A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[caz]

There's a case in the US at the moment where some preacher who specialised in hellfire anti-gay sermons has been found to ride on the other bus himself.

Just the one, Stephen?

I have a gay brother and you should hear the stories he tells about saunas where married vicars can be found 'riding the other bus'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stephen Thomas]

This whole thing is quite ridiculous and I was quite shocked when I saw the antics of these inbred morons on a British TV show a few years ago disrupting the funerals of brave soldiers and I remember thinking then that the sooner those bikers (common decency can be found in unexpected places) thrashed the lot of them with pool cues and motorbike chains the better. One fact that is not too well known these days though, is that the Jewish law as expressed in the Old Testament expressly condemns homosexuality and the New Testament does nothing to revise this as it does, for instance the Jewish dietary laws. I love the hypocrisy in all this. There's a case in the US at the moment where some preacher who specialised in hellfire anti-gay sermons has been found to ride on the other bus himself.

[caz]

Hi c.d., All,

I suppose, for me, it boils down to how much the 'victims' of someone else's free speech have to suffer, or are expected to suffer, before the law comes to their aid.

And suffering is of course relative when it goes beyond the directly physical kind.

If you (the collective 'you') don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. If you are male, and don't believe in abortion, don't impregnate a woman who may not wish to bear your child. Outside of that, you are not suffering personally if someone you've never met and are never likely to meet has an abortion you will never know anything about. You choose to 'suffer' (and make others suffer) for all the unborn babies who will never go on to share this 'vale of tears' with you. If you are so eaten up with hatred and bitterness over an issue like this, why would you force an unwanted child upon a reluctant parent and make two new potentially hate-filled bitter people just like you? Mind your own business; mind your own 'suffering'; help with other people's suffering if they clearly need and want help. Above all, don't deliberately inflict suffering on people using your right to free speech as your weapon.

If someone writes a book calling for everyone to hate straight women in their fifties called Caz, I won't lose a moment's sleep - unless it becomes a bestseller in a bad way, ie millions of readers are persuaded that women like me deserve to be hated. I think I'd be a bit miffed with that. I'd like to think that society has moved on and that anyone writing a book today, in an attempt to bring back the slave trade (or incite hatred because of one's race, age or sexuality - things that are not a matter of choice) would have to hit people over the head bodily with it to have the slightest impact. I'd like to think that even the descendants of slaves would simply shrug and smile and say "Good luck with the new book, mate, you'll need it".

Love,

Caz
X

[protohistorian]

There is also the matter of differential rights. Joe Jackass does what he wants but when protesters outside his church on sunday displayed signs that said " Jesus was a fanny bandit" they were arrested. Dave

[Derrick]

Hi Ruby,

I understand your views completely. But what if those people instead of shouting pro slavery views were instead holiding up signs and chanting love God and your neighbor and be kind to children? Would you object to that?

c.d.

Hi cd
You have hit the nail on the head.

Are we all willing to accept Voltaire's view or is freedom of speech just too much for society as a whole to countenance and some curtailment has to be introduced.

It would be interesting if we left our houses and campaigned for our opponents view to be heard. Jesus said we should turn the other cheek after all.

Yet it seems we just can't be trusted by the state to behave ourselves so need to be hobbled in some way or other. So is freedom of speech governed by each and every individual or is it a factor for society to decide.

If that is so therefore it just comes down to what is politically expedient at any point or juncture and as Karl Marx said in Grundrisse in 1858;

Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

This has to be contrasted with a very famous quote from Margaret Thatcher:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!", "I am homeless, the Government must house me!", and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

Derrick

[c.d.]

Hi Ruby,

I understand your views completely. But what if those people instead of shouting pro slavery views were instead holiding up signs and chanting love God and your neighbor and be kind to children? Would you object to that?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

You are one smart person, Errata.

you are missing the point, these are not terrorists or murderers

[Abby Normal]

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.

Courage

[Rubyretro]

But now let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let's say an author publishes a book advocating the return of slavery. We should return to selling individuals, splitting up families and whipping and hanging slaves who attempt to run away. A group of black people whose ancestors were slaves want the book banned. Would you agree to ban it? If not, why not? Should the feelings of the black people be taken into consideration in making your decision?

c.d.[/QUOTE]

I know that this question is specifically addressed to Caz -but for my part, I have no problem with things published in books or the Press, or even said on Tv....anyone can choose to read or watch what they like -reply to it or avoid it. However 'hypothetical pro-slavers' should not be allowed to shout their views infront of schools, community centres and housing estates (etc). Full stop.

