http://www.retirelikeme.com/2011/04/21/mississippi-town-destroys-westboro-baptist-plans/
An advanced lesson in free speech: You have the right to say whatever the fuck you want. With that comes an obligation to deal with the consequences :evil:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 29, 2011, 02:05:59 PM
An advanced lesson in free speech: You have the right to say whatever the fuck you want. With that comes an obligation to deal with the consequences :evil:
As I've stated on another forum... You may have the right to say whatever you want to say... but you do NOT have the right to an audience.
Something about that made me uncomfortable. I think it was the general concept:
A legal protest was planned.
A protester got beaten by the citizenry, and the police did nothing.
More protesters were harassed, and were hindered, once again, by the police.
Protesters were detained and questioned by the police using blatantly false pretenses.
Perhaps this makes my point more clear...
Quote"A couple of days before the Gay Marriage rally, one of them (a PFLAG supporter) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.
Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.
Most of the Gay Rights supporters never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had pink triangles or rainbow stickers in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the PFLAG cars could get out.
A few supporters for marriage equality made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business."
I don't have a problem with that. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I think part of the reason we don't have anything like WBC over here is that if they turned up to 'legally' protest a serviceman's funeral in my neck of the woods they'd be ripped to shreds. Prosecution prolly wouldn't find enough pieces of the bodies to qualify as evidence.
ETA: your gay rights analogy isn't quite on the money. If the gay rights rally had set out with the express purpose of shouting abuse at a bunch of mourning people then maybe...
Agreed, LMNO, and the beating was, IMHO, out of line. (I'll point out that the police DID do their jobs and investigate, it was the witnesses who hindered the investigation.)
Yes, the police broke the spirit of the law. Was it right? No. But then, IMHO, what these jackasses were planning was just as wrong. Legal protest? Certainly... but it wasn't right.
The family of Staff Sgt. Rogers got to lay their son to rest without having to deal with people screaming at them that he deserved to die.
Right or wrong, I'm okay with that.
And if the PFLAG supporters were intending to disrupt the mourning family of someone who died serving his country, I'd be just as okay with it.
I'm sure we're all enlightened creatures here, and have a firm moral compass, but you realize that some counties in the country see homosexuality equally as offenseive as what WBC does, right?
And if we say that it's ok for police to violate their oaths when they encounter something legal but morally objectionable to them, then we open up the door to fully sanctioned subjective application of the law.
To be clear, if the citizens had planned all this themselves, and carried out their mission without the assistance of the police or government, then I would be 100% on board.
But once you involve the cops, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 29, 2011, 02:16:54 PM
Something about that made me uncomfortable. I think it was the general concept:
A legal protest was planned.
A protester got beaten by the citizenry, and the police did nothing.
More protesters were harassed, and were hindered, once again, by the police.
Protesters were detained and questioned by the police using blatantly false pretenses.
Perhaps this makes my point more clear...
Quote"A couple of days before the Gay Marriage rally, one of them (a PFLAG supporter) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.
Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.
Most of the Gay Rights supporters never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had pink triangles or rainbow stickers in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the PFLAG cars could get out.
A few supporters for marriage equality made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business."
Parking behind the cars with Kansas plates was pretty smart. The beating makes my redneck side happy but my freedom side agrees with LMNO. As he pointed out, where does it all stop?
If it had happened to anyone else this would have been an abuse of power, and an example of everything that can go wrong in a small town when they decide they don't want a person or group around.
The law is an imperfect solution, it'll never be perfect but, as a copper friend of mine once told me, "it's the best we got" Expecting people who have sworn an oath to said law to blindly do whatever the fuck they're told in spite of the fact that they know it's wrong is fucking asking for trouble. I'd rather have a police dept who have an order and decide, "you know what, fuck that shit" than have half the funeral party locked up because they decided they couldn't take any more of this bullshit.
Problem is the law is dictated, largely by consensus so in places where the majority think fucking people your own sex is worse than murder the law is merely going to follow suit. Legislation might help a bit but you're really up against the wall until you can change hearts and minds.
