According to
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/09/14/george-stephanopoulos-should-threat-koran-burning-make-us-rethink-fi#ixzz0zZkDHzwW,
here's how the exchange went:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, when we spoke several years ago, you talked about how
the process of globalization was changing our understanding of the law. 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 Koran
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?
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.
The "in a sense, yes. In a sense, no" line suggests to me that
Justice Breyer is indeed trying to suggest that modern conditions - including
the possibility that speech here can lead to killings abroad - may in some
measure "change the nature of what we can allow and protect." Otherwise, why
say the "in a sense, yes" part?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: N.J. public transit employee fired for blasphemy
I think Breyer was attempting to demonstrate his approach to constitutional law
interpretation - thinking out loud to show how he would work through the
material in an idealized, judgely fashion. He's absorbed in the subject of
case-by-case adjudication and how "carefully" everything needs to be thought
about. It was very ivory tower of him not to anticipate how his statement would
play in the press and with laypersons who jump to read it as tipping his hand
on what he'd really decide about free speech and Koran-burning.
Ann
On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:58 AM, hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com>
wrote:
How does burning the Koran differ from burning the flag? I thought we had been
through this debate before and find Justice Breyer's comments strange, to say
the least.
Marci
In a message dated 9/16/2010 11:27:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
con...@indiana.edu<mailto:con...@indiana.edu> writes:
In an interview with George Stephanopolous, Justice Breyer has suggested that
burning the Koran conceivably might not be protected by the First Amendment at
all. According to Breyer, "Holmes said it doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in
a crowded theater . . . . 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? . . . It will be answered over time in a series of cases
which force people to think carefully."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/justice-stephen-breyer-is-burning-koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html
Surely this cannot be unprotected speech, can it? Wouldn't that amount to a
global heckler's veto whenever speech triggers or threatens a sufficiently
violent reaction? And wouldn't such a doctrine effectively reward - and thus
encourage - such violence or threats thereof?
Dan Conkle
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
