Sunday, May 20, 2018 15:36

Posts Tagged ‘Koran burning’

Apologize? I do not think that word means what you think it means …

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

– Wiccapundit

In which a young black American woman schools Barack Obama on how to apologize, Old School-style.

You go, girl.

(h/t Blackfive)

Share

Lindsey Graham: Tool

Monday, April 4th, 2011

–  Wiccapundit

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins: “Congress shall make no law…”

What part of that simple English statement does Senator Graham fail to understand?

Lindsey Graham on Koran-burning: “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war”

I am thinking of writing a short story about a character who draws a picture of someone burning a photograph of an effigy of the Holey Kore-anne.  (Did I spell that wrong?  Who cares?  Bring on the fatwas.)   How many sub-referential levels would be necessary to cause my artistic expression to be non-insulting to the barbaric members of the Religion of Peace™?  Maybe I could take a Holly Cow-run, smear it with my own excrement, immerse it in a beaker of my own urine, and submit it to the Tate Gallery for a Turner Prize.  I could call it “Andres Serrano Redux: The Undiscovered Country.”

Hey, is that a Wholly Cure-On smoldering there on the grill next to my tasty barbecued pork products?  Personally, I like to grill hot dogs, because they’re made of pork and contain the word “dog,” both of which are an offense to Islam.

UPDATE:  Offered a chance to explain himself, Lindsey Graham confirmed that he is a tool.  In an interview posted at National Review Online, Graham trotted out the hoary old “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” line to justify his woolly-headed ideas about what speech he’d like to restrict in violation of the First Amendment.  He is, of course, completely wrong, as well as utterly incapable of understanding the source of that phrase.  It comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s opinion in Schenck v. U.S., where in dicta (an explication not part of the specific reasoning on which the opinion of the Court was based and therefore not binding under stare decisis – an important distinction), he noted that free speech would not protect a man  falsely crying  ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.  Obviously, if the theater was on fire a person would be allowed, and arguably would be obligated morally, to cry ‘fire.’

The Schenck decision is the source of the “clear and present danger” standard of restriction on free speech.  This standard, along with the Schenck decision, was overturned in 1969 by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which established the current standard that speech may not be restricted unless it is directed to and likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”   Note that even under this standard, the Illinois Nazi Party was allowed to march in the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois (source of the “I hate Illinois Nazis” scene in the movie “The Blues Brothers”).  So, the prior restraint of speech is not one the Court will lightly endorse.  Political speech – and the burning of the Koran surely qualifies as political expression – is the type of protected speech that is enshrined highest in the pantheon of  the First Amendment.

Lindsey Graham: Mr. Snap-On.

And yes, I don’t intend to spell the K’whore-on “correctly” (i.e., the way the MSM spells it) ever again.  I’m taking suggestions for variations on the spelling; I don’t want to repeat myself for a long time.

 

Share