A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Amen, Robert

[c.d.]

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

Hi Dave,

The Court of Appeals,the second highest court in the land, disagreed with your argument, stating that it is a question of free speech and ruling in favor of the church.

Hi Robert,

Are you saying that only speech that doesn't upset people is allowable?

c.d.

[protohistorian]

C.D. then the Court of Appeals is in error. This dumb ass has been protesting various public events for years with the same tired rhetoric and never landed before the appeals court before. He starts protesting funerals and wow, it is a speech issue? Please. Dave

[c.d.]

Dave,

The case was originally brought by the father of a slain soldier not the church.

As for the Court of Appeals being in error that is your opinion. You don't have to like it. Not trying to be snotty here but the Constitution gives the court the right to rule on these issues not Dave or c.d.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

Oh, I agree C. D. but the fact remains that given the sequence of chosen venues for his "speech". Phelps has succeeded in making it a "speech issue" by varying his location. The exact same speech at University graduations is not a speech issue. The exact same speech at a 4th of July celebration in a public park is not a "speech issue". He overstepped all bounds of human decency and it is now a speech issue? No, it clearly is a venue selection issue. It speaks volumes about the system that they have so blatantly misread the circumstance. You are correct however, that is the system in play, correct or not. Dave

[c.d.]

Then we have to say that the Supreme Court (or any court) for that matter gets it wrong 50% of the time. If you don't believe me, just ask the losing party.

Now it is possible that the court will consider the same arguments that you make and overturn the Appeals court decision.

One last point and then I have to go. I know for a fact that at least one of the Justices has children and I would imagine that all of them have suffered the death of a loved one. According to those present at the oral argument before the court, the justices showed no sympathy for the church. But all that being said, their job is to set emotion aside and apply the law.
c.d.

[protohistorian]

C.D. I think we can say with certainty that the courts are not immune to mistakes. Those mistakes can compound through their use as precedent, and at the end of the line we end up with a horrid monstrosity that does not make legal sense. I would wager that Phelps knows this and it is in part his goal. Dave

[c.d.]

Who decides whether or not the court made a mistake?

c.d.

[protohistorian]

C.D. That is usually a function of historical examination. People living through the events do not get to make that call. The law is like other historical aspects in this regard, it is judged by effect. Dave

[c.d.]

I should have added that that right is given to higher courts but there is no court higher than the Supreme Court and even then many times the justices are not in agreement.

Was Roe v. Wade a correct decision? Well it depends on whom you ask.

c.d.

[ChainzCooper]

Considering 4 of the 'Justices' just recently ruled a private citizen in Chicago doesn't have the right to own a firearm, who knows right? They vote on their ideology so I guess they'll just go ahead and knock themselves out
Jordan

[Robert]

Hi CD

Free speech is fine within limits. Upsetting people at a funeral is out of bounds as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully the majority of US citizens feel the same way. If they do, then in a democracy the law will be amended (if necessary) to ensure this kind of thing does not happen.

[c.d.]

Hi Robert,

There is a lot of controversy regarding the building of a mosque in New York City at the site of ground zero for the September 11 attack. There was a photo of a woman demonstrating who was wearing a sign that said "Muslims = Terrorists." That has to be pretty upsetting to all the peacefull law abiding Muslims here in the U.S. That's way more people than those affected by the funeral protests. Do you feel she should be protected by free speech in this instance?

Sorry, I am not trying to trap you into a "gotcha" response and you could easily come up with one for me. It all goes back to this case and the original question -- does free speech only cover pleasant, peacefull speech or is vile, hatefull, disgusting speech covered as well?

c.d.

[Robert]

Hi CD

No, I see what you mean. Well, I think the woman should be entitled to display her sign, but if she turns up with it at a Moslem funeral, then that's going too far.

[Errata]

I don't think we have a guaranteed protection against bad taste, appalling manners, or being offended. These guys are appalling. What they do is offensive, cruel, insensitive, and unacceptable in a polite society. If they had the slightest bit of empathy for their fellow man, they wouldn't do this. But being an a$$hole isn't against the law.