Breyer's "I Scream" rationale
Justice Breyer, in this interview with George Stephanopoulos, indicated that free speech may not be protected if it angers Muslims.
Stephanopoulos asked if the burning of the Qur'an had any implications for the First Amendment: "Does it change the nature of what we can allow, and protect?"
The Supreme Court justice's answer? "Well, in a sense, yes, and in a sense, no."
Details follow, but this conversation amounts to indicating that those who scream, commit violence, or murder when offended might be protected from being offended. Even internationally. Bible burning is free speech, because Christians don't scream and destroy and kill people over Bible burning.
He suggested that the "core values" of the First Amendment applied to "debate" ... to "conversation" -- and suggested that "how they apply can change." Stephanopoulos responded that "the conversation is now global!" Breyer: "Indeed."
He likened the situation of burning a Qur'an to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater (a case decided in 1919 by Oliver Wendell Holmes)."With the Internet, you can say this: As Holmes said, it doesn't mean you can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And why? Because people would be trampled to death.
He alluded to angry Muslims being "today's crowded theater" -- and thus the right to cause injury or death may not be protected by the First Amendment. "Perhaps it will be answered, if it's answered, by our Court."
Justice Breyer suggested that it would be answered in a long line of cases that would force people to think carefully about what they were allowed to say.
Breyer is not just a lawyer, he is a Supreme Court Justice. His speech is careful, and would be especially so when discussing the Bill of Rights. The implication from his statement above: Breyer does not at this moment know what the First Amendment means. The issue would not be "changed" by the Court, it would be "answered."
As someone who has written hundreds of thousands of words of legal briefs, I find his remarks troubling: This is one of the people who will decide.
This was in a discussion with the host on how "the process of globalization is changing our understanding of the law" and specifically the changes that the Internet and mass media will force up on us and how we interpret the Constitution.
Consider the precedent this sets. Only the concerns of terrorists will be protected, and for them exceptions will be carved out of the First Amendment leaving it worthless.
But for everyone else, blasphemy and insult is still fine, since the other victims don't launch into violence as a result. And if they did, if other groups decided to commit violence because they were offended by coal plants (as happened in the UK recently) then their rights not to be insulted would trump (and gut) the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, such a treasured part of the American experiment, would be subjected to blasphemy laws.
And this, as Imam Rauf would be delighted to agree, would make the United States even more compatible with Sharia Law.
===|==============/ Level Head
Stephanopoulos asked if the burning of the Qur'an had any implications for the First Amendment: "Does it change the nature of what we can allow, and protect?"
The Supreme Court justice's answer? "Well, in a sense, yes, and in a sense, no."
Details follow, but this conversation amounts to indicating that those who scream, commit violence, or murder when offended might be protected from being offended. Even internationally. Bible burning is free speech, because Christians don't scream and destroy and kill people over Bible burning.
He suggested that the "core values" of the First Amendment applied to "debate" ... to "conversation" -- and suggested that "how they apply can change." Stephanopoulos responded that "the conversation is now global!" Breyer: "Indeed."
He likened the situation of burning a Qur'an to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater (a case decided in 1919 by Oliver Wendell Holmes)."With the Internet, you can say this: As Holmes said, it doesn't mean you can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And why? Because people would be trampled to death.
He alluded to angry Muslims being "today's crowded theater" -- and thus the right to cause injury or death may not be protected by the First Amendment. "Perhaps it will be answered, if it's answered, by our Court."
Justice Breyer suggested that it would be answered in a long line of cases that would force people to think carefully about what they were allowed to say.
Breyer is not just a lawyer, he is a Supreme Court Justice. His speech is careful, and would be especially so when discussing the Bill of Rights. The implication from his statement above: Breyer does not at this moment know what the First Amendment means. The issue would not be "changed" by the Court, it would be "answered."
As someone who has written hundreds of thousands of words of legal briefs, I find his remarks troubling: This is one of the people who will decide.
This was in a discussion with the host on how "the process of globalization is changing our understanding of the law" and specifically the changes that the Internet and mass media will force up on us and how we interpret the Constitution.
Consider the precedent this sets. Only the concerns of terrorists will be protected, and for them exceptions will be carved out of the First Amendment leaving it worthless.
But for everyone else, blasphemy and insult is still fine, since the other victims don't launch into violence as a result. And if they did, if other groups decided to commit violence because they were offended by coal plants (as happened in the UK recently) then their rights not to be insulted would trump (and gut) the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, such a treasured part of the American experiment, would be subjected to blasphemy laws.
And this, as Imam Rauf would be delighted to agree, would make the United States even more compatible with Sharia Law.
===|==============/ Level Head