an opportunity to construe the cross-burning statute's prima-facie-evidence provision. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concluded that the Virginia statute is unconstitutional and therefore concurred in the Court's judgment insofar as it affirmed the invalidation of Black's conviction. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
I could see an intellectual argument being made that recognizes a nexus between VA v. Black with respect to Koran burnings, but any nexus - implicit or explicit - with Schenck is laughable and frightening, all at the same time. Breyer's comments are most disturbing, and hopefully will be discussed at some length in the media.
so he’s saying (compared to shouting fire and people will die)
that burning a koran should not be allowed due to the fact people could die.
So what we have here is a flake of a judge and an American caving in like the cowards they are to islam due to them being afraid of them.
OK so if Christians now go on rampages and kill people does this mean no more making fun of Christians and no more putting crosses in piss?
So the result of this is that if you want to have the banning of speach to be legitimized, then all you have to do is get violent when someone does or says something you don't like.
The obvious response to this is to get violent when a flag is burned. Get violent when someone blasphemes Jesus or Moses or God.
Aren't these supreme court idiots supposed to be able to think things through before they speak?
was this idiot called on by the interviewer about him not following the law , the constitution or how much of a coward he is ????
People like to describe Jones as a “nut”...Hell, by muslim standards he’s completely mainstream...
It’s like Breyer and Patty Murray share the same empty head.
There’s a guy in the fifth row back second in from the left who is not clapping. Must be a troll!
How about not allowing the United States military to burn Bibles?
If burning the Koran is banned, and burning the Bible or Torah or any other holy book is not, then the federal government has become illegitimate, and “when in the course of human events” that happens, it must be replaced. By force of the people, if necessary.
“Indeed. But you know, I suspect many of the guys at the Alamo for example had to be a little nutty, too. “
We need some of those nuts TODAY - in Washington.
So apparently the new standard of “free” speech would be that you’re not allowed to say anything that would upset someone enough that they would commit criminal acts? So speech would be protected only if large enough numbers threatened sufficient violence. Somehow I just don’t think our founding fathers had that notion of free speech in mind when they were seeking to protect it from the likes of Breyer and other similar fascists. As a matter of fact, I think just they had just the opposite in mind. Namely, our founders protected free speech precisely because it incited the British to do violence against those who spoke freely.
Agreed. That guy has changed the world. And he didn’t even burn a Koran.
The problem with Breyer’s “shouting fire in a crowed theater” argument is that it’s only prohibited if there is, in fact, no fire. With regard to koran - there IS a fire. Its teachings result in thousands of murders all over the globe. In this case the theater is on fire. And it would be wrong not to warn people as loudly as possible.
...or getting ready to yell "FIRE!!!"
And not even people in THIS COUNTRY but in foreign countries to be named later.
The ghost of David Crockett riding.
THIS is the reason that it must be done - it is NOT stupid, it is a defense of the constitution.
No joke!! I always thought Breyer was evil. But actually stupid?
After hearing his arguments in McDonald and now this I am convinced he is an intellectual lightweight of the highest order.
I can only imagine the wrath that would come down on him from Scalia during arguments before the Supreme Court on this. Not that the court will have occasion to decide this issue any time soon.
I didn't get a Harumpf from that guy!"
Would Breyer ban burning of the Torah?
Odd you should mention The Alamo...since I’m proudly wearing my Alamo t-shirt today (not talking about a rent-a-car either).
How'd I know!?
You're lucky. I was at the t-shirt stand just behind Santa Anna's artillery but they had already sold out. You must've got there early!
So just threaten to kill and no one will be able to insult you?