A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[caz]

Actually, Errata, maybe liberals should get "special treatment" and protection from the terrible things people say about them. I mean, nobody would choose to be born a liberal, so they obvious can't help themselves - whereas gays just need to toughen up a bit and make the 'right' choice....

Love,

Sarcazticaz
X

[caz]

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

[Errata]

Don't we have to toughen up to a certain extent? I mean, if the goal is for gays, blacks, jews, etc. to be treated like everyone else, then don't we have to suck it up like everyone else? I hear people say terrible things about liberals and democrats, but I don't hear anyone suggesting that we liberals and democrats need to be protected from such speech.

Sometimes I wonder if "special treatment" isn't doing more harm than good. I totally get wanting to wrap a gay kid up in cotton, handling them with delicacy and treating them as though they are fragile. They can be fragile. But is that doing them a favor? When they get out in the world and you can't protect them anymore, haven't you handicapped them by shielding them from hate?

I think we can and should protect kids from the vitriol of adults. My parent's did it by making sure we understood why adults behaved in such a way. That they were afraid and felt powerless and the way they conquered that was by blaming a scapegoat. They didn't have the option of shielding us from the displays of hate themselves.

But these things aren't what kills kids. What kills kids is bullying, and displays of hate from their peers. And bullying is not okay, and should be punished severely. But kids are made fun of for everything from their sexuality to their parent's professions to their looks. Schools need to do a lot more to protect their students before we start altering free speech laws. There is one school who had 4 students and 2 former students commit suicide in two months. All from bullying. And some kids showed up to one of the girl's funerals and made fun of her in her coffin. So clearly some people are raising psychopaths. I think we need to address parenting and bullying first, and when we get that sorted out, we can see how much free speech is affecting these kids. My bet would be that the answer is very little.

[Robert]

Hims ancient and modern.