Supreme Court Bends Over For Islam
Shockingly, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told George Stephanopoulos on GMA that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the Internet age -- the First Amendment condones Quran 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?"
Shocking, horrible, disgusting. So, we can burn the flag because Americans aren't violent primitives and won't kill each other for it, but because Islam is filled with violent primitives, the First Amendment goes bye-bye?
In related news, Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris is disappearing thanks to the Islamic fatwa against her. Mark D. Fefer posts:
She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program--except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.
So, will any speech that offends anybody still be free -- unless it offends Muslims, and then the Constitution becomes a big old piece of toiletpaper?
thanks, Martin
UPDATE: Clarification by Breyer, "Suggests Koran-Burning Is Constitutionally Protected After All" (Volokh).
Ummm... it most certainly DOES condone Koran burning. Or Bible burning. Or any kind of book burning.
Doesn't mean it is a good idea, but absolutely people are within their rights to do so.
NicoleK at September 16, 2010 9:03 AM
Fucked. up.
You know what pisses me off even more... if an AMERICAN threatens to kill someone over something like that, THEY are the ones that are arrested or at least interogated and put on a "watch" list. But if a Muslim threatens your life, well, the YOU are the one that has to jump through fucking hoops. Don't go after the Muslim who threatened you because, well, they might out a fatwa on the govt too or something. How is that even right?
FUCK! I am super angry about this right now. I can't even put my finger on why exactly I am angry but I am. I feel like the constitution and my rights as an American are being slowly taken away from me and I am helpless to do anything about it. Molly has to give up her entire indentity because some Quran reading kid fucking fucktard in ANOTHER COUNTRY is pissed because she drew a picture of Mohammed and what's worse is we are powerless to do anything about it!
Sabrina at September 16, 2010 9:11 AM
Often, after I read Nicole's comments I wonder what planet she's living on. I saw the Breyer interview and he very much implied that through a series of cases, the right to burn Korans will be outlawed, deeming such an action to be screaming "Fire" in a theater.
I suppose for some, the brutal reality is too overwhelming to hear that their mind instead invents a fictional cover which is more palatable.
Here's a recent video from Denmark featuring an interview with Mark Steyn. He shares his predictions about what may likely happen in Europe in the next few decades.
The big question is: Will North America wake up in time to reverse this destructive trend?
Robert W. (Vancouver) at September 16, 2010 9:33 AM
It's not the Breyer is wrong, it's just that he proceeds from the assumption that we cannot control the violent outbreak. It IS causing fire by asserting rights... but that begs the idea of others not being able to be offended, therefore we have to avoid offending them.
On the other hand, if a fatwa was issued, I would remind them that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
SwissArmyD at September 16, 2010 9:57 AM
Robert, I'm not saying that it WON'T be outlawed, I'm saying that would be horribly against the Constitution. Not that that seems to matter these days.
If our Justices are cool with banning protest speech, we have big, big problems.
NicoleK at September 16, 2010 10:08 AM
The irony is that Ollie Holmes' line is often misquoted. You can't "falsely" yell fire in a crowded theater. The downside of that decision is that it helped to form the "clear and present danger" meme for the state. Namely, protesting the draft prevented the government from recruiting in WWI. All because a guy handed out anti draft flyers. That was then overturned creating the "if it hurts someone" aka a riot then its not protected.
I was a on grand jury where the DA tried to charge a guy for inciting a riot during a fist fight because a bunch of people were watching in the city square. The cops felt nervous wading in to break it up...thankfully we unanimously dismissed that charge.
Sio at September 16, 2010 10:40 AM
They won't ban it they'll just restrict it to "free speech zones".
Jeez! I drew a disrectful picture of Mohammed and I didn't even get "F**k You" much less a Fatwa.
parabarbarian at September 16, 2010 12:12 PM
I am so fucking sick of the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument. Everyone who wants to restrict free speech always throws it out there, whether it's the liberal wanting to silence a "racist" public speaker or the conservative trying to ban flag burning. It doesn't matter if the example has anything at all to do with yelling "fire."
