Wow - Free Speech Supreme Court No Sir

[ZSorenson]

<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp">This</a> is Justice Breyer saying that burning a Koran *may be* like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The lovely National Review commented that if enough people rioted when American flags were burned, perhaps that could be banned too.

Great.

So much for the moral imperative of voting for Democrats - who put these guys in power.

Although, I have to wonder, is the first ammendment an imperative for the government to act in defense of free speech. In other words, does the FBI have a duty to protect free speaking citizens from violent reprisal? I would say not necessarily, but yes if that's what they were elected to do. That's why we have a second ammendment by the way - an implicit 'negative' right allowing for the first. Congress cannot outlaw speech, but are obviously under no obligation to defend it. They must not, however, prevent you from defending that right if they will not. Because that would be an implicit violation of the first ammendment.

I wonder if leftists aspire to what you might read about them in Atlas Shrugged. That novel seemed to imply that the whole leftist scheme of government - where arbitrary rules make everyone guilty, empowering men over laws - is the result of non-thinking, and evasion. But are the real-life actors more malicious in intent?

I saw a debate between Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia. Scalia, despite his faults, well defended the concept of strict interpretaion of law. Otherwise, he said, the meaning of law is bascially decided by who is in power, which defeats rule of law. The specific subject of the debate was over whether judges should look at the notes of congressional aides (as they draft laws) to discern intent. Scalia pointed out that Congress doesn't vote on intent or the thought process of aides, but rather on the law itself as written. Breyer seemed to take the position that the purpose of Congress was basically to represent who was 'in charge' and enable the bureaucracy to do what the 'people' wanted. He ridiculed Scalia's argument for being pre-modern. He seemed to argue that modern society needs a bureaucracy, that Republican Democracy wasn't fit, and that our system should function like a parliamentary social democracy.

This first ammendment attitude seems to reflect that. But what is the end? The Democrats are empowering the Republicans - should they gain power - essentially. But then again, with amnesty, civil rights redistricting, the educational system, and so forth, the Democrats seem to be seeking a 'permanent majority'. This goes back to FDR's coalitions. Note also the talk of lame-duck votes this fall should the Democrats do poorly in November.

What is it about a political party that causes its voting Congresspeople to have some agenda apart from and beyond what their voters actually desire? They'll cover their hides to get votes, but then go ahead with what they 'really want' when votes don't matter.

Someone is in charge of this, some clever political junkies have schemed this up. Remember that the public option for healthcare was invented by a Berkeley student as a trick for instituting inevitable nationalization of the system.

So what is their scheme? Is it bland green 'progressivism' a la 60's Britain - with $12.00 minimum wages and a 'right to work', plus nationalization? What is it? Rule by professors? Is it "Wall Street" manipulating - George Soros?

I'm not saying any of that is true, nor am I saying the Republicans do not also share some of these ambitions.

Just note, that when a Supreme Court judge says that he doesn't think free speech applies if it conflicts with some other function of government ('security'), that asking oneself, why?, is in order. (EDIT - his argument isn't this, it is about a speech action causing harm to people, but seeing as how burning a Koran has nothing to do with merely inciting mischievous harm and everything to do with political protest, I have to think Justice Breyer is smart enought to have some other motive. The one I mentioned was arbitrary for example's sake.)

Why would he say that? What is his philosophy and its end? Not just implicitly, but what is the explicit intent? We know the implicit result, but I think it could be more obvious and malicious than that. And I don't have a clue as to what exactly it could be.

Edited September 14, 2010 by ZSorenson

[Zip]

Although, I have to wonder, is the first ammendment an imperative for the government to act in defense of free speech. In other words, does the FBI have a duty to protect free speaking citizens from violent reprisal?

Yes, there is a duty for the government to protect citizens from violent reprisal. Violent reprisal is the initiation of force and therefore illegal. Now if you asked if the person should be protected from the legal actions of individuals, such as opposing speech, ostracism or voluntary economic sanctions (refusing to do any form of business with the individual) then, no the Government doe not have a duty to act, as a matter of fact it has a duty to stay the hell out of it.

[Jake_Ellison]

Although, I have to wonder, is the first ammendment an imperative for the government to act in defense of free speech. In other words, does the FBI have a duty to protect free speaking citizens from violent reprisal? I would say not necessarily, but yes if that's what they were elected to do. That's why we have a second ammendment by the way - an implicit 'negative' right allowing for the first. Congress cannot outlaw speech, but are obviously under no obligation to defend it.

Yes they are:

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

5 U.S.C. §3331 (Oath of Office for Federal Employees)

Edited September 14, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[khaight]

<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html#tp">This</a> is Justice Breyer saying that burning a Koran *may be* like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The lovely National Review commented that if enough people rioted when American flags were burned, perhaps that could be banned too.

Great.

In fairness to the National Review crowd (and without a link I can't confirm one way or the other) they may have been making the point that behavior that gets rewarded gets emulated. If the government rewards those who riot when offended, then they're asking for more people to riot.