When did the left turn against free speech?

One of the commenters declares that my "assertion that 'the best test of the truth is its ability to get accepted in the marketplace of ideas' was probably the most offensive part of her argument." When questioned about whether I really said that, he comes back with:

She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained, as in: "As Justice X says, ..." followed by the verbatim passage I quoted.

She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained.... Oh, for the love of God, why doesn't every educated person in America know the name of the Supreme Court Justice who said that... or at the very least know that it's embarrassing not to know? As if I'd thrown out some abstruse legalistic peculiarity!

And that was part of an argument by the commenter — echoing Bob Wright — that free speech is too dangerous because it might be false and it might inspire bad people to act out in terrible ways.

Remember when lefties were all about free speech? When did that change? Why did that change? Perhaps the answer is: Free speech was only ever a means to an end. When they got their free speech, made their arguments, and failed to win over the American people, and when in fact the speech from their opponents seemed too successful, they switched to the repression of speech, because the end was never freedom.

"I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death..."

"... unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

Did Justice Breyer actually say anything about the right to burn the Koran?

Here's the colloquy from today's "Good Morning America":

STEPHANOPOULOS: 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?

BREYER: 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-

STEPHANOPOULOS: The conversation is now global.

BREYER: 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-

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's exactly my question.

BREYER: 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.

To me, Breyer is doing nothing more than smearing around the usual platitudes about how judges interpret law and decide cases in the context of ever-changing real world facts and let's have a fine day in the classroom cogitating about the elaborateness of all that.

But maybe you think he's revealing that he thinks that ill-behaved hot-heads in other countries are changing the scope of our First Amendment freedoms, now that the internet transmits every local free speaker's performance art around the world.

IN THE COMMENTS: XWL said:

Unsaid, but implicit, Breyer:

'What fun we could have re-interpreting the Constitution if only Scalia and Thomas would drop dead while we still have Obama as President and a Democratic majority in the Senate'

Seems like he knows there isn't a plurality of justices that agree with his implied stance that freedom of speech should be limited based on the global sensitivities, so he dances around saying what he really wants to say.

If Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito were to leave, and we had the likes of Breyer in the majority in the Supreme Court, all sorts of new 'rights' would be established, and all sorts of old rights would be curtailed.

I think you're right. By the way, "he dances around saying what he really wants to say" has a second meaning, which I know you didn't intend.

"Justice John Paul Stevens is the greatest Justice in Supreme Court history."

Argues Cliff Sloan, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom and a former Stevens law clerk. A key move in this argument is excluding the Chief Justices on the theory that they have extra powers so it's not a proper comparison. Then Sloan has 4 reasons:

First, his record of protecting and maintaining the rule of law during the “war on terror” stands unique in Supreme Court annals....

Second, Justice Stevens has fundamentally changed – and strengthened – the Court’s jurisprudence regarding personal freedom.... [He] has successfully re-framed the Court’s conceptual framework for personal freedom from a general “privacy” right, which is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, to a “liberty” right, which is prominently and explicitly protected in the Constitution....

Third, Justice Stevens has steadfastly sought to enforce the rule of law even when the Presidency hangs in the balance....

Fourth, Justice Stevens has powerfully re-shaped the law in an astonishing range of areas....

Go to the link to see the cases Sloan discusses. I would note that in some of the cases, Stevens has had something akin to the superpower that Sloan used to exclude Chief Justices from the analysis. When the Chief Justice isn't in the majority, the most senior Justice in the majority decides who will write the opinion. As such, over the last 20 years, he's authored many of the important opinions where the liberal side of the Court had the majority. That he wrote the opinion on the side that Sloan prefers isn't the evidence of a personal stamp on the law that Sloan would have us think.

Once Sloan gets to identifying and excluding the the competition for greatest Justice, the argument falls badly apart. He has to really strain to minimize Brandeis, Holmes, Brennan, Story, and the first Justice Harlan. He lost me here, but you've got to give Sloan credit for writing what would be a strong entry in a competition requiring an essay titled "Justice John Paul Stevens is the greatest Justice in Supreme Court history."