A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[protohistorian]

Nats, people do counterprotest. Judging from the shouts from passing cars at graduation he is not liked. He is aiming for a governmental response, he is about to get one. Democracy, where being a hate filled child works. Dave

[Ally]

I have no problem with freedom of speech. I also have an easy and simple solution to stopping them. You don't have to impinge their freedom of speech to stop what they are doing.

Harassment is illegal. They are harassing private individuals. They are not exercising their right of free speech. They are harassing private individuals at private moments. IF they want to exercise free speech, they can go to any public square, court house steps or government building and yell as loud as they want.

Harassing people during private moments that due to the nature of the ceremony must occur in a public place is easily bannable. I firmly believe that one persons "rights" end where anothers rights begin. And the right of grieving parents to bury their child in peace supersedes the rights of people to make a political point.

And I do not buy the "slippery slope" argument. There is a common sense argument as well.

[protohistorian]

See if you can spot Fred in this clip. Dave

http://video.adultswim.com/squidbillies/chosen.html

[Mr. Candlebridge]

As horrible as these people are for picketing, I doubt that the court will rule in their favor. Experts are saying that judges won't go there, not because they don't sympathize with the mourners, but because of the sort of precedent that this will create.

[Natalie Severn]

Nats, you're a friend, OK, but I do wish you wouldn't talk about people being mobilised. Who's going to mobilise them? People aren't pawns to be moved round a chess board.

As I see it Robert thats the whole history of government propaganda so we may as well take a leaf out of their book over tactics.
Cheers
Robert,
Norma

[caz]

Hi Dave,

What constitutes a deeply personal experience? And could I have a deeply personal experience that is different from yours? And if we say no protests at funerals, what location is next? I think you see the slope here.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

The sidewalk outside your house?

If a group of sixty nutjobs were wound up by their hero to hate anyone calling themselves c.d. and posting to this site, would you be happy for the law to rule in favour of their 'right' to turn up on your doorstep with 'God hates c.d' signs, shouting abuse at you and your family, as long as they obeyed the law in all other respects?

You have to see it from the victim's point of view, and these horrible people are only victims of their own vile pretendy religious prejudices.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

One would imagine that a situation like this must have arisen at some point in the past. After all, it doesn't involve the internet, or genetic cloning, or some other comparatively recent technology. So I'm wondering how this kind of thing was handled previously.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=caz;149880]Hi c.d.,

The sidewalk outside your house?

If a group of sixty nutjobs were wound up by their hero to hate anyone calling themselves c.d. and posting to this site, would you be happy for the law to rule in favour of their 'right' to turn up on your doorstep with 'God hates c.d' signs, shouting abuse at you and your family, as long as they obeyed the law in all other respects?

You have to see it from the victim's point of view, and these horrible people are only victims of their own vile pretendy religious prejudices.

Love,

Caz

Whoa there, Caz. Please go back and read my first post. I said that in a perfect world these people should be tortured and killed. Yes, they are vile and in no way do I sympathize with them and yes, my heart goes out to the grieving families. But the court is attempting to answer the question -- do they have the right under the Constution to do what they do?

It is a dangerous precedent to say that free speech only applies when no one is offended. Freedom comes with a cost.

c.d.

[Ally]

It is a fallacious argument to say that this is about free speech.

They are perfectly free to say whatever they wish, it is merely the locale they would be prevented from using.

If they are protesting America's government and policy, why aren't they on the steps of the capital building or the courthouse? What does a private individual burying their son have to do with the political point they are attempting to make?


How is it a matter of freedom of speech? Can you stand outside your ex-girlfriend's house for hours and scream "You are a whore, you slut, you skank, WHORE! WHORE! WHORE!??" or carry a picket sign proclaiming her to be a slut?

Is that considered a matter of freedom of speech also?

[c.d.]

Hi Ally,

But if you limit the locale where free speech can take place are you not limiting free speech itself?

c.d.

[Ally]

No. We limit the locale of where free speech can take place all the time. Free speech is limited inside schools, inside your office building, inside movie theaters, inside every place you choose to go on a daily basis. Don't think so? Go tell your boss to go fukk himself and when you are fired claim it as a right of free speech.

But you didn't answer my question. Is a man standing outside his ex-girlfriend's house and screaming she's a slut to everyone who passes by protected as free speech?

[c.d.]

Hi Ally,

In the instance you site, the man has engaged in slander and can be sued.

c.d.

[Ally]

What if the woman actually is a slut? Then it's not slander. What if it his genuine opinion that she is a slut? Why is it not his right to express his honestly held belief?

However, that you acknowledge the very concept of slander is your acceptance that there are ALREADY legal limits imposed on free speech. Which completely negates your "slippery slope" argument.

You accept limits on free speech already, so why would limiting this form of free speech bother you so much?

[c.d.]

To begin with, I never denied the concept of slander. Whether or not I accept it or deny it is pretty much a moot point since it is the law.

I also never denied that there are limits to free speech. Again, whether or not I accept that there are limits or deny there are limits is a moot point since it is a matter of law.

I also never stated that limiting this form of free speech "bothered" me. It is a very emotional issue but at its core it is a legal issue that has to be decided by the court. I am attempting to view it as a legal issue which is difficult because as I have stated numerous times, I think these people are total scum. But as I stated, I do think these people have the right to do what they do. Again, this is my personal belief and once the court rules it will be moot since it will be a matter of law.

I fail to see how the slippery slope argument is negated by my acknowledgement that there already exists limits on free speech. If you add to those limits, does that not point you down the slope?

c.d.

[protohistorian]

Hi Ally,

But if you limit the locale where free speech can take place are you not limiting free speech itself?

c.d.

No, you are limiting where that speech can occur based on the rights of others. This is one of many areas that the constitution is silent on. I would submit however that since protesters were kept out of the continental congress, even the for fathers would say your right to assemble and the right to speech is limited. These were men trying to give principles to live by. They are not gods handing out inviolate truths. The fact that Americans have made such ridiculous attempt at maintaining 18th century wisdom in the 21st century speaks volumes about their level of detachment from reality. Dave