A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Errata]

I gotta say, I live in a place just crawling with really objectionable protesters. Anti-Muslim hate squads and of course, The Klan. (I live in Tennessee)

What can I say? Clearly they are morons. Obviously they are hate filled. Of course, they are cowards. You get used to it. Not the hate, or the bigotry or the vitriol. But the fact that they are making it difficult to get into your job or your school, or that they are shouting things you really don't want to hear. You get used to it. Oddly enough it gives us a certain level of protection. They had a problem a few years back with a pro-choice march. They didn't want to grant the permits. The question they were asked politely, in front of the cameras was "You granted the same permit for the Klan. Surely you can treat us at least as well as you treat the Klan can't you?"
They got their permits.

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Abby Normal]

As horrible as these people are for picketing, I doubt that the court will rule in their favor. Experts are saying that judges won't go there, not because they don't sympathize with the mourners, but because of the sort of precedent that this will create.

Bingo

Unfortunately, they will not go there-and that is a shame.

If they had true courage, they would see things the way this wise person did who said "the freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins".

They have the authority to do it, but they won't. Bummer.

[c.d.]

And yet, people from all over the world want to come to our country. Go figure.

[Derrick]

No, the Constitution is not perfect and it was written by men not God and those men could not begin to imagine the world we live in today. Stil,l it has done a pretty decent job of keeping us a free nation for over 200 years.

c.d.

Hi CD
Has it?
Your constitution for the longest time repressed black people. It took truely great men and women such as Rosa Parks, The Rev King and Malcolm Little to expose the hypocracy of a system which bases it's justice system in a static piece of paper from 200 years ago that protected property over other interests.

Your economy, which you base a great amount of pride in is in fact owned, to a large degree, by foreign states such as Japan, China and Saudi Arabia.
You are free to meet the interest payments at your own speed like we are in England as long as we dominate in martial affairs and can obtain fossil fuels where we like under threat of being bombed to oblivion.

Western Democracies don't make much anymore but subcontract, at a much lower price, to foreign workers. It is the economics of champagne taste expenditure and ale house income.

Derrick

[protohistorian]

Hello Robert, It was resolved until some jackass from Kansas that is not me insisted on removing some aspects of human behavior from the realm of common decency and placing them in the supreme court's lap to decide. I should point out that the jackass in question is a self righteous blowhard with a law degree and oodles of free time. He sued one of my professors over a matter of genetics because my prof said there is no way in happy hell that Amerinds are a lost tribe of Israel. But America is a republic where people who are unhappy with reality and possess enough means can if fact try and alter their reality to suit whatever dimwitted conception rolls around in their heads when they move. So we have to revisit something that basic human dignity covers because this Joe Jackass has free time, money, and lives in America. Dave

[Robert]

I don't like the word "rights" but if this must be discussed in terms of rights, then it's obvious that some rights contradict each other. Hence laws and judges. I'm a bit surprised that this particular problem hasn't been resolved already.

[protohistorian]

It also specifies that a black man gets 3/5 of one vote. Dave

[c.d.]

Hi Dave

Your are of course correct.

Further to that, religious fundamentalists are basing their manifesto's on similar tracts written perhaps 2 millenia ago, by men. The rationale of the past should not be an absolute for today.

Once the world was flat. Once the earth was the centre of the universe. Now we know different and that changes things.

Once we roamed free and lived at one with the world...but for most of us that has also be lost.

Derrick

No, the Constitution is not perfect and it was written by men not God and those men could not begin to imagine the world we live in today. Stil,l it has done a pretty decent job of keeping us a free nation for over 200 years.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Dave, if you limit where free speech can take place you are limiting free speech. There can be no doubt of that. You are arguing that limiting locales in certain instances is reasonable. Maybe so, but that is still lmiting free speech. There is no way around that.

In fact, this is what the court is trying to decide. In oral argument, one of the justices asked the lawyer for the church if they simply cannot take their protests to another forum.

c.d.

[Derrick]

...These were men trying to give principles to live by. They are not gods handing out inviolate truths. The fact that Americans have made such ridiculous attempt at maintaining 18th century wisdom in the 21st century speaks volumes about their level of detachment from reality. Dave

Hi Dave

Your are of course correct.

Further to that, religious fundamentalists are basing their manifesto's on similar tracts written perhaps 2 millenia ago, by men. The rationale of the past should not be an absolute for today.

Once the world was flat. Once the earth was the centre of the universe. Now we know different and that changes things.

Once we roamed free and lived at one with the world...but for most of us that has also be lost.

Derrick

[protohistorian]

Hi Ally,

But if you limit the locale where free speech can take place are you not limiting free speech itself?

c.d.

No, you are limiting where that speech can occur based on the rights of others. This is one of many areas that the constitution is silent on. I would submit however that since protesters were kept out of the continental congress, even the for fathers would say your right to assemble and the right to speech is limited. These were men trying to give principles to live by. They are not gods handing out inviolate truths. The fact that Americans have made such ridiculous attempt at maintaining 18th century wisdom in the 21st century speaks volumes about their level of detachment from reality. Dave

[c.d.]

To begin with, I never denied the concept of slander. Whether or not I accept it or deny it is pretty much a moot point since it is the law.

I also never denied that there are limits to free speech. Again, whether or not I accept that there are limits or deny there are limits is a moot point since it is a matter of law.

I also never stated that limiting this form of free speech "bothered" me. It is a very emotional issue but at its core it is a legal issue that has to be decided by the court. I am attempting to view it as a legal issue which is difficult because as I have stated numerous times, I think these people are total scum. But as I stated, I do think these people have the right to do what they do. Again, this is my personal belief and once the court rules it will be moot since it will be a matter of law.

I fail to see how the slippery slope argument is negated by my acknowledgement that there already exists limits on free speech. If you add to those limits, does that not point you down the slope?

c.d.

[Ally]

What if the woman actually is a slut? Then it's not slander. What if it his genuine opinion that she is a slut? Why is it not his right to express his honestly held belief?

However, that you acknowledge the very concept of slander is your acceptance that there are ALREADY legal limits imposed on free speech. Which completely negates your "slippery slope" argument.

You accept limits on free speech already, so why would limiting this form of free speech bother you so much?

[c.d.]

Hi Ally,

In the instance you site, the man has engaged in slander and can be sued.

c.d.