A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Errata]

Not quite sure I follow this, Errata. For a start, I don't see anyone wanting to wrap gay kids up in cotton, including the gay kids themselves. My brother never needed nor wanted that, nor did I want it for him. But you are suggesting that we should do exactly that for kids in general who get bullied - wrap them up in cotton against the bullies. Wouldn't gay kids deserve the same protection from bullies as every other kid under your scheme for getting things 'sorted out'?

Nice one, Robert.

Love,

Caz
X

I've seen it. I don't know how common it is, but I have seen people get furious to the point of violence at the mere mention of the biblical strictures against homosexuality. The "if you so much as mention one word about this in front of my son I'll kill you" kind of thing. Which admittedly is a great change from kicking kids out of the house for being gay, but keeping truth from them isn't terribly helpful. I mean, it does say that. And people believe that. Its going to come up eventually.

Adults bullying children is off the charts unacceptable. Adults expressing views in a public arena that may apply to a child... this is what they need to get used to. This should be where parent's explain free speech, and that opinion is not fact, etc. I'm not gonna lie, it hurts. But if parent's really educate a child on the hows and whys of such a thing, it doesn't linger. Especially if the home environment is warm and supportive.

As far as kids bullying other kids, there is a not so fine line between "you suck" and "I'm going to kill you". There is a difference between calling someone names, and illegally posting a video of them having sex on the internet. And there is a difference between being snubbed, and being assaulted after class. The sort of classic bullying has been around forever, and I don't know what the solution is. We had one teacher in my school who when she overheard someone insulting another kid, she would launch into a catalog of the bully's faults and shortcomings, always including the fact that they were so insecure they had to insult someone else to feel better about themselves. Entertaining, but not necessarily the solution.

As far as this new kind of bullying goes, it is insane that any adult would allow this behavior. The second there is a death threat, an assault, a law broken, the bully should be out. Expelled. Mandatory therapy. No excuses. These kids not only lack the empathy that most teenagers lack, but they are completely ignorant of consequences, and evidently have no problems with classic sociopathic behaviour. These are the kids who kill other kids. Both directly and indirectly. And they dont care. Intervention needs to take place immediately if these kids are ever going to have a chance to make it in the real world. It benefits the bullies and the bullied for there to immediate action taken.

[mariag]

Free speech must be an absolute or it is meaningless.

Unfortunately, that means that really nasty things get said. And really nasty people get away with saying them.

This group was in my city last year and I realize the kind of ruckus they stir up.The local media were all over it, stoking the flames and telling everyone precisely where they would be and when they would be there.

I think that the only way to handle them is to take the wind out of their sails be ignoring them. If no one pays attention to them then they will soon tire and go away. But so far everyone plays into their game by giving them the attention they so fervently desire.

[The Good Michael]

Mags,

Free speech is never absolute unless one is alone. It cannot be. The idea of free speech must be tempered with some system of manners. Since manners aren't universal, speech will cross the lines of what is belligerent, what is threatening, and what is locally acceptable. Again, I think that is where the police, interpretation of laws and customs, and the judicial systems come into play.

Mike

[Robert]

This isn't really any of my business, because I'm not American, but here goes :

People should be able to bury their loved-ones in peace and with dignity. If, thanks to your Constitution, they're not allowed to do that - then you need a new Constitution.

[Errata]

This isn't really any of my business, because I'm not American, but here goes :

People should be able to bury their loved-ones in peace and with dignity. If, thanks to your Constitution, they're not allowed to do that - then you need a new Constitution.

Well they arent in the cemeteries, they are outside, or on the road leading to the cemetery. And on the one hand these people have gone through enough that they shouldn't have to face unpleasantness on the way to bury a loved one. On the other hand, god help us if we are going to start legislating to provide people with a peaceful driving experience. Have there been instances where these idiots have been close enough to cause a disturbance?