I do understand your point, LMNO. Honest.
And you're right.
The government (ANY government) deciding if and when to apply the laws based on a moral judgment is wiggy at the best of times.
I agree with this 169%.
This conflicts greatly with the happy I get seeing the WBC take a punch to the nose.
Slightly off topic, I was a bit confused by this part of the linked article:
QuoteFred Phelps, who is the leader of Westboro mob, is a disbarred lawyer and Democratic activist.
Democratic activist? I find that hard to believe.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on April 29, 2011, 02:42:20 PM
Slightly off topic, I was a bit confused by this part of the linked article:
QuoteFred Phelps, who is the leader of Westboro mob, is a disbarred lawyer and Democratic activist.
Democratic activist? I find that hard to believe.
QuoteDemocratic Party
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998.[32] In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote.[33] Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993[34][unreliable source?] and 1997.[35]
Support for Al Gore
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election.[36] In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm".[37] Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments.[38] According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser at his home in Topeka and was a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention.[4] Gore spokesman Dag Vega declined to comment, saying "We are not dignifying those stories with a response."[39]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#Democratic_Party
Ahh, I see, he's one of the Classic Democrats. I guess that makes sense.
I'm still trying to put my finger on it, but I'm bothered by the fact that the authorities had to cheapen the execution of their jobs to deal with people who make cheap use of their rights and privileges.
It's a doey-eyed idealist sort of thing to hope that we'd have the people and the guidelines to deal with this in a totally moral way, but like LMNO said, it's a ticklish thing trying to decide when it's OK to go outside morality to do so. Reality wise though, you can't always make a clean, guitless solution. Based on what I know, and how I read the article, they made a good call this time.
As much as I loathe Phelps and his family, I am utterly in agreement with LMNO on this one.
Yes, agreed...
However, I'll submit, we do not know what went on behind closed doors. One would hope that this was all (other than the beating and the locals stonewalling the investigation, which the cops had no control over) done in the name of maintaining the peace and keeping the REST of the WBC from receiving beat-downs (I suspect there was at least one former or current military member attending the funeral who would take offense at their presence, and administer some sort of disapproval upon the persons offending).
Seems a backward way of doing their jobs... but effective, in this case.
I just lost a friend in Afghanistan. (SSgt Jeremy Daniel Smith) The funeral was quite an ordeal. (those Marines don't fuck around...)
WBC applied for a permit, but our police department denied them. i don't know the details of it.
they must have showed up anyways, because during the memorial service, the patriot gaurds all fired up their bikes. (there was probably 150 of them there) It shook the ground. We, the attending never saw them.
For the life of me, i can't figure out what the problem is with this issue. When the purpose of the protest is to cause undue psychological duress to the bereaved, it seems like the exercise of their 'rights' are infringing upon those of others, and need not be tolerated. Have they ever given a reason that they need to protest at funerals, other than to cause distress?
The problem, simply put, is the use of the official police force to prohibit a lawful act.
If it was purely citizens, no problem.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:01:50 PM
I just lost a friend in Afghanistan. (SSgt Jeremy Daniel Smith) The funeral was quite an ordeal. (those Marines don't fuck around...)
WBC applied for a permit, but our police department denied them. i don't know the details of it.
they must have showed up anyways, because during the memorial service, the patriot gaurds all fired up their bikes. (there was probably 150 of them there) It shook the ground. We, the attending never saw them.
For the life of me, i can't figure out what the problem is with this issue. When the purpose of the protest is to cause undue psychological duress to the bereaved, it seems like the exercise of their 'rights' are infringing upon those of others, and need not be tolerated. Have they ever given a reason that they need to protest at funerals, other than to cause distress?
There is no right to not be offended.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 29, 2011, 05:05:55 PM
The problem, simply put, is the use of the official police force to prohibit a lawful act.
If it was purely citizens, no problem.
This is exactly it. If you start fucking with rights for a
good reason, pretty soon you'll be doing it for a
bad reason.
