The Pussified Thinker
He likens Koran-burning to "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater."
Here's the thing; there are rour powerful institutions in our society,
1) the government
2) the media
3) the academic world
4) religion
If we are not allowed to criticize powerful institutions, they become unchecked powers.
No one would suggest that we ought not be able to criticize the government, right? So, why should religion get a free pass?
Here are the rules of Free Speech: WHATEVER YOU THINK, PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN'T SAY - THAT'S EXACTLY THE THING THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID ... AND LOUDLY.
From ABC News:
Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. 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?”
Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.” Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.”
For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.
“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “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.”
11 comments:
off-topic:
Charles Johnson of LGF Now Deleting Posts Which Evidence His Paranoid Islamophobic Bigotry
When Tim Blair used charles johnson’s site archives to demonstrate the erratic and capricious nature of charles’ precipitous u-turn from believing that Obama was a “seekrit muslem” and an anti-white racist, mobbed up with anti-semites and communist terrorists, to shrieking “racist!” at anyone who didn’t get on the Obama train when he did (unexpectedly and without explanation), Charles responded by mocking Blair as an ersatz “investigative reporter”.
Despite the…smugness of this evasive and dishonest reply, it would appear that Charles is cognizant that his past ravings substantively undermine his standing in these matters, and so he has begun stuffing old posts of his down the memory hole.
And this practice also extends to editing paranoid and bigoted remarks from posts which are left standing…
http://wristaction.blogspot.com/2010/09/charles-johnson-of-lgf-now-deleting.html
God’s will? Or the inevitable result of a backward, theocratic culture?
Saudi Arabia Awakes to the Perils of Inbreeding
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/6444_Its_Sad_When_Cousins_Marry
Thanks. I read that yesterday. Charles is ridiculous.
But,
I don't want to deal with that guy anymore, so I won't post about it here.
Pastorius,
I have to agree with you. The last thing we need are people like Justice Breyer now. By the way, its also ridiculous, to compare burning Korans to yelling Fire in a crowded building because the act of burning the Korans in and of itself does not harm anyone. Violence acts committed by Angry Muslims, is not an argument for outlawing it.
The dangers of viewing the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" illustrated by Breyer. Just outlaw whatever is out of fashion or potentially volatile... I do not think that is what the founders had in mind as they were drafting the Bill of Rights.
Anonymous,
I agree, that's why I oppose activist Judges. Its not because they ignore the will of the people. Judges are supposed to do that, but they are not supposed to ignore the constitution or make up new rules out of thin air.
There's a lot of irony in this.
There are/were quite a lot of people posing as a reasonable opposition to the so called "zero ground" "mosque", conceding that it might not be a monument to terrorism or a terrorist headquarter after all, but only "insensitive".
Now some people are all for koran burnings. Because that must be a sensitive thing to do...
And muslims, those reckless muslims, at the same time, 9-11 this year was a holy day for them, not because 9-11-2001 attacks, but because of a holy day that changes, kind of like Easter. And, instead of showing all the insensitive their critics would love to see, they've scaled down their celebrations, in consideration to the irrational conclusions some might have.
But the odds are that we won't see mentions of things like that in blogs like these and others who think they're somehow saving the world from terrorism with blog postings.
The whole koran burning is just stupid, and shows how troubled the whole thing got.
Not only this is stupid enough to insult the non-terrorist muslim absolute majority, but just provoke the radicals. Prove the points for those more sensitive to their rethoric, for whatever reason.
And these people think they're doing some good.
It's somewhat akin to jews burning bibles and nazi flags in the same event, as a protest agaisnt neonazis, equating all christians with nazis. Not only it would only offend many people (of which a little part might even nourish a mild anti-semitism, now aggravated), but simply wouldn't have any effect whatsoever against nazis. Nope. They would just keep with their anti-semitic rhetoric, now with more "evidence", and perhaps, would feel inspired to do more attacks.
Patriot Proscription List: September 14, 2010
ADD: Breyer, Supreme Court Justice.
Holmes' stipulation is irrelevant with regard to Muslims, and Breyer knows it (unless he's a moron, and even a libtard can't get that far in life if he really is an idiot). The "fire in a crowded theater" argument prohibits utterance that can be expected to result in panicked behavior by rational people believing themselves to be in mortal danger, resulting in unnecessary injury. Moooooslums are by definition irrational and have willfully relinquished their choice to behave rationally, and have chosen to riot, destroy and kill in response to words (or actions) that any rational person can be expected to shrug off or ignore. The responsibility for their actions rests on them, not the Krayon-krispers.
Nevertheless, I believe the Left will eventually use this and other rationales to attempt to legally silence us. Since there have been no significant violent incidents following the 9/11/10 Krayons With A Side of Fries-style protests, so much chatter about curtailment of free speech is ominous. They are waiting for the right excuse.
Now Ronbo, we don't want to see your name changed to Sulla, do we?
;)
Breyer is not going to be your problem anyway.
Sotomayor is. Breyer will judge based on the case. Sotomayor will enforce dialectic.
And more important will be republican majority in state houses so that congressional district are drawn to stop favoring democrats.
Then take down Obama (if he runs) in 2012.
Do that and we ensure a 5-4 win. Or better.
Post a Comment