[Robert]

Hi Errata

Not quite sure what you mean about the driving. Obviously no one should distract people from the road. As for the cemetery, if they can be heard inside the cemetery or if they're gathered with placards at the gates of it, then that would constitute a reason to cart them off, in my book.

Commonsense is all we need. When I go down my high street, sometimes there's some white guy going on about his god, sometimes there are Buddhists playing music, or Moslems...that's all OK by me, as long as they don't use amplifiers or megaphones or stand at the entrance to a shop hurling abuse.

If you leave it to the lawyers to work this out with detailed criteria, you'll be looking at a very big bill and even then the job won't be done properly. Better to appoint - or rather elect - an ombudsman for common sense, or something of that nature.

[c.d.]

This isn't really any of my business, because I'm not American, but here goes :

People should be able to bury their loved-ones in peace and with dignity. If, thanks to your Constitution, they're not allowed to do that - then you need a new Constitution.

Hi Robert,

The problem is that this is not simply about burying loved ones. The case does not exist in a vacuum. The Supreme Court will be ruling on the limits of free speech. This case will set a precedent. The same First Amendment that protects these scumbags also protects every American.

c.d.

[Stephen Thomas]

The problem is that this is not simply about burying loved ones. The case does not exist in a vacuum. The Supreme Court will be ruling on the limits of free speech. This case will set a precedent. The same First Amendment that protects these scumbags also protects every American.

Super little post there, c.d. which cuts to the chase. The Supreme Court decision with its whys and wherefores should make interesting reading. As I know you like your jokes I think you might like the one below.

Hi Caz

I heard an Irish stand-up comedian say 'You English are always making out that we Irish are backward but in lots of ways we're very progressive. For instance we've had a flourishing gay community for over a thousand years. It's called the Clergy'.

[Robert]

Hi CD

I'm trying to recall a case from the Depression era. Some WW1 veterans camped on the White House lawn and asked for some of their pension in advance. The President (Hoover or Roosevelt) had General MacArthur clear them off with tanks. I'm assuming the White House lawn isn't private property, so it seems to me that their right of free speech was deemed strictly conditional, i.e. on their not exercising it on the White House lawn.

[Errata]

Hi Robert,

The problem is that this is not simply about burying loved ones. The case does not exist in a vacuum. The Supreme Court will be ruling on the limits of free speech. This case will set a precedent. The same First Amendment that protects these scumbags also protects every American.

c.d.

It's kind of a shame it's coming before THIS supreme court.

[c.d.]

I think a good way to look at it is like this -- If these people were holding up signs that said "Your Son Died a Hero" and "God Bless You and Your Family" would you still have the same objections? The first amendment is supposed to protect all points of view even if sometimes that view is vile and hateful. It is a tough question before the court and I would be surprised if they reach a unanimous decision.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

It is not that black and white. There is an element beyond what they are saying involved. It does not matter what they say, the targeting of a funeral should be prohibited behavior. One is one issue and one is another. As Ally has pointed out, the grieving family has limited choice as to be in public for this function. If dumbass was surrounding a specific cemetery then they could choose to avoid that cemetery. Dumbass has however, targeted that family based on their sons service, and their choice of cemetery, to express his view. This is clearly unprotected behavior. Couching the issue in free speech is a pathetic method of disguising the behavior's true nature, and those who advance the free speech argument are in fact helping the asshat by obfuscating the issue. Dave

[Robert]

Hi CD

Of course, it would be nice if the court could be persuaded to carry out their deliberations in public - say, in a local park - where they can be barracked and shouted at, just so they have an idea what it's like.

[c.d.]

Hi Robert,

Look at my post #116. Would you feel differently under those circumstances?

c.d.

[Robert]

Hi CD

The two situations aren't comparable, because in the hero scenario the family isn't being upset by abuse. Nevertheless, if the family express the wish to actually be allowed some private time at what is, or should be, a private occasion, then yes, if the hero brigade don't disperse, the police should cart them off.