Supreme Soviet Justice: Burning Koran Is Unconstitutional

reply to post by mnemeth1


They are saying that there are laws in the area that apply to open burning. They are also talking about the fact that that is the extent of the law and so that is how far his freedom will be infringed upon. If there are already laws in place that prevent you from burning things a certain way, no amount of crying free speech will change that. You just proved no ones freedom of speech is being stepped on here. The freedom to burn things in opposition to local fire codes is and I have no problem with that.

I'm sure (in a world where this precedent was set) if an American Citizen were to threaten violence over the passage of a certain law or over anything that the Glorious Leaders do, that citizen would immediately be scooped up for re-education.

Speech doesn't hurt people;stupidity hurts people.

reply to post by evil incarnate


But here is the question. Where does Congress have the ability to limit my speech? The interpretation is quite clear on Amendment One, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.....

State and local level is a different story, but they are under the order of precedence which is the US Constitution, Supreme Court precedence, State Law, Local Law, which all must abide by the US Constitution.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Call the police and make a false report. Libel someone just for fun. Run into a mall tomorrow and announce that you have a bomb. Go to a bank and talk about how you want to rob the place. After you do all of those things, maybe you will have the answer you are looking for.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Call the police and make a false report. Libel someone just for fun. Run into a mall tomorrow and announce that you have a bomb. Go to a bank and talk about how you want to rob the place. After you do all of those things, maybe you will have the answer you are looking for.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Which all of the laws that pertain to the items you listed are not governed by Congress. They are local and state laws to ensure a civilized society.

Even those laws are not directed at censoring speech, but punishing the person for liable, false claims, threats against others and property, but not their speech.

Furthermore, the OP thread is about a sitting Supreme Court Justice that cannot decide if 'in the Internet age", whatever that has to do with anything, is the burning of the Koran akin to yelling fire in a theater.

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

It damn well should be. What is even more evident is that he is saying it will incite violence, but yet do you see hordes of Americans threating the lives of others when they burn the flag? Trample on it? Not that I see. Do you see large scale Christians take up arms and vow murder and mayhem when their Bible is burned? Not that I see.

So the excuse that its a safety issue is another step towards replacing liberty with safety. It is a precursor to protecting a group of citizens, in this case, Muslims because we fear it will anger them. Hogwash and BS all the way.

if you can burn a flag
if you can burn a effigy
you can burn a book



freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

burning books may be attributed to " nazis" or "fascists"


but you are a fascist when you tell someone they cant do something you dont agree with but then again a fascist or nazi wouldnt debate it they would just shoot you in the head without a second thought.

i have major problems with supreme court justices life time appointments in particular.

term limits would be nice hell i think the american voter should get to decide instead of the creatons in congress.

more interestingly from the article:

Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said on Tuesday that globalization may change the way the First Amendment applies in the United States

Basically what he means by globalization is foreign lobbyists

ok thx bye