A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Robert]

Errata, I'm merely saying that behaving like one, in certain specific situations, should be against the law.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think we have a guaranteed protection against bad taste, appalling manners, or being offended. These guys are appalling. What they do is offensive, cruel, insensitive, and unacceptable in a polite society. If they had the slightest bit of empathy for their fellow man, they wouldn't do this. But being an a$$hole isn't against the law.

Depends on what your definition of ******* is.
Unfortunately the SC is not going to touch this with a 10 foot pole. it is going to have to take an act of Congress to prohibit this type of behavior.
And it is not free speech IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Robert,

There is a lot of controversy regarding the building of a mosque in New York City at the site of ground zero for the September 11 attack. There was a photo of a woman demonstrating who was wearing a sign that said "Muslims = Terrorists." That has to be pretty upsetting to all the peacefull law abiding Muslims here in the U.S. That's way more people than those affected by the funeral protests. Do you feel she should be protected by free speech in this instance?

Sorry, I am not trying to trap you into a "gotcha" response and you could easily come up with one for me. It all goes back to this case and the original question -- does free speech only cover pleasant, peacefull speech or is vile, hatefull, disgusting speech covered as well?

c.d.

or is vile, hatefull, disgusting speech covered as well?

No it should not. There that was easy.

[c.d.]

I wish they would address loud cell phone use, baby strollers (the work of Satan) and wearing white after Labor Day.

If being an ******* landed you in court, the courts would be clogged.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Robert,

There is a lot of controversy regarding the building of a mosque in New York City at the site of ground zero for the September 11 attack. There was a photo of a woman demonstrating who was wearing a sign that said "Muslims = Terrorists." That has to be pretty upsetting to all the peacefull law abiding Muslims here in the U.S. That's way more people than those affected by the funeral protests. Do you feel she should be protected by free speech in this instance?

Sorry, I am not trying to trap you into a "gotcha" response and you could easily come up with one for me. It all goes back to this case and the original question -- does free speech only cover pleasant, peacefull speech or is vile, hatefull, disgusting speech covered as well?

c.d.

There was a photo of a woman demonstrating who was wearing a sign that said "Muslims = Terrorists." That has to be pretty upsetting to all the peacefull law abiding Muslims here in the U.S. That's way more people than those affected by the funeral protests. Do you feel she should be protected by free speech in this instance?

No-see how easy it is to judge right from wrong?

[Abby Normal]

I wish they would address loud cell phone use, baby strollers (the work of Satan) and wearing white after Labor Day.

If being an ******* landed you in court, the courts would be clogged.

c.d.

Hey whats wrong with baby strollers?

Seriously though-The SC should be able to determine whats merely annoying and what is harmful.

They are already clogged.

[c.d.]

Hi Abby,

Not sure if I am reading your response correctly. Are you saying the woman with the anti-Muslim message should not be protected by free speech?

As for strollers, they get in your way and always when you are in a hurry.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Not sure if I am reading your response correctly. Are you saying the woman with the anti-Muslim message should not be protected by free speech?

As for strollers, they get in your way and always when you are in a hurry.

c.d.

Are you saying the woman with the anti-Muslim message should not be protected by free speech?

That is correct.

[c.d.]

Are you saying the woman with the anti-Muslim message should not be protected by free speech?

That is correct.

Ok. Then let me ask you the same question that I have asked other people. If she were carrying a sign that read "Respect All Religions" should that be covered by the right to free speech?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Ok. Then let me ask you the same question that I have asked other people. If she were carrying a sign that read "Respect All Religions" should that be covered by the right to free speech?

c.d.

yes-why not?

[Robert]

CD, there would be nothing vague about the indictment. It wouldn't be "You are charged with being an AH," it would be something like "You are charged that on such and such a day at such and such a cemetery you did violate the privacy of such and such people while they were attending a funeral service."

Similarly, bank robbers aren't charged with being lazy greedy bastards - they're charged with robbing such and such a bank etc.

If the lawyers and politicians can't devise a law which nets all and only those people whom it is designed to net, then they are in the wrong profession : they should open a hot dog stall, or become tap dancers, or biscuit manufacturers.

[c.d.]

Hi Robert,

The First Amendment to the Constitution granting citizens the Right to Free Speech applies to ALL Americans.

The church group is not being charged with a crime. The Court of Appeals (the second highest court in the land) has already ruled in their favor stating that the behavior that they engage in is protected free speech.

c.d.

[c.d.]

yes-why not?

Hi Abby,

That is called viewpoint discrimination. You are putting a limitation on free speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker. That is unconstitutional.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

That is called viewpoint discrimination. You are putting a limitation on free speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker. That is unconstitutional.

c.d.

No- I'm merely interpreting the constitution (like a SC judge) as to what is and what is not protected by free speech. As you asked.

[Robert]

Hi CD

My point is, it should be made a crime. If your constitution gets in the way, scrap your constitution.

As for free speech, it's already been mentioned that there are many limits on free speech. People aren't allowed to libel or slander other people. They're not allowed to give away state secrets or certain commercial intellectual property details. They're not allowed to ring people on the phone and harass them. They're not allowed to lie under oath in court. They're not allowed to misrepresent their products in commercials. Doctors aren't allowed to disclose their patients' medical records. And so on. It's a very long list.

I don't know whether American convicts have the "right" to free speech. Maybe they have, as some of them have been interviewed on TV while in prison. If they do have this "right," then that too should be removed.

Come to think of it, if free speech is supposed to be that sacrosanct, the case against capital punishment would be cut and dried, because executing someone undoubtedly makes it impossible for them to speak. Yet I've never heard of a campaign against capital punishment on grounds of free speech.