A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Ally]

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.

So you are basically saying that our opinions mean nothing whatsoever. What difference does it make whether it is law or not? There are numerous things that are perfectly legal that people find objectionable, and there are things that people find perfectly fine that are illegal. Opinions are important, regardless of legality, otherwise what is the point of even starting this discussion? Why are you arguing something if you believe that the law is what decides all?

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.

Once again, your use of the slipper slope as a defense is fallacious. Either you believe in limits or you do not believe in limits. Which is it? You refuse to answer this very simple question. The law is irrelevant. What do you believe? Do you believe in limits or don't you?

The same slippery slope argument has been used throughout the ages with as little rationality. If we make abortion legal, eventually it will be legal to kill toddlers, and then it will be legal to kill kids up to 17 years and 11 months.

The slippery slope argument is idiotic.

So your view that this is not a free speech case is not supported by the court's decision.

What I said was that it doesn't have to be treated as a matter of free speech. And the original court agreed. The fact that a second court didn't makes it moot. One court said yes, one says no. So right now it's a wash. But regardless, if you allow others to decide what is right for you, then that is a flaw in your critical thinking ability which renders further discussion with you useless. If you only agree with what "the court" says is so, then you have no capacity for original or interesting discussion. So once again, why are you bothering to start this discussion thread? Why aren't you just sitting back and waiting for the court to tell you what you think?

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.

The associated press has long since ceased to be an organization devoted to anything but their own blind self interest. this is the same press that has spawned paparazzi and other intrusions into people's lives that should be considered nothing short of stalking and harassment. They hide behind a phony pretext of "freedom of speech and press" when their only concern is their bottom line. That is the equivalent of asking oil companies what laws should be passed in regards to drilling in ecologically fragile areas. Their self interest prevents them from being neutral and therefore their opinions are meaningless.

[c.d.]

Why the anger and hostility Ally? I don't recall taking that tone with you. I thought Pub Talk was for the purpose of discussion.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

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.

The thing is C. D. slippery slope implies uncontrolled change. Legislation of this kind is very controlled. It is controlled by the dictates of the American people,and their political and legal systems. God forbid a change happens they do not like and the have to roll their fat asses out of a barcalounger to vote, or worse yet read something. That cuts into reality t.v. and nascar time. So we would rather sit around and biatch that some old, racist, sexist,white property owning bastards from the 18th century did not solve all of our self created nightmares in the 21st century. Change is inevitable. Culture fluctuates, environmental conditions fluctuate, and failing to responsibly account for change and take an active part in seeing that change is accurate places roughly half of the united states population in the category of ubermoron and whining, irresponsible prat. I am thinking of those who would rather watch survivor than vote but we can include anyone who voted for a man with a lower GPA than mine after a stroke (Bush) or anyone who voted for a man with a 3 in 5 chance of dying in office (McCain) or anyone who supports the notion that seeing Russia is foreign policy experience (Palin). As much as I hate to say it the popular culture of this country needs to pull it head out of it's ass, stop worrying about what color knickers Britney Spears forgot to wear, stop spending billions on grown men driving cars in circles, and read a book, think, and participate in the system as it was designed for and stop the incessant whining about how some bigot in yesteryear did not solve their self created problems. Dave

[Ally]

Why the anger and hostility Ally? I don't recall taking that tone with you. I thought Pub Talk was for the purpose of discussion.

c.d.

I am neither angry nor hostile. The purpose of Pub Talk is discussion but all you seem to say is "it doesn't matter what I think, it's the law." So what precisely are you proposing we discuss? All you can say on the subject is "slippery slope, slippery slope" when this has been proven to be a fallacious form of argument and is not accepted as a valid or rational premise. It relies on fear, rather than reason, to make a point.

You won't answer a simple question regarding your own beliefs on the subject, and just point to the law, so I am wondering what precisely is the point in raising this as a topic of discussion.

The thing is C. D. slippery slope implies uncontrolled change. Legislation of this kind is very controlled.

Excellent point.

