Justice Steven Breyer: Koran-burning not Constitutionally protected.

[tpfkaw]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp

Not terribly surprising to me - it's unsurprising that a person who doesn't care about the Constitution once again doesn't care about the Constitution, but I thought it might be eye-opening for others.

[Sam Spade]

lol - Breyer has always been the most intellectually inconsistent justice.

[Beet]

lol - Breyer has always been the most intellectually inconsistent justice.

Well it's consistent with the famous flag burning case he is known for.

[Sam Spade]

lol - Breyer has always been the most intellectually inconsistent justice.

Well it's consistent with the famous flag burning case he is known for.

You mean the cross-burning case?  He voted in the majority which struck down the anti-cross-burning statute as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  I believe he agreed with the proposition that cross-burning could be criminalized, but only if intent was shown.

[Beet]

lol - Breyer has always been the most intellectually inconsistent justice.

Well it's consistent with the famous flag burning case he is known for.

You mean the cross-burning case?  He voted in the majority which struck down the anti-cross-burning statute as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  I believe he agreed with the proposition that cross-burning could be criminalized, but only if intent was shown.

Oops, I was thinking about John Paul Stevens' dissent in Texas v. Johnson.

[??????????]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp

Not terribly surprising to me - it's unsurprising that a person who doesn't care about the Constitution once again doesn't care about the Constitution, but I thought it might be eye-opening for others.

How are people like this allowed to be justices?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp

Not terribly surprising to me - it's unsurprising that a person who doesn't care about the Constitution once again doesn't care about the Constitution, but I thought it might be eye-opening for others.

How are people like this allowed to be justices?

Democratic President with a Democratic Senate ........duh.

[Iosif]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp

Not terribly surprising to me - it's unsurprising that a person who doesn't care about the Constitution once again doesn't care about the Constitution, but I thought it might be eye-opening for others.

How are people like this allowed to be justices?

Democratic President with a Democratic Senate ........duh.

87-9

[dead0man]

Yeah, you can't just blame Dems for the goober.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp

Not terribly surprising to me - it's unsurprising that a person who doesn't care about the Constitution once again doesn't care about the Constitution, but I thought it might be eye-opening for others.

How are people like this allowed to be justices?

Democratic President with a Democratic Senate ........duh.

87-9

Ouch.........what does this say about the confirmation process?

[Torie]

Speech is not protected if it is reasonably calculated to lead to immediately violence, at least as of that moment. But trust me, the Courts would require the state to take measures to both allow the speech and protect it, and deal with any threats to public safety, after a proper permit were obtained. If intimidation through treats of violence, were a tactic with legal teeth to silence speech, than the 1st amendment is dead as far as I am concerned. And yes, Breyer can be a hack -  albeit a charming one. He is one of those justices who allows his public policy preferences, to color how he decides via using the available legal tools to get to his favored public policy result. The way he would put it, is that the law should be practical - practical as he sees it.

[??????????]

You should not need a permit to protest. The notion is silly, maybe for a parade but not for picketing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You should not need a permit to protest. The notion is silly, maybe for a parade but not for picketing.

So you'd be comfortable with the idea of a group deciding to picket every SCV meeting about y'all being a bunch of racists and not being able to do anything to keep them from harassing you?  (Not that every member of the SCV is racist, anymore than every Muslim is a terrorist.)

Where "freedom of speech" interferes with "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is precisely the type of conflicts between competing rights that has to be adjudicated, preferably with guidance from the legislative branch as to how to do it.

That said, to even entertain the idea that burning the Qur'an could be prohibited no matter the circumstances of time, place, and manner is nuts.

[??????????]

As long as they weren't on private property they can do as they please.

[Free Palestine]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp

Not terribly surprising to me - it's unsurprising that a person who doesn't care about the Constitution once again doesn't care about the Constitution, but I thought it might be eye-opening for others.

How are people like this allowed to be justices?

Democratic President with a Democratic Senate ........duh.

87-9

Ouch.........what does this say about the confirmation process?

It's somehow a huge no-no to vote against a judicial nominee.  Even if that judicial nominee is a threat to liberty.

[Joe Republic]

It's somehow a huge no-no to vote against a judicial nominee.

It was.

[tpfkaw]

I seem to recall an incident where the members of a certain party were filibustering every single nominee for federal judge, and earlier incidents involving outrageous character assassinations of Supreme Court nominees that derailed their appointments or nearly did.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't agree with Breyer here.  Though I agree with the premise that with your right to free speech also means you accept the responsibility for your words.

If you go around burning Korans and it incites violence that leads to deaths, you have blood on your hands and the courts should take that into account. 

But as Torie said, the state should do everything in its power to facilitate your right to burn the Korans and also to stop any violent reaction to it.  But the state is not your crutch here.  Your individual rights are also your individual responsibilities.

[??????????]

Snow, I agree. That's why I believe you SHOULD be able to yell fire in a crowded theater.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's why I believe you SHOULD be able to yell fire in a crowded theater.

[??????????]

If someone yells fire in a crowded theater and nothing happens, what should be the punishment, jmf?