Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

In other words, the chief justice is saying Muslims are too dumb to control themselves. You know, because fleeing for your life is analogous to killing over something you disagree with.

Don't believe me? Why doesn't the chief justice support criminalizing the burning of other holy books?

Justice Breyer Suggests That Burning a Quran Could be Like Shouting 'Fire' in a Crowded Theatre--Thus Not Protected by 1st Amendment

CNSNews.com) – 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.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333

Ooh..C'mon, EH!!

What the Chief Justice is saying is that any speech or action, that could lead to inflicting harm on others, may not be protected under the First Amendment!

I absolutely agree with him.

Your blanket statement that "Muslims are too dumb to control themselves” is totally inappropriate here!

Whether we like it or not, there exists, in today’s world, lots of extreme elements who, when incited, may bring harm to innocent people -- like, yes, the Muslim radicals, the radical Christians, the Skin Heads, the Ku Klux Clan… etc.!!!

So we have to live with this reality and act in a prudent manner!

Having the right to do something, and doing the right thing, should go hand in hand, in my opinion!!

By your logic, building the mosque near Ground Zero is like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Basically, doing something that makes others upset is not protected speech.

^by your logic, the loons objecting to Park 51 are too dumb to control themselves.

You may have a point there.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:By your logic, building the mosque near Ground Zero is like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Basically, doing something that makes others upset is not protected speech.

Yes and no….! Just getting upset is totally different from getting upset AND doing something crazy.

If, indeed, the building of the mosque is expected to result in violence and property damage, then, I say, it should not be built.

But I don’t think it will.

In fact, it is not even a mosque. I t will be another ordinary, unnoticeable, building in NY -- with no minarets and speakers calling for prayers. It is actually a cultural center with, of course, a prayer area on one of the top floors.

Once built, the people of NY will forget about the controversy, and they’ll look at it as any other high rise building in Manhattan.

Not allowing it to be built is clearly unconstitutional, and could unneceassirly provoke those crazy Muslim radicals to do something stupid against the US.

Tom Jones wrote:If, indeed, the building of the mosque is expected to result in violence and property damage, then, I say, it should not be built.

^FD, I had to do a double take on that as well.

I couldn't believe someone was arguing that speech/actions which offend others should be restricted.

No one would argue that interracial relationships should be prohibited from being shown on television to soothe over the sensibilities of members of the New Black Panther party.

shafique wrote:^by your logic, the loons objecting to Park 51 are too dumb to control themselves.

You may have a point there.

Cheers,
Shafique

No, not really.

The protesters aren't carrying out acts of violence or (for the most part) threatening anyone with violence.

Therefore, they aren't too dumb to react with violence against an action they do not agree with.

Once again, another epic failure in basic common sense.

Basically, if the judge has his way, this law would reinforce the fanatics in the Middle East and S. Asia that mob violence really does work.

And people scoff at the idea that civilization is at threat, especially from within.

If this isn't a clear-cut example of eroding civilized values, then I don't know what is.

You're rambling, young one.

The Park 51 loons (of whom less than 1000 turned up on 9/11) - are protesting against the constitutional rights of other Americans. No one disputes this (not even 'mommy' and Spencer) - but are protesting that their feelings may be hurt.

It must take a monumental dose of loon reality-distortion-field serum to not see the hypocrisy here.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:^FD, I had to do a double take on that as well.

I couldn't believe someone was arguing that speech/actions which offend others should be restricted.

No one would argue that interracial relationships should be prohibited from being shown on television to soothe over the sensibilities of members of the New Black Panther party.

EH, You’re either unknowingly mixing apples and oranges, or you’re intentionally cherry picking my opinion (taking one part and leaving the other important part out.)

I never said that the freedom of expression (in any form) should be restricted if it is offensive to certain people.

Let me briefly put things in perceptive for you here.

This thread is about the legal opinion of the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (the highest judiciary in the land). All I said is I concur with it.

The Justice referred to the case of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, which apparently was ruled to be unprotected by the First Amendment (perhaps in a previous decision.) He used the analogy between this opinion and the burning of the Quran to illustrate that the latter may not protected either by the First Amendment, for the same reason.

What I did is simply say that we may also be able to extend that same analogy to the case of the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” if, I repeat only if, this case can be shown to have the same cause and effect as the other two cases. In other words, only if the building of the mosque will most likely result in physical harm to others. But as we know, that’s not case here.

I’ll say it one more time. Our freedoms as Americans are usually controlled by certain legal rules and regulations, but even if they are not, we, as intelligent beings, are expected to self-control our freedoms by prudent judgment and sensible behavior.

You may not always agree with the opinions of the Supreme Court justices, but if they decide to extend the scope of the Constitution, or limit it, in any way, we -as Americans- are obliged to abide by their rulings, whether we agree with them or not.

Ohh..I wanted also to say something else, but I’m too tired right now. I cannot write any more. I'm going to bed. Good night All.

shafique wrote:The Park 51 loons (of whom less than 1000 turned up on 9/11) - are protesting against the constitutional rights of other Americans. No one disputes this (not even 'mommy' and Spencer) - but are protesting that their feelings may be hurt.