And - as recent American history has demonstrated - "the slippery slope" is not actually a fallacy.
How about the triage angle? If enough people felt strongly enough that they went to the lengths they did just what might have happened if the protest had proceeded? Personally I've been in family bereavement situations and I'm almost sure that if I was on the way to a funeral and encountered Wesboro taunts I might just have said "what the fuck" and charged in.
So one pillock gets his shit handed to him cos he's talking shite. Maybe not very civilised but this is the real world, people, you're free to speak your mind but if you don't have the sense to keep it to yourself when you fucking well ought to or learn to duck then you're going to get stomped from time to time. Tough shit. Tight community back their own and keep schtum when the cops arrive it's not going to go any further. They got important shit to deal with and someone throwing a punch prolly aint the top of the list, even in a sleepy little town where nothing much happens (dunno if it was or not)
Bottom line is, whether it's intentional or not, these twats are constantly pushing buttons which get a rise out of people and, as far as I can tell, they're not making a whole hell of a lot of friends. There's a term I grew up with - "Asking for it" - think - dude full of drink, grabbing you by the scruff of the neck, right down to the poor bastard who innocently spilled your pint and figure out for yourself what constitutes. So it's not admissible in your defense, in a court of law but, anywhere there aint a judge and a bunch of cops in attendance, it's the way shit actually works.
Cops know this too. Lending a little red-tape assistance but, basically just standing back, they might well have stopped something really ugly (admittedly something I'd have gotten a kick out of hearing about - lets face it you'd smile a bit, wouldn't you?) from going down. People, driven through grief and rage, would have had to have been sent down for kicking the living shit out of people who, let's face it, are fucking begging for it. So the law acted the way it did and the whole thing went off relatively peacefully. IMO they did their job.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:09:14 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:01:50 PM
I just lost a friend in Afghanistan. (SSgt Jeremy Daniel Smith) The funeral was quite an ordeal. (those Marines don't fuck around...)
WBC applied for a permit, but our police department denied them. i don't know the details of it.
they must have showed up anyways, because during the memorial service, the patriot gaurds all fired up their bikes. (there was probably 150 of them there) It shook the ground. We, the attending never saw them.
For the life of me, i can't figure out what the problem is with this issue. When the purpose of the protest is to cause undue psychological duress to the bereaved, it seems like the exercise of their 'rights' are infringing upon those of others, and need not be tolerated. Have they ever given a reason that they need to protest at funerals, other than to cause distress?
There is no right to not be offended.
at what point does offensive speech because psychological assault?
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:22:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:09:14 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:01:50 PM
I just lost a friend in Afghanistan. (SSgt Jeremy Daniel Smith) The funeral was quite an ordeal. (those Marines don't fuck around...)
WBC applied for a permit, but our police department denied them. i don't know the details of it.
they must have showed up anyways, because during the memorial service, the patriot gaurds all fired up their bikes. (there was probably 150 of them there) It shook the ground. We, the attending never saw them.
For the life of me, i can't figure out what the problem is with this issue. When the purpose of the protest is to cause undue psychological duress to the bereaved, it seems like the exercise of their 'rights' are infringing upon those of others, and need not be tolerated. Have they ever given a reason that they need to protest at funerals, other than to cause distress?
There is no right to not be offended.
at what point does offensive speech because psychological assault?
At the point where you make fun of teabaggers, eventually. Or someone criticizes Sarah Palin.
See where I'm going, here?
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:22:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:09:14 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:01:50 PM
I just lost a friend in Afghanistan. (SSgt Jeremy Daniel Smith) The funeral was quite an ordeal. (those Marines don't fuck around...)
WBC applied for a permit, but our police department denied them. i don't know the details of it.
they must have showed up anyways, because during the memorial service, the patriot gaurds all fired up their bikes. (there was probably 150 of them there) It shook the ground. We, the attending never saw them.
