The following quote is from Pamela Geller and Atlas Shrugs. Geller is almost alone in seeing the great danger to American freedom from this attack on the First Amendment by Supreme Judge Stephen Breyer.
As our analysis which follows the Geller quote shows, this attack is connected to the attack by Pope Benedict on the method of English thought known as rationalism. Indeed it is an attack on science itself, because if limits are placed on free speech then science becomes an impossibility. As I state at the end I do not thing Breyer is a “Leftist”.
The leftists on the Supreme Court continue to rip the Constitution to shreds. SCOTUS judge Stephen Breyer said that while the “core values remain,” “how they apply can change” — suggesting that qur’an burning would not be protected under the first amendment. But our unalienable rights “endowed by our creator” never change. The idea that a judge of the Supreme Court would bend to the sharia is a death blow for free men. If Americans are free and not under Sharia, then the qur’an can be burned, as bad an idea as that might be. Free men can do this if they want, and their freedom and rights should be protected. Islamic supremacists should not be allowed a victory for their violent intimidation — if these people want to burn a book, they’re free to do so.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said on Tuesday that globalization may change the way the First Amendment applies in the United States, and he suggested that Pastor Terry Jones’ proposed Quran-burning may or may not be protected under the First Amendment.
Breyer — appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to promote his book “Making Our Democracy Work” — made the comments to anchor George Stephanopoulos.
Stephanopoulos was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton when Breyer was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. The ABC anchorman asked the justice to explain whether globalization, and Jones’s ability to broadcast his actions, poses “a challenge” to the First Amendment.
“[W]hen we spoke several years ago, you talked about how the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law,” Stephanopoulos began. “When you think about the Internet and when you think about the possibility that, you know, a pastor in Florida with a flock of 30 can threaten to burn the Quran, and that leads to riots and killings in Afghanistan, does that pose a challenge to the First Amendment—to how you interpret it? Does it change the nature of…what we can allow and protect?”
“Well, in a sense, yes; in a sense, no,” Breyer replied. “People can express their views in debate, no matter how awful those views are — in debate, a conversation, people exchanging ideas. That’s the model so that, in fact, we are better informed when we cast that ballot.”
While the “core values remain,” Breyer continued, “how they apply can change” over time, he suggested.
Breyer pointed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in a 1919 case testing the limits of First Amendment protection. Holmes argued that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater would not be protected speech because people could be trampled in the rush to escape a burning theater.
“And what is the crowded theater today?” Breyer asked. “What is being trampled to death?”
On Tuesday morning, Breyer said any new interpretation of the First Amendment and the “crowded theater” benchmark will be decided over time through jurisprudence.
“Yes, well perhaps that will be answered by—if it’s answered by our court, it will be answered over time in a series of cases, which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” he said
Posted by Pamela Geller on Thursday, September 16, 2010
Far reaching: This is indeed very troubling and with far reaching consequences. Pamela Geller is very correct in highlighting the poison filled words of this lawyer, albeit a very powerful one, this person Breyer.
This attack by Breyer on free speech and the First Amendment in America, goes along with the distortion of history and reality in the (mis) reporting of everything that went on in Yugoslavia, especially the creation of the myth Srebrenica, all those myths creation in support of this mythical “Palestinians”, and now more recently the complete distortion surround the Pope and his visit to Britain, where the issue is not a handful of Paedophiles in dog collars, but the historical role of the Vatican under Pius 12 in the support of Hitler and the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany, which they would not have done without that support
Crisis: it is the terminal crisis in capitalism which is driving. The Pope has descended onto modern Britain and rather than an attack on Islam, he has launched into an attack on the secular values of the British people. In other words the pope is an ally of Islam and Sharia law, on the same side actually as the present Archbishop of Westminster
Clinton and Srebrenica: Do not forget that Clinton also came from this catholic milieu; his mother was a Cassidy who was a catholic from Ireland. But Clinton was the biggest liar that the White House had ever seen. There is something about the honeyed hypocrisy of Catholic politicians that lends to lies, although not exclusive to them.
The repercussions of this lonely Pastor down in Florida are continuing to rumble. I disagreed a little with Pamela on this. Pastor Jones struck a huge blow for freedom. Geert Wilder has called for the banning of the Koran, as he places it on the same level as Mein Kamph. He may have qualified this somewhat, in that it was in the context of “if they ban my film Fitna they should ban the Koran” paraphrasing
I disagree also with Peter Tatchel. He has made too much of these few paedophiles in dog collars, and not enough of the historical role of the Vatican along with the Nazis, in the Holocaust, and especially the role of the Vatican in the Holocaust against Serbs, Jews and Roma in Croatia and Yugoslavia.
Tatchel is a support of the “Palestinians” founded precisely by those Arab Nazis, especially the Nazi criminal and sidekick to Eichmann in the carrying out of the Holocaust against 6 million Jews, Hajj Amin el Husseini
PS I disagree with some of Pamela Geller´s terminology, in this case when she describes this utter pro American capitalist and American ruling class reactionary Stephen Breyer as one of the “Leftists”. But there is so much that I agree with Pamela on…We will iron these issues out as we go along.