A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Errata]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[Rubyretro]

Well said, Dave.

[c.d.]

But then aren't you saying that your right to free speech only exists in certain places?

c.d.

[Rubyretro]

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.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Derrick]

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

[c.d.]

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.

[Derrick]

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

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

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 ?

[Mr. Candlebridge]

I just read that although the Supreme judges would like to interfere because of the distress the protestors are causing, it is still protected by First Amendment speech. The family was actually awarded $11 Million because of the pinpointed attack, but then lowered it to $5 Million...and then later just threw it out, because it was un-Constitutional decision. I guess they are meeting today...?

[Robert]

The Government tells me that smoking causes cancer. They tell me all the time. They print it on the cigarette boxes. They ban cigarette advertising. They ban smoking in so-called public spaces (even though many of these are in fact private spaces, e.g. pubs and shops). I am still alowed to smoke on the pavement (at the moment).

If someone runs up to me while I'm smoking and says "Smoking causes cancer, you know" I'll say "Yeah, Ok" or whatever. But if that person starts walking along beside me, banging on about smoking and how I ought to stop, then he is invading my space (even though I'm in the street) and I will object to that.

[Derrick]

[quote=Rubyretro;149813]

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 ?

Hi Ruby

I see what you are saying.

To get the state to intervene usually leads to one side, or both, losing which is not fair in my my view.

My view is to completely ignore the tw*t and do what Ian Hislop and Paul Merton did to Nick Griffin on "Have I Got News For You" by failing to even recognise who the wan*er was.

There are, after all, 2 sides to every story. Fight for your rights people.

The other way is to counter Phelps' nonsense by picketing his house and see how he likes it. He may get tired of the hassle after a while. These people hate being exposed for the bigots that they are.

Derrrick

[Derrick]

The Government tells me that smoking causes cancer. They tell me all the time. They print it on the cigarette boxes. They ban cigarette advertising. They ban smoking in so-called public spaces (even though many of these are in fact private spaces, e.g. pubs and shops). I am still alowed to smoke on the pavement (at the moment).

If someone runs up to me while I'm smoking and says "Smoking causes cancer, you know" I'll say "Yeah, Ok" or whatever. But if that person starts walking along beside me, banging on about smoking and how I ought to stop, then he is invading my space (even though I'm in the street) and I will object to that.

Hi Robert
I am an ardent smoker and have never had anyone approach me about it in the street. God help 'em if they did though!

Derrick