Stephen Breyer Questions Right to Burn Quran
During an appearance on ABC's Good Morning America this morning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer addressed the recent controversy over a Florida pastor's plan to hold a Quran-burning rally on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, saying he wasn't convinced the First Amendment would protect such an action if the case were brought to the court in the future.
"Holmes said it doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater," Breyer told George Stephanopoulos during the GMA interview, referring to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the opinion in a 1919 Supreme Court decision that addressed Freedom of Speech. "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, who was on the show to promote his new book, "Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View," said that questions about the changing definition of free speech in the internet age will "be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully."
"That's the virtue of cases," he said. "And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn't a fake."
"It's a 'rickety system,' Breyer added, but it has functioned "fairly well" so far.
Breyer also took the opportunity during his appearance to advise incoming Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan as to handling the pressures of her new job. "Of course, you're nervous. I mean, for quite awhile, your cases now -- they're going to be final. There's no one to appeal to," he said. "She will be nervous. But don't worry about it."
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 206 Comments
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
The real problem is the justices probably know the truth but they lie. They are slick politicians. The Court is not the final word on the law and the states can nullify any illegal decision.
...You're trying to say you know more than a Supreme Court justice?...
***
Yes.
"I defy anyone to call burning the koran anything but political speech."
I fully agree with you. Political speech. With no doubt you will agree that a church doing so, expressing political speech, should lose its tax exemption status, right ?
-------------
Frankly I'm disappointed in Breyer. It's a silly comparison to make. It merely gives comfort to those who would seek to have "the sacred" intrude into secular civil life.
The Holmes analog constitutes a situation apt to produce an immediate panic in uncertain & potentially dangerous circumstances with a likely result of pandemonium leading to a probable loss of lives. There is no deliberation, nor time for deliberate consideration of action, but simply a panic response resulting from uncertainty & a falsely implied threat.
The burning of any book, however distasteful & disrespectful it may be as an action, is simply an overblown statement symbolic of personal disapproval. Any "pandemonium" likely to result from it would be as a result of a deliberate and conscious campaign of disregard by those who disapprove of the right of another to express an "unpopular" or contrary viewpoint.
The deliberate suppression of a form of symbolic speech merely to prevent a likely resulting public furor over its unpopularity or the character of its message clearly constitutes a violation of protected speech.
That does not include offending someone. Offending someone does not materially harm them. There is no right to not be offended. If there were then all behavior would be banned as there is always going to be someone who is offended.
There you go again. Following your logic, that means you agree with all supreme court justices, no matter which side they may take on a controversial matter. Obviously, you are the one with limited mental abilities.
***
This logic assumes that the theater is not on fire. And if it actually is on fire, does that mean that no one would be trampled?
You see the flaw in this logic? The notion of imposing "reasonable limits" to any right is equally flawed.