A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rubyretro
    replied
    [QUOTE]
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    As far as I know, the Phelps protests have been held on public property. So I don't believe that he has invaded anyone's space from a legal standpoint.
    But surely the public property in question comes under the authority of the
    people voted in to administer (I'm English, so I'd say 'Council', and I don't know what the American equivalent is) ?

    If it were (say) a Sports Event being held, then surely this same authority would be able to rope areas off, and indicate areas where people must go to (there would be mayhem if they couldn't). In France they certainly liase with the organisers of demonstraters on their itinerary.

    So there must be a legal way of making the contact between the mourners and the demonstraters a matter of choice ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Derrick
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Hi Ruby,

    There is a price to be paid for the right to free speech. Sometimes you are going to hear vile, objectionable speech. Sometimes the places where you hear it offend decency as in the examples you stated. But if you start to limit free speech where does it stop?

    c.d.
    Hi CD
    I agree completely.

    No one said that this life was ever going to be easy.

    We all must play the hands that are dealt us.

    But I must say that the majority of people I meet are decent.

    I have found that it is when we place trust in a higher level of authority that we find our wishes and ideals undermined.

    I would say that my direct neighbours concerns are of more importance to me than those who are many miles away.

    If my own house is not in order how could I possibly comment on someone elses?

    Derrick

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    As far as I know, the Phelps protests have been held on public property. So I don't believe that he has invaded anyone's space from a legal standpoint.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derrick
    replied
    Hi CD et al
    My absolute view is that this Phelps gadgee is completely entitled to his views, period.

    Being English I am somewhat ignorant of the State's federal judicial process yet if freedom of speech is a universal concept it surely must transcend phyiscal geographical boundaries.

    We have a few problems with arseholes in England like the BNP and it's leader Nick Griffin. They like to be styled as a moderate conservative party but are in fact a bona fide neo Nazi organisation that preaches race hate and pro white views.

    Griffin has made a number of addresses to party members that have been caught on camera that are, to all intents and purposes, calls to inflict harm upon another sector of society.

    So far this sub-rock dwelling slug has avoided serious prosecution and if Phelps has contravened the line between purely expressing his views and invading the space of others without prior consent then the court must censure him. I hope that answers your question CD?

    Luckily we live in so called "liberal democratic" societies. But I would not think for a second that I could run stark bollock naked down the street carrying a banner which read "Out With The Royal Family" and not be arrested after 100 or so yards for a disturbance of the peace. Where would my human rights or freedom of speech/expression be then?

    Derrick

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Hi Ruby,

    There is a price to be paid for the right to free speech. Sometimes you are going to hear vile, objectionable speech. Sometimes the places where you hear it offend decency as in the examples you stated. But if you start to limit free speech where does it stop?

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Thomas
    replied
    As someone once said, the law is a donkey.

    And this geezer is well aware of this fact.

    How this pans out should be interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rubyretro
    replied
    Yes -I guess I do think that as a bottom line c.d.

    People may believe and say whatever they want, without fear...however WHERE they say it is of great importance :

    For example, one may believe and say that 'abortion is murder' -but it's absolutely despicable to do so in front of a clinic carrying out abortions.
    The women having abortions may be very emotional and fragile, and have had a tough decision to make ; shouldn't the Law protect them too, from more distress ?

    what about people who are for Euthanasia ? They shouldn't be allowed to campaign in front of Homes for old people, hospices or handicapped children's homes.

    We ought to be able to have Freedom of Speech, and still have laws to protect sections of the population that these nutcases may target, from being subjected to them, if they wish to avoid them.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    But then aren't you saying that your right to free speech only exists in certain places?

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rubyretro
    replied
    Well said, Dave.

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    The co-opting of a venue should not be allowed. If you want to sit in your church and spit hate, go for it. Funerals, university graduations,other events, are not be co-opted for your "right to speech". You cannot use the gathering of people for another purpose to gratify your need for an audience. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    There have actually been a bunch of counter protests. For example:

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Thomas
    replied
    A wonderful post, Derrick

    You are a scholar and a gentleman. Nuff said.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Some nice views expressed here but I would like for people to say how they think the court should rule.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derrick
    replied
    I'm afraid that "freedom of speech" is not a right at all but something of value that [some/many] people deem to be worth striving for.

    If one is of a mind to allow total freedom of speech to all and sundry then one must accept that views that are diametrically opposed to ones own are equally valid and allowable.

    Yet freedom of speech (or the written word) is one thing, invading anothers space without an explicit invitation to do so is just plain bad manners and more than likely worse.

    Some time ago Noam Chomsky signed a petition in support of the views of a French holocaust denier Robert Fourisson. This caused a storm of protest by French intellectuals and Chomsky wrote an essay in response that succinctly conveyed and supported the view of Voltaire.

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    Chomsky got a real bashing from those of whom completely missed the point of freedom of speech in that context. Chomsky's writings were not translated into French until some years after.

    Adolf Hitler appreciated that his mission could have been halted early on if his opponents had crushed him and his followers with extreme prejudice.

    Freedom of speech cannot exist in isolation but must be supported in the wider world and has to be contrasted with the allowing of the freedom of tyranny.

    If one is really interested in protecting freedom of speech then they must be watchful that it is views rather than tyranny/violence that is being expressed.

    Derrick

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Thanks for that Stephen. I didn't realize that Phelps was a disbarred lawyer. It is his daughter (who is also a lawyer) that is arguing his case in front of the Supreme Court.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X