Infact, regardless of whether black people live there or not..

I would be happy for my children to hear (or read) such views as part of a debate...I wouldn't be happy that they heard strong, one sided, racist views shouted in the street and got the idea that a) lots of people thought this, rather than a handful of bigots and b) it was ok to shout offensive
remarks in a public place potentially causing harm to a section of our population.

So, No, I wouldn't back people who wanted to ban such a book...but I would state loud and clear
that I didn't agree with the views there in and try to educate my children about the matter.

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

I certainly would not want protesters outside my door. I would try to take legal means to stop them if I felt they were breaking the law. Would I consider going beyond the law? That is getting pretty hypothetical but I would say yes. But then I would have to face the consequences of having done so.

We are required to obey the law. There is no requirment that says you have to agree with the law or like it.

But now let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let's say an author publishes a book advocating the return of slavery. We should return to selling individuals, splitting up families and whipping and hanging slaves who attempt to run away. A group of black people whose ancestors were slaves want the book banned. Would you agree to ban it? If not, why not? Should the feelings of the black people be taken into consideration in making your decision?

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Not that Japan is the ideal place, but they have a system of manners there that seems to be countrywide, that dictates what is annoying to most Japanese and simply, isn't done. People avoid bumping into each other, refrain from speaking loudly in public places, or confront each other with obnoxious dialogue. Loudness is saved for sporting events and karoake rooms. In the occasion that one crosses the boundary of nationally perceived manners, a simple look or a word from another brings the level down to tolerable limits. In short, there is a rough boundary in all countries that shouldn't be crossed with respect to localized perceptions of what's right and wrong. Unfortunately, not everyone works within the vagueness of those boundaries, and many don't see them, instead indulging in their own singular worlds. Freedom of anything is limited by those unseen, unknown (by some), and undefined (legally) boundaries. Those boundaries change on a daily basis as societies change and are, therefore, ever indefinite. Freedom of speech cannot exist. It is impossible for a law to dictate that freedom, but they still try to in most constitutions. Vagueness is further obscured by law. Everything is in flux. That's why we have courts, but the courts are made of (mostly) older people who aren't in sync with that flux. Courts need to be progressive and constantly changing in order to keep up with changing patterns of manners. There is a small core of politesse that seems to be relatively static. That core should be applied to any similar (as judged) or new behaviors so as to help to determine what might go over the boundaries and infringe upon others. As we are all individuals with individual levels of tolerance, no real freedom can be possible that encroaches upon the core set of values. In the meantime, keep your eye on the Japanese.

Mike

[Errata]

And my initial instincts were the same, Errata. In fact I nearly said as much but brought myself up short. It's all well and good having them out in the open so you know where they are, what they are saying and what they believe. But it would be rather naïve to imagine there are not many times their number who privately share their basic views about homosexuality, but prefer not to admit it. When they see the small, but most extreme groups 'getting away with it' instead of being kicked up the backside, what message does that send out?

And then I thought of an example that would affect me personally and directly - and I instantly knew that no, I wouldn't be 'fine' with a group of any size taking against me or my family, and it would worry me if there was nothing lawful I could do to stop them protesting outside my home - which is why I turned the situation round and offered it to c.d. to try on for size.

Love,

Caz
X

It's not easy listening to someone say terrible things about you that aren't true. Especially when they have a megaphone and several hundred people cheer every single lie, every slight, every call to action. It's not easy to watch a group of people who want you dead. I know. I've done it several times. Not because I am a patient soul akin to Gandhi or whatever. Mostly because they were outside my window, and where was I gonna go, you know? I'm a Jew in Tennessee, the birthplace of the Klan. And where there's Klan there's neo-nazis. That and the basic ignorant jaw dropping idiotic statements from people in the grocery store. It's everywhere.

Here's what turned me on the issue. I used to work for Planned Parenthood. I answered phones, passed out literature, dropped condoms off to sex ed teachers. Grunt work. Every day on my way in, we ran a gauntlet of protesters. Most of the time, it was the same six women from Catholic Charities. We said good morning to each other and everything. It was civil. There is a law as to how close they can be to the doors, and they were scrupulous about it. I had no problem with these women. Every couple of months something would ping the radar, and those six ladies turned into 600 screaming psychopaths. They broke the laws a bout how close they could get, what they could and could not say, several were always hauled off for assault on an employee or a patient. It was chaos. And I could say and do nothing. Because they desperately wanted me to. They wanted to provoke me so I would lash out and they could sue Planned Parenthood into extinction. But the funny thing was those six regulars would always position themselves in front on the gauntlet, so we could see that they didn't approve of what was around them. I learned to keep my cool.