Book and flag burning may seem like childish forms of protest, but they are, in my opinion, the essence of the First Amendment. They are the expression of displeasure with a certain set of ideas. Burning a Koran is just a simplified and more public version of the many anti-Islam posts that Amy has written. If Amy were a more public figure, her writings could easily cause the same riots.
KarenW at September 16, 2010 12:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/09/16/supreme_court_b.html#comment-1755379">comment from SioThe irony is that Ollie Holmes' line is often misquoted. You can't "falsely" yell fire in a crowded theater
Excellent point, Sio.
Amy Alkon at September 16, 2010 12:37 PM
The only justification Breyer offered for declaring Koran-burning unconstitutional is that it upsets Muslims so much they riot & murder over it. But the list of things that Muslims will riot & murder over is rather long - drawing cartoons, writing novels deemed blasphemous by some ayatollah, naming teddy bears, the Miss World pageant, gay people being allowed to exist, etc. So what's next on the list of things that must be declared unconstitutional in order to pacify the Religion of Peace?
Martin at September 16, 2010 12:49 PM
Islam is a religion of kindergärtners with bombs. The solution is not to coddle and encourage them, the solution is to combat them and lay down the rules about how you behave around here.
Amy, sharing this on the blog and Facebook too.
Suki at September 16, 2010 1:15 PM
I am a Cowboy fan. Fan is short for fanatic, yanno. Some of my cohorts decide to commit terrorist attacks against anyone dissing the Silver & Blue. Like, blow up a sports bar in Philly, crash a plane into the Giants' stadium, etc., then proclaim that if people keep it up, there will be more of the same. It will now be unconstitutional to criticize the 'Boys. Yay!
Cowboy Fan at September 16, 2010 1:32 PM
"So what's next on the list of things that must be declared unconstitutional in order to pacify the Religion of Peace?"
I would say that to stop supporting all of the royal dictators in the Middle East.
Then, they will stop calling us "Great Satan" because finally we are practicing what we are preaching even if that move turned out to be financially disadvantageous to us.
Until you accept the fact that the Muslims, just like Amish, have a right to remain in stone age within their own border, and pay for the oil at the fair market price, be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Chang at September 16, 2010 1:44 PM
Stephen Breyer is not The Supreme Court.
He's one justice.
You can honestly say "Supreme Court Bends Over For Islam" when the Court actually decides that way.
But it's unfair to the rest of the Justices to say that now - even if we don't, as Robert and Swiss say, accept that what Breyer was saying was simply that it could go that way via various cases, not that he thinks it's a good idea.
Judges speak in hypotheticals a lot, and those hypotheticals don't always match with what the Judge wants to happen.
(It doesn't help that ABC can't be bothered to provide a transcript to let us see the full context... and I'm not sitting through a GMA video at work to suss it out.
But I'm sure as hell not taking George Stephanopolous' word for it either.)
Sigivald at September 16, 2010 1:45 PM
Jesus, everyone relax. Condone does not mean prohibit. And it takes a majority in the Supreme Court to make a decision, not one judge. We do still have a very conservative SCOTUS.
What he said is it may be wrong to burn the damned book, but you have a right to do just that.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/15/US-Breyer-LKL/
(Couldn't get to the GMA link- it HTTP 404's)
Eric at September 16, 2010 1:55 PM
So what's next on the list of things that must be declared unconstitutional in order to pacify the Religion of Peace?
So much for gay civil unions...or repealing "don't ask don't tell" and having out and proud homosexuals serving in the military.
If we're going to surrender, then let's do it. If we're not, then it's high time to put up the Gonzales flag or the Gadsden flag.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 16, 2010 2:05 PM
Until you accept the fact that the Muslims, just like Amish, have a right to remain in stone age within their own border, and pay for the oil at the fair market price, be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Sure, Muslims have a right to remain in the stone age. They just don't have a right to drag me into it with them via threats of violence.
Frankly, I'd rather have Amish neighbors - who don't actually live in the stone age. Call it more 19th century. And they have a quaint idea: as teenagers, they're allowed to decide whether to stay in the church, or leave and live in the wider world.
Yes, those wacky Amish. They don't see their children choosing a different path as dishonoring their family.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 16, 2010 2:20 PM
maybe that GMA link was wrong, in any cse it is now removed.
