Well if his bulb is dim...

So, as I think I've mentioned, I moved to the great state of Virginia in late May. While this isn't entirely unpleasant (especially cause I live across the street from a Costco), it does mean a 30-minute commute in the mornings, the bulk of that spent on the Metro. In order to pass the time, I spend my mornings reading the two daily free papers: the Express (crazy liberal paper), and the Examiner (crazy conservative paper). And while I've come to expect a touch of the crazy out of the Examiner, this morning's "Dim Bulb" feature ticked me off pretty royally. It read:

"Who: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer WHAT: Said on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that the First Amendment condones burning the Quran WHY IT'S DIM: Breyer said that such a burning might be like yelling fire in a crowded theater, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had once said in a dissenting opinion. So the threat of violence and harm is sufficent enough reason to stifle free speech? CURE: Force cannot be permitted to stifle freedom."

(DISCLAIMER: I don't get up on my soapbox much because this blog, such as it is, is meant for amusement rather than political statement. This particular idiocy just pissed me off enough to say something, and not just because I've met Breyer (who is awesome!))

Where to begin? Let's start with a mundane procedural point; Holmes' famous phrase came in an unanimous opinion, one in which (by definition) there is no dissent. So there.

Now onto the important stuff. Burning the Quran might not be protected. We allow burning of a lot of things: flags, disco albums, the House. But that doesn't mean we can go around burning anything we please. The closest analogue I can find was RAV v. City of St. Paul, which came down in 1992. The Court struck down a Minnesota ordinance under which a KKK member had been prosecuted because he had burned a cross on the lawn of a black family. While the Court said that the law couldn't stand because it was content-based speech restriction, Justice Scalia (backed by Kennedy and Thomas) concluded "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire." Now I don't know about you, but that appears to mean that there ARE constitutional ways to limit the burning of symbols to convey hatred. And for anyone who is thinking about making the argument that Quran burning is not like cross burning, they're not burning the Quran to have a halal barbecue; it's a pretty clear sign that the burners don't believe Muslims are welcome in their town.

Now to the "pot v. kettle" argument. Saying that it is "freedom" to be able to burn the Quran is even more ludicrous coming from a conservative publication. It's pretty well documented that the conservatives aren't huge fans of flag burning. And I can only imagine the incredible shit-storm that would follow if any other religious group decided to burn the Bible in the town square; though any person who would burn the Quran should obviously burn their copy of the New Testament as well, given that it's pretty clear they aren't using it.

So in conclusion, Mr. Examiner Editor, if Justice Breyer's bulb is dim, yours is burnt out.

May all your hits be crits,
B