One day I came home, and a man was standing in my bedroom. He told me that I was a murderer, and that if I didn't renounce my evil, he would do to me what I did to innocent babies. And then he buried a knife (my knife) in the wall above my bed, and walked out. I called the cops, but I couldn't identify him. I had been looking at the knife. I was 19, and in my first apartment. I moved out two weeks later. They caught him when he did the same thing to a nurse. He had followed me home every night for a week. He was there when i left in the morning, and while I was gone had practiced picking my lock. He had never been to a rally. He was part of some organization no one had ever heard of. Their goal was to kill abortion workers. They met in some guys basement. Evidently the reason he didn't just kill me was because I was clearly too young to be a doctor. The nurse would have been killed had she not had an exceptionally observant neighbor who called the cops when she saw light when their shouldn't be any.

After that, the six regulars were a positive delight, and even the rabid mobs were just fine with me. I'd like to say I went back to work and that I never let it get to me. I did go back, but two weeks later I got my assigned position for a bomb threat/terrorist takeover and I had pretty much had it. Although when I did leave, one of the regulars outside the door made me cookies. And she told me she would pray for me, and that she would pray that the man who broke in my house would "burn in hell forever".

I will always take the crazy I can see versus the crazy I can't. And it is horrendous what the Westboro people say about gays and lesbians. But they're wrong. And the people who agree with them are wrong. A million people can in fact be wrong. And no amount of shouting and waving signs is going to make them right. Westboro doesn't want gays and lesbians? Well I do. I'll take them all. And I've told my gay friends that. They knew, but I told them anyway. Because support from someone who knows you and loves you is more important than hatred and abuse from someone who's never even met you. Let Westboro protest. And every time they do, stand right next to them with a sign that says "God is love. God loves you all and so do I". And tell everyone you know that those people are wrong. And their attitude is wrong. And that it's not okay. And that you don't want to be associated with people who agree with them. And you don't want to buy from them, you don't want them teaching your kids, and you don't want to give them your taxes. Tell the world that. And let them wave their signs. If we stand up and say they are wrong, no amount of signs or chants can help them. Because it's true what they say. For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.

[caz]

Hi c.d.,

I gave you a very specific, very personal example: c.d. haters constantly grouped outside your front door, giving you grief while exercising their right to free speech. But you didn't say whether you'd settle for the law taking its course (and let 'em carry on regardless) or whether you'd do something that might be against the law to get rid of the creatures.

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.

And my initial instincts were the same, Errata. In fact I nearly said as much but brought myself up short. It's all well and good having them out in the open so you know where they are, what they are saying and what they believe. But it would be rather naïve to imagine there are not many times their number who privately share their basic views about homosexuality, but prefer not to admit it. When they see the small, but most extreme groups 'getting away with it' instead of being kicked up the backside, what message does that send out?

And then I thought of an example that would affect me personally and directly - and I instantly knew that no, I wouldn't be 'fine' with a group of any size taking against me or my family, and it would worry me if there was nothing lawful I could do to stop them protesting outside my home - which is why I turned the situation round and offered it to c.d. to try on for size.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

If you only have opinions that are sanctioned by law, then yes, this is a pointless discussion. And it becomes even more so when you are asked to give specific support for your opinions that do not have a law behind them.

So yes, you are quite right, pointless.

[c.d.]

You keep trying to remove the law from this discussion. That simply can't be done and to do so is pointless. I can't separate the two as you appear to do with so much ease. I have never heard anybody say we are a nation of opinions not laws.

I have already expressed my opinion as to the church group. Should people be allowed to protest blacks and gays in their neighborhood? I say kill them all along with people talking too loud on their cell phones and people who wear checked pants and striped shirts. And anybody who is not a Steelers fan. Just expressing my opinion. See how pointless this discussion has become? Since you want to exclude the law, this is an exercise in futility.

I really have to go now. It has been a long day and I have expended a great deal of energy not the least of which has been on these boards. I suggest that everyone chill a bit, grab a beer and maybe spend some time on the enhanced underwear thread. We'll all live longer.

c.d.