Good lord.
When I first broached my "don't piss off the crazy dangerous people" observation, I knew it was getting bad. I just didn't know how bad.
At that point, we had as proponents such high-ranking figures as General David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama all saying "forget about your Constitutional rights; it's more important that you not piss off the crazy dangerous people." At that point, you'd find yourself saying "well, it couldn't get any worse.
Yes, it could.
It could include Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.
According to this quite liberal Justice (appointed by President Bill Clinton), burning a Koran just might be the equivalent of "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" -- so explicitly dangerous, that it cannot be tolerated.
Note that Justice Breyer doesn't take into account the fact that the harm caused by the 'fire' incident is from the entirely-understandable panic caused by people believing that their lives are in imminent danger. In the Koran case, it's one step removed -- it's not the burning of the Koran that causes the danger, but the reaction by others to the provocation.
Further, Justice Breyer omits an even more significant point: the responses that he views as entirely predictable and understandable are in itself a violation of the law.
Arson. Vandalism. Assault. Disorderly conduct. Rioting. Inciting a riot. Attempted murder. Murder.
It's a form of blaming the victim. "Yes, you didn't break any laws when you burned that Koran. But you still had it coming. You pretty much deserved what will happen to you. We might try to protect you, but don't count on it."
I thought we were past that.
I guess not.
Oh, well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Could someone tell me what sorts of provocation I can use when I feel like beating the hell out of someone, and not having to worry about the authorities trying to stop me?



Comments (34)
Well, there goes the "voice... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Gmac | September 14, 2010 3:52 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Well, there goes the "voices in my head" excuse.
I really do think the new excuse, "Because I'm a Muslim fanatic and I'm so offended by 'X' that I'm going to kill you" will cover so many more events than simple murder.
whata bunch of maroons...
1. Posted by Gmac | September 14, 2010 3:52 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 15:52
2. Posted by Joe Miller | September 14, 2010 3:53 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Wouldn't issuing a fatwa be more like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, Justice Breyer? Dumbass.
2. Posted by Joe Miller | September 14, 2010 3:53 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 15:53
3. Posted by Wayne | September 14, 2010 4:05 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
So much for "violence will get you nowhere" argument.
3. Posted by Wayne | September 14, 2010 4:05 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 16:05
4. Posted by TexBob | September 14, 2010 4:13 PM | Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
I guess it's time to threaten violence every time the left offends Christians & Jews.
4. Posted by TexBob | September 14, 2010 4:13 PM |
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 16:13
5. Posted by 914 | September 14, 2010 4:20 PM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
These liberal idiots from Breyer to the narxcist marxist in chief are endangering the damn country with thier nansy pansy european appeasement of toga wearing tribesman.
5. Posted by 914 | September 14, 2010 4:20 PM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 16:20
6. Posted by Upset Old Guy | September 14, 2010 5:03 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
You need to be part of a "protected class" Jay. Work out gaining inclusion into the one you find most acceptable.
My question is: How to Hell did Muslims become a protected class? World-wide numbers demonstrate they are anything but a minority. Only about half of them are female... who don't get treated all that well in a significant portion of Muslim ruled lands. Are they all Democrats?
6. Posted by Upset Old Guy | September 14, 2010 5:03 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 17:03
7. Posted by GarandFan | September 14, 2010 5:26 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
"I thought we were past that."
You SHALL report to a re-education camp immediately!
Next watch Breyer find that you have a "Constitutional Right" NOT to be offended by something or someone.
7. Posted by GarandFan | September 14, 2010 5:26 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 17:26
8. Posted by iwogisdead | September 14, 2010 5:27 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Well, Breyer's a complete dumbass, of course.
The whole idea of free speech is that offensive speech is allowed. Speech that doesn't bother anyone doesn't need to be protected. If people can riot and take away free speech, then, there is no free speech.
The "fire in a crowded theater" case, by the way (Schenck), didn't involve a crowded theater at all. It involved flyers opposing the draft in WWI. In fact, Schenck was partially overturned by Brandenburg.
8. Posted by iwogisdead | September 14, 2010 5:27 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 17:27
9. Posted by Les Nessman | September 14, 2010 5:43 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
This is how dhimmitude slowly creeps in.
At some point, we're going to have to decide if we'll be dhimmis, or not.
9. Posted by Les Nessman | September 14, 2010 5:43 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 17:43
10. Posted by Dwayne "the canoe guy" | September 14, 2010 5:55 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Wow, now we're back to the "She had it coming, just look at how she was dressed." days. Wait, isn't that was Muslims use to justify stoning women?
10. Posted by Dwayne "the canoe guy" | September 14, 2010 5:55 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 17:55
11. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | September 14, 2010 5:57 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
It just goes to show that as bad as the Jihadists are, the biggest threat to our freedom is not the terrorists, but their appeasers. If only the left could see that we are all better off if we stand firm against these thugs. But no, they prefer to prostrate themselves.
11. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | September 14, 2010 5:57 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 17:57
12. Posted by retired military | September 14, 2010 6:03 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Funny when we had Piss Christ and people burning bibles he didnt seem to hold the same opinion.
Wonder if some aspiring MSM reporter will point that out to him.
YEAH RIGHT. LOL
12. Posted by retired military | September 14, 2010 6:03 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 18:03
13. Posted by yetanotherjohn | September 14, 2010 6:11 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Isn't there at least an informal rule that the supremes aren't supposed to make comments about maters that are or could become maters before the court. Since there was some speculation about filing a BS "dangerous fire" misdemeanor which would have the obvious 1st amendment defense, it would seem that this should apply here.
On the other hand, Beyer may realize that he doesn't want to vote for a Christian nor a ruling that could be used to stop flag burning, so he just is trying to set himself up to be able to recuse himself. Naaah, I don't think he can think that far ahead.
13. Posted by yetanotherjohn | September 14, 2010 6:11 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 18:11
14. Posted by MunDane68 | September 14, 2010 6:23 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I think this means you can beat the crap out of Justice Breyer as long as you scream 'Allahu Akbar!" while doing it.
14. Posted by MunDane68 | September 14, 2010 6:23 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 18:23
15. Posted by iwogisdead | September 14, 2010 7:41 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Excellent point that I missed. [please work on your spelling]
Yes. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits this sort of comment.
As a student in a midwestern state university, I attended a lecture by the Hon. William O. Douglas. Justice Douglas took questions from the audience. He refused to answer a question about the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon. In 1973.
15. Posted by iwogisdead | September 14, 2010 7:41 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 19:41
16. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 8:25 PM | Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
Two weeks ago Jay, you presented this choice to moderate muslims:
In becoming part of the Judeo-Christian-(Muslim?) modern world, is this the first step that moderate muslims should take, to stand with us, by joining us or at least, acquiescing with our crazies, in the burning of their own Korans?
Just asking? Doesn't sound like a convincing strategy to me to win the moderate muslims over, unless you have no intention to do so.
16. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 8:25 PM |
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 20:25
17. Posted by Roy | September 14, 2010 8:43 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
In our game, a deuce beats an ace. We have the second amendment to prevent idiots like him from abusing the first.
17. Posted by Roy | September 14, 2010 8:43 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 20:43
18. Posted by phaedruscj | September 14, 2010 8:45 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Well Justice Breyer will soon get a chance to decide an issue like this as Snyder v Phelps is coming to the Supreme Court. Speeech doesn't get any more vile and inflammatroy than the Fred Phelps and his family. But in this case the Phelps speeech isn't directed against Muslims.
18. Posted by phaedruscj | September 14, 2010 8:45 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 20:45
19. Posted by Evil Otto | September 14, 2010 9:02 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
In becoming part of the Judeo-Christian-(Muslim?) modern world, is this the first step that moderate muslims should take, to stand with us, by joining us or at least, acquiescing with our crazies, in the burning of their own Korans?
What an insipid argument. No one is demanding that. What we're demanding is that they take a stand against the lunatics in their own faith, the ones who don't merely burn books but instead terrorize, slaughter, and riot. And if a non-Muslim lunatic burns a Koran, that they respond as other civilized people respond... with words, not threats.
19. Posted by Evil Otto | September 14, 2010 9:02 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 21:02
20. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 9:07 PM | Score: -6 (12 votes cast)
What we're demanding is that they take a stand against the lunatics in their own faith
but not build an inter-faith center near Ground Zero
20. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 9:07 PM |
Score: -6 (12 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 21:07
21. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 9:09 PM | Score: -4 (10 votes cast)
That would be too much of a stand.
21. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 9:09 PM |
Score: -4 (10 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 21:09
22. Posted by Deke | September 14, 2010 9:31 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Why do we use the transliterated spelling of "Koran" when the correct spelling is "Qur'an?" I think this def. shows how racist, islamophobic, and uninclusive we are as a society! (Sarcasm)
Breyers comments are a growing example of a largely politicized court. A court we haven't seen this politcally based since the Taney court during the Civil War era. Whenever a case appears before the court, we know how they will be split, there is no thoughtful consideration of what the founders intended but what the political bent of the justice is.
There has always been politics on the SCOTUS, examples include the Midnight Judge appointments of Marbury vs. Madison, but only, as mentioned earlier, have political lines on the court been drawn so clearly. There is no thoughtful deliberation, discussion with peers, it's 5-4 straight dwn the line, all to the detriment of the American people.
22. Posted by Deke | September 14, 2010 9:31 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 21:31
23. Posted by Deke | September 14, 2010 9:36 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
but not build an inter-faith center near Ground Zero
Hmmm..if a large Christian church was built on or very near the mass graves of Muslims in the killing fields of Kosovo, as a show of "healing" I wonder what the response would be?
