He'd better be ready to ban flag/bible/etc. burning as well.
Posted on 09/14/2010 6:19:55 AM PDT by kristinn
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”
If they can’t prohibit me from burning “Mein Kampf,” then they can’t do likewise for the Koran.
I'm not sure that's what he had in mind, but it has certainly been the result.
IF this scumbag(Breyer) prevails with this, I will join 500,000 Americans on a march to DC to burn 500,000 Koran’s.
He'd better be ready to ban flag/bible/etc. burning as well.
How bout wiping my ass with the koran or using it for target practice?
Will this black robed pudless wonder make a ruling on that...../s
I knew after 9/11 that the enemy within was far more dangerous than any ‘foreign’ enemy. Letting members of a death cult hate group [Islam] into the country in the first place is insane.
Letting liberals handle our national security is laughable. Most of them side with our enemies. They’re traitors. A serious house cleaning needs to be done before millions die and the left gets what it wants-—Totalitarianism.....A swing to hard tyranny.
Koran burning? HORRID! Muslims would get angry!
“Only if he’s also open to banning flag burning!”
I can’t agree that that’s the right answer. That way, we invite an endless debate over what may be banned and encourage violence.
It’s time to affirm, not erode, our personal freedoms.
Perhaps Justice Breyer is open to banning koran burning, but I can guarentee him the quickest way to explode the incidents of such burning is to tell Americans that they cannot do so legally. Law of unintended consequences and all that...........
We are a nation at war and the Justice needs to take that into consideration that the "war" is fought on many fronts and many different battlefields.
Right now the battle is for freedom and if "political islam" is not stopped now then we will begin to lose our freedoms.
“but burning the cross was not.”
If he did, I have no doubt it was in context of the KKK burning a cross, not a mooselimb.
What a loon. The difference between trampling and terrorist attack is that trampling is a likely accident to occur when a crowd tries to get out of a theatre quickly. A terrorist act, though, would be the conscious decision to perform a criminal act.
“O, where is the great Neville Chamberlain when you need him?”
By comparison, he was the great Neville Chamberlain, because the current sentiment of cowardly capitulation of liberals to islamic extremism involves no trickery on the part of the extremists, the intentions of the extremists are openly stated by them. Chamberlain was a fool to believe the assurances of Hitler regarding cessation of future aggression, but at least he wasn’t a coward. Those who are now tripping over themselves to quickly surrender to the demands of the islamic extremists are fools and cowards both.
It’s not like “screaming fire in a crowded theater,” because this is simply an irresponsible or malicious act involving a lie that does not express an opinion of any kind. Speech of this nature and certain others, such as libel, is not protected (except in some circumstances, for example, when it is directed at a public figure). On the other hand, speech expressing an opinion is protected even if it may generate a hostile reaction.
Very good. Thanks for the clarification.
Incorrect.
“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.”
This will only encourage Koran burning, and I doubt the government will be able to enforce the ban.
I’m not even going to call it a stupid stunt anymore.
The light for its burning has revealed more cowards and rats then could have been hoped for.
Exactly, this was always a much bigger issue than the simple act of burning a Koran. Thanks so much for posting this thread about Breyer.
Not directed to FReepers but to any libs reading: WAKE UP FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!
Perfectly stated. I agree 100% and have posted similar comments here in the past few days. But you have said it better than I.
To make this “shouting fire” analogy work more better, Breyer should add that if a portion of the crowd in the theater has previously threatened to start their own fires if anyone shouts fire in the theater, it might be a bit closer. But still no banana.
Banning an action just because it might cause others to take actions that might threaten public safety is more than a slippery slope, especially if Breyer bases the ruling on the first amendment. The 1st, as written, forbids Congress from passing certain defined laws; it doesn’t ban citizens from acting.
In practice, that won't be a two-way street. Consider "hate crimes."
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.