A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Derrick]

...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

Hi Dave

Your are of course correct.

Further to that, religious fundamentalists are basing their manifesto's on similar tracts written perhaps 2 millenia ago, by men. The rationale of the past should not be an absolute for today.

Once the world was flat. Once the earth was the centre of the universe. Now we know different and that changes things.

Once we roamed free and lived at one with the world...but for most of us that has also be lost.

Derrick

[c.d.]

Dave, if you limit where free speech can take place you are limiting free speech. There can be no doubt of that. You are arguing that limiting locales in certain instances is reasonable. Maybe so, but that is still lmiting free speech. There is no way around that.

In fact, this is what the court is trying to decide. In oral argument, one of the justices asked the lawyer for the church if they simply cannot take their protests to another forum.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Dave

Your are of course correct.

Further to that, religious fundamentalists are basing their manifesto's on similar tracts written perhaps 2 millenia ago, by men. The rationale of the past should not be an absolute for today.

Once the world was flat. Once the earth was the centre of the universe. Now we know different and that changes things.

Once we roamed free and lived at one with the world...but for most of us that has also be lost.

Derrick

No, the Constitution is not perfect and it was written by men not God and those men could not begin to imagine the world we live in today. Stil,l it has done a pretty decent job of keeping us a free nation for over 200 years.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

It also specifies that a black man gets 3/5 of one vote. Dave

[Robert]

I don't like the word "rights" but if this must be discussed in terms of rights, then it's obvious that some rights contradict each other. Hence laws and judges. I'm a bit surprised that this particular problem hasn't been resolved already.

[protohistorian]

Hello Robert, It was resolved until some jackass from Kansas that is not me insisted on removing some aspects of human behavior from the realm of common decency and placing them in the supreme court's lap to decide. I should point out that the jackass in question is a self righteous blowhard with a law degree and oodles of free time. He sued one of my professors over a matter of genetics because my prof said there is no way in happy hell that Amerinds are a lost tribe of Israel. But America is a republic where people who are unhappy with reality and possess enough means can if fact try and alter their reality to suit whatever dimwitted conception rolls around in their heads when they move. So we have to revisit something that basic human dignity covers because this Joe Jackass has free time, money, and lives in America. Dave

[Derrick]

No, the Constitution is not perfect and it was written by men not God and those men could not begin to imagine the world we live in today. Stil,l it has done a pretty decent job of keeping us a free nation for over 200 years.

c.d.

Hi CD
Has it?
Your constitution for the longest time repressed black people. It took truely great men and women such as Rosa Parks, The Rev King and Malcolm Little to expose the hypocracy of a system which bases it's justice system in a static piece of paper from 200 years ago that protected property over other interests.

Your economy, which you base a great amount of pride in is in fact owned, to a large degree, by foreign states such as Japan, China and Saudi Arabia.
You are free to meet the interest payments at your own speed like we are in England as long as we dominate in martial affairs and can obtain fossil fuels where we like under threat of being bombed to oblivion.

Western Democracies don't make much anymore but subcontract, at a much lower price, to foreign workers. It is the economics of champagne taste expenditure and ale house income.

Derrick

[c.d.]

And yet, people from all over the world want to come to our country. Go figure.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Bingo

Unfortunately, they will not go there-and that is a shame.

If they had true courage, they would see things the way this wise person did who said "the freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins".

They have the authority to do it, but they won't. Bummer.

[c.d.]

Hi Abby,

I don't think it is a question of courage. The justices are appointed for life so their jobs are pretty secure. They are attempting to interpret the Constitution as best they can.

c.d.

[Errata]

I gotta say, I live in a place just crawling with really objectionable protesters. Anti-Muslim hate squads and of course, The Klan. (I live in Tennessee)

What can I say? Clearly they are morons. Obviously they are hate filled. Of course, they are cowards. You get used to it. Not the hate, or the bigotry or the vitriol. But the fact that they are making it difficult to get into your job or your school, or that they are shouting things you really don't want to hear. You get used to it. Oddly enough it gives us a certain level of protection. They had a problem a few years back with a pro-choice march. They didn't want to grant the permits. The question they were asked politely, in front of the cameras was "You granted the same permit for the Klan. Surely you can treat us at least as well as you treat the Klan can't you?"
They got their permits.

I'm fine with them protesting wherever they want to. It means I know where they are. Its when I don't know where they are that I get worried.

[Stephen Thomas]

I'm fine with them protesting wherever they want to. It means I know where they are. Its when I don't know where they are that I get worried.

You are one smart person, Errata.

[Ally]

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.

If you believe in limits, then you do not believe in the concept of total free speech. If you plan to use the "slippery slope" argument, then you are setting up an either or proposition. If you accept limits to freedom of speech, then you do negate your ability to use the slippery slope argument.

Either there are reasonable limits, or there are no limits. Those are the only options. There is no "slippery slope". Either you believe we have the capacity to rationally apply common sense limits, such as slander, or you do not. Which is it? If you acknowledge that we can rationally apply limits to freedom of speech, then you acknowledge that the "slippery slope" argument is just so much asinine fear-mongering trotted out when there is no reasonable argument.

[c.d.]

You keep talking about my acceptance of limits as though it is a matter of personal choice when in fact it is a matter of law. But how many limits to speech do we apply before the slope becomes slippery? If you have a snowball perched on the side of a hill and tap it a few times it might not move. But if you tap it long enough there is a good chance that it might.

The Court of Appeals threw out the lower court's ruling and held for the church citing the church's free speech rights under the First Amendment. So your view that this is not a free speech case is not supported by the court's decision.

The Associated Press has weighed in on the side of the church. They went out of their way to disassociate themselves from the actions of the church as much as possible because they are so abhorrent but they are afraid of the precedent (read slippery slope) that this case could create.

c.d.

[Robert]

But what about the other slope, CD? What about the prat who comes and lectures you while you walk along smoking, or the idiot who stands outside your house yelling his head off?