September 14, 2010

Further proof: Progressives only care about free speech if they like the speech

George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "Good Morning America" wonders if we should reconsider the First Amendment in light of the nutty pastor who threatened to burn the Koran:

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?

Georgie was speaking to SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer -- whose answer is potentially even scarier:

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 ...

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-

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.

Let's see -- Americans should perhaps cede their First Amendment rights because a bunch of uneducated, barbaric a-holes might go on a rampage in some God-forsaken corner of the world? That burning our very own flag is permitted as free expression, but burning a religion's holy book might not be?

I'd be really flummoxed by Stephie's and Breyer's replies, except that "progressives" -- despite their perpetual bluster about "dissent is patriotic" and "free speech" -- really mean nothing of the sort. They just want speech to be permitted with which THEY concur. Period.

Posted by Hube at September 14, 2010 06:28 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)