For the life of me, i can't figure out what the problem is with this issue. When the purpose of the protest is to cause undue psychological duress to the bereaved, it seems like the exercise of their 'rights' are infringing upon those of others, and need not be tolerated. Have they ever given a reason that they need to protest at funerals, other than to cause distress?
There is no right to not be offended.
at what point does offensive speech because psychological assault?
It doesn't. You always have the right to not listen or to move on.
Yeah, i guess we could have packed it up, told everybody to go home and we'd hold our funeral again at some other time.
or maybe we could have held in secret.
because harassment is protected.
y'know... i know what you're saying, in truth. furthermore, i agree with you, (to an extent) rationally.
but, it's difficult to maintain that when you are the target of their vitriol.
i'm suprised someone hasn't offed phelps yet. (not that martyring him would make anything better
In The Supreme Court ruling, Alito was the only dissent, likening their words to "fighting words" while the rest said that it was public, not private speech.
The first time one of their protests becomes a brawl between them and the people attending the funeral, a savvy constitutional lawyer could likely get them under the fighting words doctrine and force the Court to revisit the case, taking the violence that occured as a direct result of their speech in to consideration. It's not incitement, but if it could be shown that what they're saying is intended to cause someone to react to them, you should be able to get them shut down, at least at funerals.
IMO, what they're doing is as aggressive as walking up to a stranger and getting in their face and repeating the word "blood" over and over again.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:34:14 PM
Yeah, i guess we could have packed it up, told everybody to go home and we'd hold our funeral again at some other time.
or maybe we could have held in secret.
because harassment is protected.
y'know... i know what you're saying, in truth. furthermore, i agree with you, (to an extent) rationally.
but, it's difficult to maintain that when you are the target of their vitriol.
i'm suprised someone hasn't offed phelps yet. (not that martyring him would make anything better
Rationally is the ONLY way to deal with these things.
The cure is worse than the disease.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:45:42 PM
In The Supreme Court ruling, Alito was the only dissent, likening their words to "fighting words" while the rest said that it was public, not private speech.
The first time one of their protests becomes a brawl between them and the people attending the funeral, a savvy constitutional lawyer could likely get them under the fighting words doctrine and force the Court to revisit the case, taking the violence that occured as a direct result of their speech in to consideration. It's not incitement, but if it could be shown that what they're saying is intended to cause someone to react to them, you should be able to get them shut down, at least at funerals.
IMO, what they're doing is as aggressive as walking up to a stranger and getting in their face and repeating the word "blood" over and over again.
Okay, fuck it. We'll just outlaw speech that offends anyone.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:48:57 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:45:42 PM
In The Supreme Court ruling, Alito was the only dissent, likening their words to "fighting words" while the rest said that it was public, not private speech.
The first time one of their protests becomes a brawl between them and the people attending the funeral, a savvy constitutional lawyer could likely get them under the fighting words doctrine and force the Court to revisit the case, taking the violence that occured as a direct result of their speech in to consideration. It's not incitement, but if it could be shown that what they're saying is intended to cause someone to react to them, you should be able to get them shut down, at least at funerals.
IMO, what they're doing is as aggressive as walking up to a stranger and getting in their face and repeating the word "blood" over and over again.
Okay, fuck it. We'll just outlaw speech that offends anyone.
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.
I hate the WBC. However, free speech is free speech and stopping them would only open up doors I want to see kept firmly closed.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 05:34:14 PM
Yeah, i guess we could have packed it up, told everybody to go home and we'd hold our funeral again at some other time.
or maybe we could have held in secret.
because harassment is protected.
y'know... i know what you're saying, in truth. furthermore, i agree with you, (to an extent) rationally.
but, it's difficult to maintain that when you are the target of their vitriol.
i'm suprised someone hasn't offed phelps yet. (not that martyring him would make anything better
Rationally is the ONLY way to deal with these things.
The cure is worse than the disease.
Yes, i know you're right.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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.
It's like Rog said though, we don't have a right to not be offended. Especially when you are in a public setting. And as awful and detestable as what they say is, it doesn't quite reach that "fire in a crowded theater" threshold.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on April 29, 2011, 05:55:37 PM
It's like Rog said though, we don't have a right to not be offended. Especially when you are in a public setting. And as awful and detestable as what they say is, it doesn't quite reach that "fire in a crowded theater" threshold.
No, I've changed my mind. Everyone should have to be NICE, all the time, and vette their speech for anything that might possibly offend anyone.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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.
You would have to prove that what was being said was intended to elicit the very specific reaction that takes place. WBC would say their intention is to win the hearts and minds of those attending funerals and to renounce any efforts to build equality for homosexuals. How the hell do you prove their intent was to get the funeral attendees to put a beat down upon their necks?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on April 29, 2011, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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.
You would have to prove that what was being said was intended to elicit the very specific reaction that takes place. WBC would say their intention is to win the hearts and minds of those attending funerals and to renounce any efforts to build equality for homosexuals. How the hell do you prove their intent was to get the funeral attendees to put a beat down upon their necks?
They are very careful to not do anything violent, and they're litigious has hell when other people are, which is a big, stated intent that they aren't looking to get beat up.
But never mind all that. We have to purge society of them, so that we may be
free.
And just to put this in more perspective, if that kind of policy limiting speech had been in place back in the days of the civil rights movement. Well, the civil rights movement would have never happened.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on April 29, 2011, 06:02:00 PM
And just to put this in more perspective, if that kind of policy limiting speech had been in place back in the days of the civil rights movement. Well, the civil rights movement would have never happened.
This.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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
The citizens here were admirable (though I personally didn't think the beat down was really the best way to deal with the WBCer). I'm guessing that the cops decided they were townspeople first and then cops, which is obviously concerning if understandable.
And yeah, I reckon the only way to effectively deal with the WBC is to leave it in the hands of citizens pulling stunts like the above. The law and government should stay the hell away from it.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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
You're arguing to limit freedom of speech, via legal contortions.
Congratulations, Ari Fleischer.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:05:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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
You're arguing to limit freedom of speech, via legal contortions.
Congratulations, Ari Fleischer.
from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
QuoteThere are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
is that a contortion in your opinion?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:07:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:05:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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
You're arguing to limit freedom of speech, via legal contortions.
Congratulations, Ari Fleischer.
from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
QuoteThere are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
is that a contortion in your opinion?
WBC believes they are engaging in the exposition of an idea. One which is very important to them, as self-appointed guardians of morality.
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.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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.
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...
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 06:14:57 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 06:14:57 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:11:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:22:56 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:24:13 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:22:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 06:20:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 06:14:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 29, 2011, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 06:20:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 06:14:57 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Cain on April 29, 2011, 06:29:20 PM
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."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:30:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 29, 2011, 06:29:20 PM
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...... :eek:
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 01:41:06 PM
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.
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 29, 2011, 06:34:25 PM
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.
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 29, 2011, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 01:41:06 PM
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.
What he said. There's that dissconenct between people being free to say what they want, and people having to take responsibility for what they say.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:09:43 PM
WBC believes they are engaging in the exposition of an idea. One which is very important to them, as self-appointed guardians of morality.
I think you mean this one. I agree with that, that's what they believe, and the court has agreed with them.
I don't believe they're conveying any idea that is worth a damn to anyone, but that's only my opinion. While there are certainly people who agree with WHAT they're saying and others believe that they should not be prohibited from saying it, even if they don't agree, any reasonable person would disagrees with HOW they're saying it.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:42:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:09:43 PM
WBC believes they are engaging in the exposition of an idea. One which is very important to them, as self-appointed guardians of morality.
I think you mean this one. I agree with that, that's what they believe, and the court has agreed with them.
I don't believe they're conveying any idea that is worth a damn to anyone, but that's only my opinion. While there are certainly people who agree with WHAT they're saying and that they should not be prohibited from saying it, even if you don't agree, any reasonable person would disagrees with HOW they're saying it.
On public property?