23. Posted by Deke | September 14, 2010 9:36 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 21:36
24. Posted by Evil Otto | September 14, 2010 9:45 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
but not build an inter-faith center near Ground Zero
Oh, is that what it is now? First it was called a mosque (both by the people involved in the project and the useful idiots on the left), then a "community center," and now it's an "inter-faith center." Let us know when you're done changing the wording around, OK Steve?
Now, as to the actual point, you somehow managed to utterly avoid it in a weak attempt to distract.
24. Posted by Evil Otto | September 14, 2010 9:45 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 21:45
25. Posted by epador | September 14, 2010 9:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I am definitely a wild and crazy guy.
Don't piss me off any more, OK?
25. Posted by epador | September 14, 2010 9:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 21:52
26. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 10:04 PM | Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Deke, wasn't the Kosovo cleansing in response to the Serbia ethnic cleansing of muslims?
However. It will be interesting how the mosque/inter-faith center works out even with a Christian and Jew on the board.
Killing fields, believe or not the 'situation' is so grim or widespead in lower Manhattan...Perhaps a holocaust type museum room showing all the consequences of fanaticism, ethnic cleansing/ religious extremism in the center at a compromise location or better yet a room dedicated to moderate martyrs (including muslims) that have given their lives in the pursuit of moderate faith.
26. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 10:04 PM |
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 22:04
27. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 10:22 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Evil Otto, fanatical muslims are relentless, no doubt about that. Actually, I believe al- Queda is in retreat, suicide bombers against muslims are not a good way to gain recruits or popular support.
Moderate muslims are making stands. In every country there seems to be a revulsion. The Anbar awakening, the tide seems to turning in Pakistan, etc. perhaps only in Yemen or Afghanistan is progress slow. Generally Arab citizens are fed up.. and there have been a number of recantations, partly as result of long prison sentences having to be endured by fanatical extremists.
27. Posted by Steve Crickmore | September 14, 2010 10:22 PM |
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 22:22
28. Posted by BlueNight | September 14, 2010 10:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
There's this thing called "rule of law" which, since the Magna Carta, has been the ideal of the Western world. It means that the government safeguards order, and punishes anyone, no matter how powerful, rich, well-connected, or crazy, if they harm me.
Our government has already abandoned parts of Arizona to armed foreign forces intent on spreading organized crime. They can easily excuse abandoning American citizens to "honor killings" and fatwas.
28. Posted by BlueNight | September 14, 2010 10:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 22:53
29. Posted by iwogisdead | September 14, 2010 11:25 PM | Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Wrong again, dumbasss!!!! WAAATAGGGOOOOO!!!!
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islam_center_eerie_echo_of_ancient_iRTMW6TprkULnaA1Nqi9xM
Taint no "inter-faith center" bullshit, dildo. Be big ole rabat. Grow up, dumbass.
29. Posted by iwogisdead | September 14, 2010 11:25 PM |
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 14, 2010 23:25
30. Posted by stewart | September 15, 2010 10:01 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I tell ya it all goes back to the lack of reading skills. If you can't read, or find it difficult, you don't read of the be-headings, they severing of hands, the whippings, the honor killings, that are standard fare with that barbaric religion. We cannot let them gain the beach head here that they've gained in Denmark, Germany, France. They're like the creatures from the "Alien" movies, or the "Mob", calling this "Thing" a religion is folly.
30. Posted by stewart | September 15, 2010 10:01 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 15, 2010 10:01
31. Posted by Big Mo | September 15, 2010 10:04 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Steve C - agree with what you wrote in #27, but come on. "Inter-faith"?? So, according to this new label, I could take my LCMS youth group and hold services in this Muslim place and worship Jesus Christ as "the way, the truth and the life"?
31. Posted by Big Mo | September 15, 2010 10:04 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 15, 2010 10:04
32. Posted by Brian Richard Allen | September 15, 2010 10:29 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Dear lawyer-in-a-dress-with-a-politician-for-a-friend Breyer
My Mum once told me it is better that a Lefty moron shut up and have folks wonder if he's thicker-than-two-planks fascist than to open his mouth and to remove all doubt.
32. Posted by Brian Richard Allen | September 15, 2010 10:29 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 15, 2010 10:29
33. Posted by Constitution First | September 15, 2010 1:07 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
What happened to America's balls?
Can you hear that?
That's the sound of a nation of ragtops, laughing their ass off.
What happens next, WILL be our fault, cowards.
33. Posted by Constitution First | September 15, 2010 1:07 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 15, 2010 13:07
34. Posted by JLawson | September 15, 2010 2:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Big Mo -
Certainly, if you don't mind watching them go all frothy with rage and then attempt decapitations.
I recommend extra heavy starch in your collars if you try it...
34. Posted by JLawson | September 15, 2010 2:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 15, 2010 14:14