When I next move, it may be to THIS town...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Bottom line:  If you support the legal quashing of the individual's right to speak their mind on public property, then you are the moral equivalent of Bull Daley.

[AFK]

not what I said.  not offensive speech, aggressive speech that is intended to get a reaction from someone.  If that reaction is shown to be violent, and it would likely have to occur more than once, then there are constitutional precedents set for not allowing it.

Great.  So now, if I say something about Palin to teabaggers, and they attack me, I am at fault.

That's just fucking great, dude.

That, from my understanding, would not constitue "fighting words" as you're not attacking them with your words with the intent to get a violent reaction out of them.  

Admittedly, showing that what they're saying about "insert deceased soldier's name" is meant to instigate a violent reaction from the family would be the biggest hurdle, if someone was pursuing this as an avenue to get them legally banned from protesting funerals.  It's not WHAT they're saying in that instance, it's HOW they're saying it, the delivery method that could, if violence occured, be used to prevent funeral protests.  That would not automatically prevent them from gathering and protesting elsewhere.  

The Court has had a bit of a back and forth with this since the 40's

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

But, technically speaking, while they obviously want their words to be heard by those attending the services, they are being aimed at the DEAD soldier.  They are condemning, attacking, the person in the grave with their words.  So for what you are saying to be pertinent, they would have to also be accosting and accusing the attendees, but even then, you'd have a huge hurdle.  There is nothing illegal about one group of people telling another group of people they are going to hell because of something they support, or their government supports.  Think about it, they aren't threatening the wrath of the WBC, they are threatening the wrath of God.  Perhaps that is threatening for someone who believes in God, but there is no way to put any weight of law behind that kind of threat.  

[Luna]

The Supreme Court disagrees with me, but it's my humble opinion that, while the sidewalk outside a funeral is "public" property, intruding in a PRIVATE function such as a funeral, where you can't just say, "fuck it, we'll do this next week" is, shall we say, unacceptable.  It's like walking into a church and taking a dump in the aisle during your ex's wedding.  Okay, less funny than that, but...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The Supreme Court disagrees with me, but it's my humble opinion that, while the sidewalk outside a funeral is "public" property, intruding in a PRIVATE function such as a funeral, where you can't just say, "fuck it, we'll do this next week" is, shall we say, unacceptable. 

Okay.  I wish to extend that to political rallies, for the exact same reason.

[Luna]

The Supreme Court disagrees with me, but it's my humble opinion that, while the sidewalk outside a funeral is "public" property, intruding in a PRIVATE function such as a funeral, where you can't just say, "fuck it, we'll do this next week" is, shall we say, unacceptable. 

Okay.  I wish to extend that to political rallies, for the exact same reason.

Yes.  I realize I'm inconsistent on this one, and the law can't be. 

[Disco Pickle]

Bottom line:  If you support the legal quashing of the individual's right to speak their mind on public property, then you are the moral equivalent of Bull Daley.

I agree with that.  WBC really causes dissonance for me.  I completely agree that it's a dangerous precedent to limit what someone can say in the public square.  However, should what they say cause a violent reaction from those who hear it, it is not without constitutional precedent to limit "how" they say it, i.e. specifically targeting funerals of returning deceased soldiers and their grieving family and friends.  

Eh, I'm torn.  I do, however, agree with you on not limiting what you can say.

and I'm not going to quote RWHN, but you're correct.  It would be necessary to prove they intend their words to incite a violent reaction, which is unlikely to ever occur unless one of them slips up on camera and is caught saying something along those lines, and then violence occurs.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I completely agree that it's a dangerous precedent to limit what someone can say in the public square.  However, should what they say cause a violent reaction from those who hear it, it is not without constitutional precedent to limit "how" they say it, i.e. specifically targeting funerals of returning deceased soldiers and their grieving family and friends.  

I refuted your link, you ignored it.

[Disco Pickle]

I completely agree that it's a dangerous precedent to limit what someone can say in the public square.  However, should what they say cause a violent reaction from those who hear it, it is not without constitutional precedent to limit "how" they say it, i.e. specifically targeting funerals of returning deceased soldiers and their grieving family and friends.  

I refuted your link, you ignored it.

not intended, I'll go back and look.

[Elder Iptuous]

The Supreme Court disagrees with me, but it's my humble opinion that, while the sidewalk outside a funeral is "public" property, intruding in a PRIVATE function such as a funeral, where you can't just say, "fuck it, we'll do this next week" is, shall we say, unacceptable. 

Okay.  I wish to extend that to political rallies, for the exact same reason.

Yes.  I realize I'm inconsistent on this one, and the law can't be. 

Godel's incompleteness theorem would apply to a system of laws, i believe.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The Supreme Court disagrees with me, but it's my humble opinion that, while the sidewalk outside a funeral is "public" property, intruding in a PRIVATE function such as a funeral, where you can't just say, "fuck it, we'll do this next week" is, shall we say, unacceptable. 

Okay.  I wish to extend that to political rallies, for the exact same reason.

Yes.  I realize I'm inconsistent on this one, and the law can't be. 

Godel's incompleteness theorem would apply to a system of laws, i believe.

If the law isn't consistent, it isn't law.  It's punishment handed out by the public sentiment.

[Cain]

Do the WBCers have mind lasers?

If so, why don't they just use them to make everyone hate homosexuals, instead of forcing people to react angrily and possibly violently to them?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Do the WBCers have mind lasers?

If so, why don't they just use them to make everyone hate homosexuals, instead of forcing people to react angrily and possibly violently to them?

"Look what you MADE us do."

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Do the WBCers have mind lasers?

If so, why don't they just use them to make everyone hate homosexuals, instead of forcing people to react angrily and possibly violently to them?

"Look what you MADE us do."

Hey they were in Tennessee earlier this year......   

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

http://www.retirelikeme.com/2011/04/21/mississippi-town-destroys-westboro-baptist-plans/

As entertaining and "that's awesome" as this was, it hurts free speech. A good measure of what our actual freedom of speech is, is how protected the most detestable speech is. Speech that is not wildly unpopular does not need protected.

As much as I'd like to see Phelps & Co. on the receiving end of a spectacular beating, this event was government suppression of free speech.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A good measure of what our actual freedom of speech is, is how protected the most detestable speech is. Speech that is not wildly unpopular does not need protected.

THIS.