Perhaps we should establish "First Amendment Zones" 3 miles away from all sidewalks. Or maybe a big empy building with soundproof walls.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:36:03 PM
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 29, 2011, 06:34:25 PM
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.
Truth.
It was wrong.
But I still enjoyed it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:44:32 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:42:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:09:43 PM
WBC believes they are engaging in the exposition of an idea. One which is very important to them, as self-appointed guardians of morality.
I think you mean this one. I agree with that, that's what they believe, and the court has agreed with them.
I don't believe they're conveying any idea that is worth a damn to anyone, but that's only my opinion. While there are certainly people who agree with WHAT they're saying and that they should not be prohibited from saying it, even if you don't agree, any reasonable person would disagrees with HOW they're saying it.
On public property?
Perhaps we should establish "First Amendment Zones" 3 miles away from all sidewalks. Or maybe a big empy building with soundproof walls.
Remember the "Protest Zones" for the last WTO conference?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:44:32 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:42:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:09:43 PM
WBC believes they are engaging in the exposition of an idea. One which is very important to them, as self-appointed guardians of morality.
I think you mean this one. I agree with that, that's what they believe, and the court has agreed with them.
I don't believe they're conveying any idea that is worth a damn to anyone, but that's only my opinion. While there are certainly people who agree with WHAT they're saying and that they should not be prohibited from saying it, even if you don't agree, any reasonable person would disagrees with HOW they're saying it.
On public property?
Perhaps we should establish "First Amendment Zones" 3 miles away from all sidewalks. Or maybe a big empy building with soundproof walls.
yeah, you're right. bad idea. i concede all previous arguments. let them bark their psychobabble all they want, wherever they want.
(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7831/firstdesignated.jpg)
From the Muir Woods National Park.
Quote from: Richter on April 29, 2011, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:44:32 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 06:42:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:09:43 PM
WBC believes they are engaging in the exposition of an idea. One which is very important to them, as self-appointed guardians of morality.
I think you mean this one. I agree with that, that's what they believe, and the court has agreed with them.
I don't believe they're conveying any idea that is worth a damn to anyone, but that's only my opinion. While there are certainly people who agree with WHAT they're saying and that they should not be prohibited from saying it, even if you don't agree, any reasonable person would disagrees with HOW they're saying it.
On public property?
Perhaps we should establish "First Amendment Zones" 3 miles away from all sidewalks. Or maybe a big empy building with soundproof walls.
Remember the "Protest Zones" for the last WTO conference?
Or the last 2 democratic party conventions, for that matter, or anywhere Bush went.
The 2004 democratic party convention had the "freedom of speech zone" on the other side of a 2 acre parking lot, inside a razor wire-enclosed area.
Inside the convention, the spectators had to stand in big cages. No shit.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 29, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7831/firstdesignated.jpg)
From the Muir Woods National Park.
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
I feel this makes the counter - trolls like Iptuous mentioned only that much more awesome.
This isn't really related to free speech, but it should be noted that the WBC people are pretty much just lawsuit trolls trying to goad people into situations where they can be sued.
Keep this in mind if you ever have any interactions with them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 29, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7831/firstdesignated.jpg)
From the Muir Woods National Park.
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
We were very irresponsible, back then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
We were very irresponsible, back then.
EXACTLY!! Look how you and I turned out.
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
We were very irresponsible, back then.
EXACTLY!! Look how you and I turned out.
I do... and I look at the students here at the university.
Times when running your mouth could get your teeth knocked down your throat seem to have made better people.
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
We were very irresponsible, back then.
EXACTLY!! Look how you and I turned out.
Yes, thank God there won't be any other people like us.
Quote from: Luna on April 29, 2011, 06:58:45 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
We were very irresponsible, back then.
EXACTLY!! Look how you and I turned out.
I do... and I look at the students here at the university.
Times when running your mouth could get your teeth knocked down your throat seem to have made better people.
Um, not exactly the point I was making.
When I was young, you could speak your mind...If anyone saw the need to be violent about that, they were criminally responsible.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 07:01:14 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
We were very irresponsible, back then.
