Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Not protected by the first amendment?

It seems as though Justice Breyer has suggested that the Koran burning may not be protected by the first amendment..

What do you say?

 
tnmomofive

Asked by tnmomofive at 9:14 AM on Sep. 16, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 32 (56,190 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (28)
  • If a Bible has been burned anywhere at any time and it was protected by the 1st Amendment, then this had better be too. And I am not too thrilled about the "global view" effecting how our country enforces its laws and Constitution.
    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 8:48 PM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • I read the transcripts of his statement and in order for him to really think as he says he does, it would have to be legal and protected by the constitution. If you can burn a flag or a bible as the high court has ruled many times you would have to be able to burn a Koran. It's that simple.


    Transcript
    Link text
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 9:58 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • Globalization my foot! There is no "globalization" in MY copy of the Constitution.

    Burning the Quran is no different than burning a Bible or the flag. It isn't remotely like yelling "fire" in a theater. If this were the case than any idiot could merely threaten to harm another over anything he disliked and the other would lose their rights.

    UnnnhUnnnhhhhUnnnhhhh, no way we are going there. If you support such a notion then you have no concept of what the US really is.

    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 10:24 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • In the case of that pastor, it would have been. Doing something when you know there is a chance of negative consequence for others is socially irresponsible, and thus comparable.


    So, what will it take for burning the bible to be unconstitutional? A bunch of radical christans to wage war on American troop/law enforcement to make burning the bible a negative consequence?  Slippery Slope that encourages radicals to create fear/violence in order to get their way....

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 10:53 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • globalization...can't wrap my mind around that one. dang..who's idea was it to appoint SCjudges for life???
    dullscissors

    Answer by dullscissors at 10:29 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • hrmmm, so if law enforcement/military felt threatened or endangered by protesters burning the bible, it would no longer be acceptable? Where does one draw the line? Slippery Slippery Progressive Slope...
    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 9:40 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • I think it comes down to social responsibility. Your freedom of speech doesn't cover yelling fire in a crowded building, why would it cover other actions that would put people in danger? ~ bandgeek

    The pastor in FL didn't put anyone in 'danger' by his actions or his words. The ones doing the rioting, shooting, and other violence were the only ones putting others in 'danger'. They weren't told to do those things, nothing would have happened if they hadn't done those things. Their actions were solely based on not liking what the pastor said. If they had done those things on American soil they would have been arrested and prosecuted.

    It's possible to hear and watch things you don't like without shooting and rioting. People who understand freedom and the responsibility it carries do it all the time.

    I don't know whether to say shame on Breyer or demand a psych evaluation.
    Farmlady09

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 11:19 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • If burning a Qu'ran (sp?) is the equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater because of what it makes terrorists think of us, so is lady gaga, Madonna, the miniskirt, Newports, Jerry Falwell, Pastor Fletcher A Brothers, stilettos, and Dogma, the movie. Just to name a few.

    It's free speech under the Constitution. Protected.
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 11:29 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • In the case of that pastor, it would have been. Doing something when you know there is a chance of negative consequence for others is socially irresponsible, and thus comparable. ~ bandgeek

    Cowpies. Big gooey cowpies. Perhaps it is time that everyone in the US grab a rifle when someone says or does something they don't like. It's easy to stop all the nonsense you don't like it you scare enough people by your actions or just kill them. Eventually only the people who all think alike are left.

    Americans have the right to express themselves and it doesn't matter who doesn't like it. Our COTUS and our freedom is not up for change, particularly not due to the actions of Islamic nutters howling in other countries. They can run their country any way they choose, but they do not rule America or decide what we can say, do, think, or how we live. They have no power here ~ nor do they deserve any.



    Farmlady09

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 11:30 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

  • Seriously? I think that's crap. I don't support the choice to burn anybodies holy scriptures (or any piece of literature for that matter), but what the heck does 'globalization' have to do with anything? So does he think that because not everyone globally thinks like our founding fathers that we should just throw out the constitution?


    I guess I really should click on the link.  If my opinion of his statement changes I will be back to clarify my thoughts.

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:22 AM on Sep. 16, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN