A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[c.d.]

Here in the U.S., the Supreme Court has been asked to hear a case testing the limits of free speech. A small church consisting of about 60 members most of whom are related to the patriarchal pastor are absolutely and totally opposed to homosexuality. They show up at the funerals of U.S. soldiers (both heterosexual and homosexual) who have been killed in combat. They carry signs saying that they are glad the soldier has died and they hope more will be killed. They believe it is God's punishment on the U.S. for it's acceptance of homosexuality. So military families grieving the loss of their son have to confront these idiots waving signs and jeering them. The father of one such son brought the case saying that these people go beyond the limits of free speech. It will be an interesting decision.

My own personal opinion is that while these people are total scum who in a perfect world should be tortured and killed have a right to express their opinion as objectionable as it is.

c.d.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

I watched Pastor Arse-Wipe and his spawn on TV tonight.

I've scraped higher life forms from the soles of my shoes.

Why waste time with the torture?

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

Gents

Like you I don't have too much time for brain-dead morons like this but either one wants to live in a society that allows free speech or one doesn't.

[protohistorian]

Is this pastor Fred? If so that douchebag picketted my University graduation. He is one dysfuntional cognitive package. Dave

[Rubyretro]

I think that there must be some sort of 'half way' measure..

Whilst I agree with free Speech, and the fact that these revolting scum have to be allowed to express themselves, there surely exist other laws along the lines of 'likely to cause distress to others and civil unrest by homophobic remarks' (would they be allowed to make racist insults like this ?).

There were a couple of couple of cases in the UK of people handing out anti-gay tirades at Gay Pride marches and writing homophobic letters to the council, and I know that the woman in Brighton was arrested. Pauline Howe, an old bag in Norwich, saw her leaflets linked to a rise in attacks on homosexuals in the area, where one man died.

Quite apart from the added pain caused to the soldier's families, what these people are doing isn't 'harmless'.

Isn't it possible to cordon off an area...which the soldier's families need not walk past if they don't want..and allow the demonstraters just 20 minutes or something, preceded by a clear statement by the local authorities distancing themselves from these opinions. At least you could still allow these nutcases Freedom of Speech and make it a choice for the bereaved families (and everyone else) to come into contact with them or not.

[protohistorian]

Welcome to my world, Yeah Kansas!! The guy from Kansas that makes headlines is dumbass to the power of I know what the imaginary creature hates. Sad but true he has a law degree. I personally think the best part of him ran down Momma's leg and stained the sheets. Dave

[kensei]

There is a group of tough-looking motorcyclists who I believe are called the Freedom Guard who often shadow these unbelievably vicious characters. They don't attack them or engage them in any way. They simply place themselves between the picketers and the mourners and stand there with their brawny tattooed arms folded and form a barrier.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that free speech is of course precious, but that there should be some legal way of recognizing that it sometimes comes down to four one-syllable words- "Yeah, but COME ON!"

These people should consider that someday, someone at one of these funerals is going to decide that enough is enough and do something violent to them. They rely on the fact that they will then be able to press charges for it, but that won't make whoever gets attacked any less injured or dead.

Afterthought: Hey, how about picketing them with signs that say "God hates bigots"?

[Natalie Severn]

If this chap is calling for gays to be murdered and bashed is that "free speech" or incitement to murder and violence?

[kensei]

Oops- sorry, but the bikers I was referring to are called the Patriot Guard, not the Freedom Guard.

[Robert]

These people should be allowed to voice their dislike of homosexuality if they so wish - but not at people's funerals. It would be the same if it was anyone else turning up at the funeral, e.g. pacifists or Islamic fundamentalists or just some guy who didn't like some particular soldier. None of that should be allowed.

[Stephen Thomas]

Just for jolly, here's this weirdo's Wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

[c.d.]

Thanks for that Stephen. I didn't realize that Phelps was a disbarred lawyer. It is his daughter (who is also a lawyer) that is arguing his case in front of the Supreme Court.

c.d.

[Derrick]

I'm afraid that "freedom of speech" is not a right at all but something of value that [some/many] people deem to be worth striving for.

If one is of a mind to allow total freedom of speech to all and sundry then one must accept that views that are diametrically opposed to ones own are equally valid and allowable.

Yet freedom of speech (or the written word) is one thing, invading anothers space without an explicit invitation to do so is just plain bad manners and more than likely worse.

Some time ago Noam Chomsky signed a petition in support of the views of a French holocaust denier Robert Fourisson. This caused a storm of protest by French intellectuals and Chomsky wrote an essay in response that succinctly conveyed and supported the view of Voltaire.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Chomsky got a real bashing from those of whom completely missed the point of freedom of speech in that context. Chomsky's writings were not translated into French until some years after.

Adolf Hitler appreciated that his mission could have been halted early on if his opponents had crushed him and his followers with extreme prejudice.

Freedom of speech cannot exist in isolation but must be supported in the wider world and has to be contrasted with the allowing of the freedom of tyranny.

If one is really interested in protecting freedom of speech then they must be watchful that it is views rather than tyranny/violence that is being expressed.

Derrick

[c.d.]

Some nice views expressed here but I would like for people to say how they think the court should rule.

c.d.

[Stephen Thomas]

A wonderful post, Derrick

You are a scholar and a gentleman. Nuff said.