Well if you believe what DIMwhit Steven Breyer says it's not...

Quote:Stephen Breyer addressed the recent controversy over a Florida pastor's plan to hold a Quran-burning rally on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, saying he wasn't convinced the First Amendment would protect such an action if the case were brought to the court in the future.

Ok so political statement using the Quran is not protected, but use the Bible or American Flag and you're good?!?

Quote:“[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?”

If free speech actions in the US cause problems somewhere else in the world, it's not our Constitutions job to protect every nation, unreal!!!


Rethinking the Constitution

Quote:BREYER: Well, in a sense, yes. In a sense, no. 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. Those core values remain. How they apply can-

STEPHANOPOULOS: The conversation is now global.

BREYER: Indeed. And you can say, with the internet, you can say this. Holmes said, it doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater. Well, what is it? Why? Well people will be trampled to death. What is the crowded theater today? What is-

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's exactly my question.

BREYER: 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.

What's wrong with a member of the media asking a provocative question? What is objectionable about Breyer's responses? And where does he say that burning the Koran wouldn't be protected in the future?

He doesn't. Breyer's initial comments are broad and misleading... he is speaking in such general terms and using a VERY bad example.

"the world" is not a crowded theater where people reacting reasonably (the bar for most legal cases) to a provocative action might be expected to be injured. This is such a far cry from someone threatening an unreasonable and illegal act in response to a provocative action. He might as well argue that calling someone fat might someday be illegal because some radicals in the kingdom of fatopia might kill Americans for doing it.

The ONLY difference is that what WE consider legal and provocative isn't a global definition... and that our legal system can't protect our citizens overseas. THAT is where our politicians, especially the President and Secretary of State come in... and they would obviously rather take away our rights than defend them.

He may have said it, but I have YET to hear Obama support the rights of American citizens to burn books in protest... even if he discourages them. I have certainly heard him defend the rights of the Cordoba group... WITHOUT discouraging them.

Since when does a Supreme make comments about how a the court would rule concerning a First Amendment protection. Breyer should be ashamed.