A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Errata]

Errata, I assume it's already limited in front of schools. Surely people aren't allowed to stand outside schools with placards bearing words like "c*nt," "f*ck" etc? And are people allowed to stand outside someone's private residence hurling abuse all day?

It's limited in front of schools as far as distance goes. You have to get a permit to demonstrate, and there is a certain zone around public schools that are considered "no-fly" zones for any number of things, from having a weapon to having a beer.(depending on the state) My hometown was somewhat notorious for having a huge strip joint in the parking lot of a middle/high school. As the strip club was there first (it was in fact one of the oldest in the country) there was nothing the school could do about it. There are many states that would have forced them to move. And people can in fact hurl abuse from the sidewalks at a private residence all day long if they like, as long as they don't tresspass or break other laws.

The problem with limiting it in front of schools is pretty basic. The student protests in the late sixties on college campuses were some of the most productive and positive examples of civil disobedience in our history. If they were barred either because it took place at a public school, or on a private institution's grounds, that would have been a tremendous loss. The problem with limiting it in front of private property is that businesses are on provate property. If you want to protest wal-mart using child labor, you should be able to do it in front of wal mart. And wal-mart shouldnt get to decide how close to their property we as citizens are allowed to get.

[Robert]

Hi CD

Well, they may look to see what other situations can be included. But the trouble with principles is, they're meant to be modifiable. Anyone who just follows a principle through to the end will wind up talking to the fairies. Sooner or later our ethical thinking will demand a gut response, or an instinct, prejudice or emotion, call it what you will. So you're going to have a situation where the law gets to be out of step with most people's moral values.

I've got an awful feeling that a lot of the laws they'll be taking into consideration are just plain wrong. Anyway, we'll see how it pans out.

[c.d.]

Hi Robert,

Let me try to further clarify things. Here in the U.S., there is no automatic right to have the Supreme Court hear your case. It has to make its way through the lower courts first. You then have to petition the Supreme Court asking them to hear your case. The court only grants those petitions to a mere handful of the petitions that it receives in any given year. When the court delivers its opinion which they will probably do in the early Spring that decision is published. It will not be a one page decision saying either yes or no as to whether the church group can picket funerals. It will probably be a fifty page decision or so. Within those pages, the court will lay out the reasoning that it applied to reach its conclusion. They will lay out the principles of law that they relied upon. What they don't want to do is to make a ruling that applies only to funerals. If they did that, then eventually they would be asked to hear a case involving weddings, then a case involving Bar Mitzvahs etc. etc. What they want to do is to provide direction for the lower courts so if they are faced with a wedding question, they can look to language in this decision and apply it to weddings even though the Supreme Court might not even mention weddings in their decision. I say weddings as an example but what the court will actually address is private gatherings as they relate to free speech.

I mentioned a case involving criticism of Obama. The same thing would apply. The court would not simply limit the case as it pertains to criticisim of Obama. If they did, then the court would have to hear a case on the Vice President etc. What they would try to do is to provide direction to the lower courts so if the issue came up well can you criticize the Secretary of State, the lower courts would look to see what the Supreme Court said about Obama and apply the same principle in making its decision.

The fact that the court agreed to hear this case tells you that they realize its importance and its impact on other questions involving the limits of free speech.

I hope this helps.

c.d.

[Robert]

Errata, I assume it's already limited in front of schools. Surely people aren't allowed to stand outside schools with placards bearing words like "c*nt," "f*ck" etc? And are people allowed to stand outside someone's private residence hurling abuse all day?

[Errata]

If the courts place limits on what can be said and done within the vicinity of a funeral, then not only can free speech then be extrapolated to be limited in front of schools, businesses or private residences etc. but it also opens the door to allow the law to decide what is allowed within the vicinity of a funeral. It's a nasty set of precedents.

[c.d.]

Hi Robert,

No, that is not what I am telling you.

c.d.

[Robert]

Hi CD

If you are telling me that from a decision to ban abuse at funerals, the judges will exrapolate a ban on all criticism of anyone anywhere, then all I can say is your judges must be chewing as many mushrooms as ours are.

[c.d.]

Hi Robert,

It is NOT just a funeral that we are talking about. When the Supreme Court rules on this it will set a precedent that all of the lower courts are required to follow. It is possible that they are going to enumerate restrictions that apply in other areas not just funerals.

Let's take President Obama. If a case comes before the court on whether or not you can publicly criticize the President, the court might extend that right. In other words, even though the initial case only involved the President, the court could rule that ANY politician can be criticized. So you can see the significance that one single case can have. This is the whole point. This case does not exist in a vacuum. It is not simply about funerals. it is about the limitations to free speech. That decision can impact other questions of free speech.

c.d.

[Robert]

Hi CD

I don't see the logic of what you are saying. Anyone in America can say that Obama is an imbecile and they won't be sent to some gulag or death camp. They can say that Allah/Jehovah etc does not exist and they won't be stoned to death. They can say that the Government's policies are wrong. They can say all kinds of things. They can say homosexuality is wrong. I'm saying that they shouldn't be allowed to disrupt funerals. or weddings, for that matter. Or baptisms.

Still, ultimately it's down to the American people, who have to decide whether or not to wear this.

[c.d.]

Hi Robert,

The problem is that if you keep on adding limitations to free speech then at some point free speech will no longer exist. Think of it as a piece of paper that your are holding in your hand. If you keep tearing off little pieces at some point you are going to be left with a little scrap of paper that you can hold in your hand.

The right to free speech is a great right. There are a lot of countries where it does not exist. But like anything of high value, it comes with a cost.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Abby,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as to what the Constitution does and does not allow but the authority to do so lies with the courts.

The courts have already ruled that viewpoint discrimination violates the constitution.

c.d.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.