Although this is an American matter and would like it to leave it to them, IMO they have every right to protest as much as Muslims have every right to built a place of worship on the place. As much as the gay community should have every right to place a meeting centre right next to it and a bacon seller should be able to seel his goods near the entrance of the place of worship. Muslims and other of course will also have the right to protest against this.

A bit OT, but I also protested against the location of the American emabssy in The Hague/Holland. The new location was completely legal, but insensitive towards locals. We won.

shafique wrote:It must take a monumental dose of loon reality-distortion-field serum to not see the hypocrisy here.

Totally.

shafique wrote:You're rambling, young one.

The Park 51 loons (of whom less than 1000 turned up on 9/11) - are protesting against the constitutional rights of other Americans. No one disputes this (not even 'mommy' and Spencer) - but are protesting that their feelings may be hurt.

It must take a monumental dose of loon reality-distortion-field serum to not see the hypocrisy here.

Cheers,
Shafique

No it doesn't.

The Chief Justice wouldn't side with the protesters because they're not threatening violence, as Muslim fundamentalist protesters are in Muslim countries (Britain/Indonesia/Afghanistan/Gaza, etc).

By your logic, all those who peacefully protested against Pastor Terry Jones' right to burn a stack of Korans were loons.

shafique wrote:You're rambling, young one.

The Park 51 loons (of whom less than 1000 turned up on 9/11) - are protesting against the constitutional rights of other Americans. No one disputes this (not even 'mommy' and Spencer) - but are protesting that their feelings may be hurt.

It must take a monumental dose of loon reality-distortion-field serum to not see the hypocrisy here.

Cheers,
Shafique

I rather prefer some 'loons' who show their intense emotions than the way the Islamists show their discontent about certain progressive developments...

http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/hama ... -gaza-pool

Protest is one thing, settling a dispute in court another thing. Violence is just sooo totalitarian, don't you agree?

I agree - loons do have their amusement value.

The loons who advocate violence are just as bad as the fundy nutters who think that killing muslims is somehow related to Danish cartoons (for example). It just emphasises that we're all the same, all societies have nutters with strange theories - like preaching about a religion when you haven't actually read the whole scripture, for example!

Cheers,
Shafique

Is that ignorance you're showing, or are you hiding behind your new Burqa, Shafique?

You still haven't agreed on violence being a totalitarian outcry. Please condemn the violence. We need the support of the muslim community desperately in the West. You wouldn't want our relationship to fracture, right?

LOL

Thanks for pointing out that I didn't explicitly condemn violence and giving the me the opportunity to explicitly, categorically and completely condemn violence as tools of oppression, suppression, intimidation etc etc. I am totally against all offensive wars (especially ones that pretend to be pre-emptive) and certainly against any and all violence against civilians and even troops against which a war hasn't been declared.

For completeness, I am in favour of capital punishment in a justice system with checks and balances and am in favour of fighting to restore justice and peace (eg. I would have fought against Hitler's armies).

I also agree that resorting to violence to suppress one's people is a sign of totalitarianism.

And for even more completeness - I unreservedly condemn those who threaten violence towards those who insult religions, prophets etc - be it cartoons, threatening to burn Qurans/Talmuds/Scripture etc. Nutters one and all.

And no, I wouldn't like our relationship to fracture!

Cheers,
Shafique

My main man. Shafique.

I am totally against all offensive wars (especially ones that pretend to be pre-emptive) and certainly against any and all violence against civilians and even troops against which a war hasn't been declared.

Sure you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

Who refuses to condone war crimes that are more extreme than Al-Qaeda?
philosophy-dubai/most-extreme-religous-fanatic-here-t41961.html


As for Khaybar - I would indeed condemn what Guru Bob told you happened as a war crime. Unfortunately, I don't automatically believe what Islamophobic bloggers say as true, but that's just me.

shafique wrote:I even condemned war crimes he's imagined took place during the Prophet's time (but I have pointed out that what Historians call 'clement punishments' he insists are war crimes - and yet he doesn't see the hypocrisy that all the 'crimes' he accuses the Muslims of pale into insignificance against the Israelite crime he refuses to condemn - no record is there of the slaughter of women and children, or the mass enslavement of 32,000 virgins!)

So, is there really anyone who has more extreme religous views than our young Bible thumper from the US? If there is, let his words be known!

Thus far, you still remain the most extreme religious fanatic here - not least because of a refusal to condemn religously motivated slaughters... but it's never too late to change.

Cheers,
Shafique

Oh, so now you're saying that Khaybar wasn't an offensive military engagement and that massacres weren't committed?

What about Mecca? Wasn't that 'pre-emptively' taken?

Really, there's no shortage of military engagements the Prophet carried out or ordered that were offensive.

As I said, eh, I unreservedly condemn each and every unjustified violent act that you believe took place.

But you still remain the only one I've met who refuses to condemn as a war crime the enslavement of 32,000 virgins after their families were slaughtered - all because you believe God told the murderers to commit the crimes.

As to whether the crimes you allege against the early Muslims did indeed happen or are just a loon blogger's wet dream - that is another discussion for the religion forum.

Cheers,
Shafique