[Errata]

Greatest Press release EVER:

Disclaimer:

NOTE: The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The "Westboro Baptist Church". We absolutely repudiate their activities.

The Ku Klux Klan, LLC.

and not to get technical, any "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. It's a debate thing. In order to establish that A leads to Z, you have to prove that A leads to B, B to C, all the way down the line. My old debate team coach was screaming in my head there. I'll get out of the way now.

[c.d.]

Ally,

It is the opinion of the church group that they have the legal right to do what they do. So does their opinion trump the law? If someone doesn't believe in abortion can they ignore the law and shoot abortion providers because their opionion trumps the law? You said "what difference does it make whether it is law or not?" Are you saying that we need not follow the law?

Two courts disagreeing is not a wash. The courts in the U.S. are tiered. It was an appeals court which found in favor of the church. So, until the Supreme Court rules, their decision trumps the lower court.

I was under the impression that I have stated my belief over and over. I believe that the church has the right to engage in their protests. I can't make it any more clearer than that.

c.d.

[Ally]

It is the opinion of the church group that they have the legal right to do what they do. So does their opinion trump the law? If someone doesn't believe in abortion can they ignore the law and shoot abortion providers because their opionion trumps the law? You said "what difference does it make whether it is law or not?" Are you saying that we need not follow the law?

No I am saying for the purposes of this discussion the law is irrelevant. It is a discussion regarding what people think. And you are allowed to think things contrary to the law. Action is another matter.

I was under the impression that I have stated my belief over and over. I believe that the church has the right to engage in their protests. I can't make it any more clearer than that.

c.d.

That is not what I have asked you over and over. I have asked you over and over: Do you believe that there should be limits to freedom of speech or do you believe that there should be no limits to freedom of speech?

Should slander be illegal? Should people be allowed to threaten someone with death? Call in bomb threats as long as there is no bomb? Limits by law or no limits whatsoever, which do you believe in?

[c.d.]

Let me attempt to further clarify my position. I never meant to imply that the slippery slope argument should be the basis for the court's decision. If I gave that impression, the fault lies with me. But if anybody doesn't like the slippery slope argument or does not believe that it is valid, then let's throw it out completely because it is not needed. The question before the court is whether the church group has a right under the First Amendment of the Constitution to engage in the activities that they are so famous for. That's it. The Court of Appeals has already ruled that they do. I agree with the Court of Appeals. Now having said that, it is my own personal opionion to which I am entitled under the same Constitution that if the court decides against the church that it sets a dangerous precedent and creates a s******* s****. (Don't want to be accused of repeating that phrase over and over).

And yes, I believe that there SHOULD BE LIMITS TO FREE SPEECH. I hope that answers your question. But if you intend to come back and say that that negates the slippery slope argument, I disagree. Keep pushing the snowball and it slides down the hill. If you don't want the snowball to end up at the end of the hill, don't keep pushing it. That is my opinion. But the court is (hopefully) going to rule based on the law and not personal opinion.

c.d.

[Ally]

If you believe that there should be limits to free speech, then where precisely do you draw the line? What is your criteria for determining what free speech is protected and what is not?

[c.d.]

I would have to be presented with specific examples before I can answer that question. This is why we have courts. They are difficult questions that even learned jurors struggle over and disagree upon. Again, it is a moot point. My opinion is not the law.

Where do you draw the line and what is your criteria?

c.d.

[Ally]

This is a discussion board. The law, once again, is irrelevant. If you can't defend your opinion, then once again, what are you here for? I have already stated where I draw the line. I do not believe that people should have the right to protest private individuals engaged in private activities, especially when the law requires that they do those activities in public. You cannot, by law, choose to bury your child in your backyard. You are forced to commit this private act in public. Therefore during this time, the law should protect you from harassment by people who have nothing whatsoever to do with you or child, attempting to make some obscure political point over the grave of a private individual. Your right ends where my rights begin.

You believe that private individuals should be allowed to be picketed (in my mind, harassed and stalked).

You said you need specific examples:

So do you believe that if a gay couple or a black couple moves into a neighborhood, people should be allowed to stand in front of their house and protest them living there?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.