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.