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

[Disco Pickle]

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.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

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.

[Elder Iptuous]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[AFK]

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.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[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.

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?  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[AFK]

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.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Disco Pickle]

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

[Payne]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Disco Pickle]

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

There 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?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

There 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.