EXACTLY!! Look how you and I turned out.
Yes, thank God there won't be any other people like us.
Damn, so do we just lock up the kids now or let them take their chances?
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 07:05:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 07:01:14 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:53:50 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 29, 2011, 06:53:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
When I was young, the entire country was a first amendment zone.
You can't have that anymore Roger, think of the children....
We were very irresponsible, back then.
EXACTLY!! Look how you and I turned out.
Yes, thank God there won't be any other people like us.
Damn, so do we just lock up the kids now or let them take their chances?
Let them march off into the new, glorious, safe, and inoffensive future. They'll be fine
11 As long as they keep their mouths shut.
I'm going to go further than "you do not have the right not to be offended."
Here's what I truly believe:
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED.
YOU SHOULD EXCERCISE THAT RIGHT OFTEN.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 29, 2011, 05:11:17 PM
How about the triage angle? If enough people felt strongly enough that they went to the lengths they did just what might have happened if the protest had proceeded? Personally I've been in family bereavement situations and I'm almost sure that if I was on the way to a funeral and encountered Wesboro taunts I might just have said "what the fuck" and charged in.
So one pillock gets his shit handed to him cos he's talking shite. Maybe not very civilised but this is the real world, people, you're free to speak your mind but if you don't have the sense to keep it to yourself when you fucking well ought to or learn to duck then you're going to get stomped from time to time. Tough shit. Tight community back their own and keep schtum when the cops arrive it's not going to go any further. They got important shit to deal with and someone throwing a punch prolly aint the top of the list, even in a sleepy little town where nothing much happens (dunno if it was or not)
Bottom line is, whether it's intentional or not, these twats are constantly pushing buttons which get a rise out of people and, as far as I can tell, they're not making a whole hell of a lot of friends. There's a term I grew up with - "Asking for it" - think - dude full of drink, grabbing you by the scruff of the neck, right down to the poor bastard who innocently spilled your pint and figure out for yourself what constitutes. So it's not admissible in your defense, in a court of law but, anywhere there aint a judge and a bunch of cops in attendance, it's the way shit actually works.
Cops know this too. Lending a little red-tape assistance but, basically just standing back, they might well have stopped something really ugly (admittedly something I'd have gotten a kick out of hearing about - lets face it you'd smile a bit, wouldn't you?) from going down. People, driven through grief and rage, would have had to have been sent down for kicking the living shit out of people who, let's face it, are fucking begging for it. So the law acted the way it did and the whole thing went off relatively peacefully. IMO they did their job.
This. Realpolitik > Idealism every day. call it the sociopolitical barstool, if you want.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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.
Are you kidding? That would be the single best thing that's happened so far this century! :lulz:
I mean, think of the potential for serious fuckery if THAT ever became day-to-day legal reality!
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 29, 2011, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on April 29, 2011, 05:51:48 PM
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.
Are you kidding? That would be the single best thing that's happened so far this century! :lulz:
I mean, think of the potential for serious fuckery if THAT ever became day-to-day legal reality!
What I'm imagining is that you'd have strong loudmouths, and nobody else would say anything. Ever.
Quote from: Payne on April 29, 2011, 06:04:55 PMI'm guessing that the cops decided they were townspeople first and then cops, which is obviously concerning if understandable.
That's the only kind of cop I'd ever want in my town.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 29, 2011, 07:12:52 PM
Quote from: Payne on April 29, 2011, 06:04:55 PMI'm guessing that the cops decided they were townspeople first and then cops, which is obviously concerning if understandable.
That's the only kind of cop I'd ever want in my town.
They used to have loads of those cops.
Federal Agent: "So, what happened to those two guys who were trying to get Blacks to register to vote."
Cop: "Suicide."
Yes, well, it's well known that I have the wrong values. :lulz:
I mean, frankly, I don't actually give a shit about anybody's rights except my own. Tilting at windmills isn't my gig. I just think this whole thing is funny as hell.