SwissArmyD at September 16, 2010 2:30 PM
"Sure, Muslims have a right to remain in the stone age. They just don't have a right to drag me into it with them via threats of violence."
Actually, I think it is the other way around.
They are bitching that the Western Culture don't have a right to drag them into "advanced civilization", "via threats of violence."
If you don't believe me, I want you to name one Western nation, where Muslims are patrolling the city to enforce Sharia rules.
Chang at September 16, 2010 2:32 PM
Here's a link with some context for the interview to replace the GMA link that's gone down the memory hole:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333
What Breyer said then was not the same as what he said on CNN the next day.
Martin at September 16, 2010 3:24 PM
@Chang: translate this article
North Rhine-Westphalia: Turkish Police in “Problem” Districts
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article8534459/Tuerkische-Polizei-soll-in-Problemvierteln-aushelfen.html#reqRSS
biff at September 16, 2010 3:58 PM
More here on Turkish police patrolling Turkish immigrant districts of German cities:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/23/germany's-surrender/
Martin at September 16, 2010 4:54 PM
France and England, Chang.
Or did you miss the linked article a week or so ago about the muslim cabbie who kidnaped adults fleeing their muslim famillies and forcing them to return home?
lujlp at September 16, 2010 4:58 PM
Drat, link not working, alternate here:
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/germanys-surrender-muslim-police-from-turkey
Martin at September 16, 2010 5:06 PM
Martin, that is one of the most outrageous things I've read in a while.
kishke at September 16, 2010 5:33 PM
yup, Martin, I think this is what bad immigration policy also looks like, not just the muslim angle. Though I met many Turks in Germany when I was there, I wasn't there long enough to say if they were integrating or not, based on their "worker" status.
SwissArmyD at September 16, 2010 5:48 PM
As Glenn Reynolds wrote yesterday, "Threaten to cut off heads, get a heckler's veto. Civilized discourse is for wimps." Reasoning like Breyer's will, if it continues long enough, eventually lead to civil war. If the Supreme Court does in fact ban Koran-burning, it will be the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century.
Cousin Dave at September 16, 2010 6:50 PM
I forgot to mention: The gal who started the "Draw Muhammed Day" is having to change her identity and go into hiding. Saw it earlier today. Let me go dig up the link.
Cousin Dave at September 16, 2010 6:53 PM
Here's one, from Gawker.
Cousin Dave at September 16, 2010 6:55 PM
...and then the Constitution becomes a big old piece of toiletpaper...
You mean the one little square on the roll that's not already toilet paper?
I really wonder if these "public servants", whether judges, legislators, or presidents, have actually thought of what all the unintended consequences of all they say will be? Or do they even care? When something that they can't control inevitably happens, will they be genuinely perplexed, actually not understanding the relationship between their statements (not to mention what they did and didn't do) and the consequences? How stupid must they be to not even get the cause-and-effect of what they're setting in motion?
cpabroker at September 16, 2010 8:00 PM
Yes, those wacky Amish. They don't see their children choosing a different path as dishonoring their family.
There have been some that end up drug dealers and such. But they are a small percentage of the total.
Jim P. at September 16, 2010 8:10 PM
Here's the difference between yelling in a crowded theatre and pissing people off:
If I'm in a crowded theatre and someone yells "Fire", I think my life is at stake. That if I don't get out, I will die. This is a visceral, basic, instinctive reaction, "fight or flight" hormones will course through my body.
If someone insults me, I'll get mad, but anything I do after that is my choice. It's not a life or death situation the way a fire is.
It's bizarre to assume that ignoring blackmail threats should be illegal. By that scenario, if someone says, "Tell me you love me or I will kill myself" you're obligated to say you love them.
Now, I do think the Koran burning was tasteless and a bad idea. I think that General Petraeus was right, if he truly believed that it would compromise his mission, to -ask- that it not happen. Obama as well. But -asking- is not the same as forbidding. If the government is stepping in and forbidding protected speech, that's a problem.
NicoleK at September 17, 2010 1:07 AM
Leave a comment