A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[c.d.]

There is a journalist here in America named Bill Moyers who I really like and respect. He has a show on TV. He did a show on the rise of hate speech on the radio and gave examples. After hearing some of the things these whack jobs and hate mongers said you would swear you were back in Nazi Germany. But he then went on to say that the First Amendment which gives them the right to air their views also protects his right of free speech.

There you have it.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Anyone here seriously think this one is not a clear, unambiguous case of abuse? At the very least these scum are abusing and making a mockery of a right that the law has seen fit to give them and has not yet seen fit to take away.

We do - surely - have the wit to differentiate between lawful protest about one group's perceived mistreatment of another (eg women who choose to have abortions and the people who enable them) and the wilful victimisation of people who are just being themselves, minding their own business and mistreating nobody.

The individuals you describe here are getting themselves into a state of distress on behalf of others they perceive to be suffering in some way. And it's one thing to work yourself up into a lather about your own suffering, or the suffering of others, and directing your protests at the people you believe are causing it, or are supposed to be preventing it - but quite another to deliberately target people who are doing you no harm whatsoever and are doing nobody else any harm either.

What legitimate 'cause' is being aired at these funerals? Whose cause is it, and who is suffering - apart from the mourners? The protesters don't seem to be suffering, more's the pity. They're having a ball. So what are the mourners meant to have done to them, or to anyone else for that matter?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

How do we determine which causes are "legitimate?"

c.d.

[caz]

I can't speak for anyone else, c.d, but I would use common sense.

If I ruled the world, you wouldn't be able to dream up any old 'cause' and claim it to be a legitimate one (eg God hates people with ginger hair) and then exercise your right to free speech so you can hurl verbal abuse and make life a misery for all redheaded children, disabled redheads, etc.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

The problem is Caz that everybody thinks that their cause is "legitimate."

c.d.

[caz]

Yeah, but I don't see anyone arguing for all the people who genuinely think they are Napoleon to be free to shout at anyone on 'the outside'.

But at least those people don't generally ask to be locked away.

Some people are just begging for it with their in(s)ane causes.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

But both sane causes and causes (let's be kind and say less than sane) are both protected under the SAME First Amendment. So if you start messing around with one, in effect you are messing around with the other.

Damn life is hard and complicated. Let's all have a few pints.

c.d.

[Robert]

I would not ban all speech that causes distress. I would simply ban speech that causes distress at funerals. Also, I would distinguish between rational distress and absurd distress. So when parents burying a son are told "You're son was a scumbag," their distress is rational. But if a guy says "I'm going to have eggs for dinner" in front of a lunatic who believes that eggs are alive and feel pain when you crack their shells, then the distress is not rational.

And I would say that if your lawyers and politicians can't arrange this, then they should clearly be pushing a broom somewhere.

[caz]

Well this is it, Robert - in an egg shell.

People make judgements all the time about whether or not someone needs locking up in the pc equivalent of the loony bin, where they still have their right to free speech but nobody in the wider community has to suffer it.

Why can't this kind of judgement be extended to people who dream up patently potty excuses to launch inappropriate attacks on the wrong victims? They are worse, because they know what they are doing and they intend to cause maximum offence. Again, I don't see any distress on the faces of these "God hates quares" freaks. They probably can't believe their luck that they have got away with it this far - or maybe they are convinced that the powers that be must be secretly on their side.

If their beef is that the US Government is pro-gay and therefore God hates the Government and all who support it, do they not support America, its people and its troops, just by being there, and presumably paying their dues? Maybe that's the answer, ship the lot off to an uninhabited island in mid-ocean, where there is nobody for their God to hate, and their 'distress' will be eased along with everyone else's.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Caz, at first I was going to suggest Rockall as the uninhabited island, but there is a better one which is regularly submerged :

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

However before they go under they will probably mount a campaign against gay seagulls, and ram the message home with the TV show "David Hasselwood's Gaywatch."

[caz]

At least they'd only go under after being pooped on from a great height by Quentin Gull, aided by his pal Verne Tern.

One good tern deserves another.

Love,

Caz
X

[sleekviper]

I think

Well here in America, we have what is known as a "cool down period" when one wishes to apply for a gun permit. Basically it is set in place so that if you are wishing to purchase a gun for the first time, they want to know that someone has not rushed out after finding a spouse or mate with another person, and has decided to buy a gun for the sole purpose of murder. Well, for any such vendetta that may require a period of time to consider consequences for the rash actions that our minds may conceive in the heat of the moment. Since there is no possible method to realistically understand the depth of trauma at the sudden loss of a child or loved one, death at late teens to mid twenties should clearly illustrate an uncommon shock to the notion of a full life, an extreme mental discombobulation is not an unreasonable assumption. If this is to be assumed, then the added complication of taunting from an outside source, aimed directly, or indirectly, at the deceased should required that the family be given a "cool down period" before one attempts to express undue mental hardship on those that may not be in control of all mental faculties. People drive to funerals, it is within reason to assume it is possible that a vehicle, used as a weapon at a time of extreme grief, may cause the death of innocent bystanders who are merely paying respects to the dearly departed. So no protesting within a set distance of the family or burial for a period of 21 days; 7 days from the time that news of the tragic event is known, and an addition 14 days from the time that the body begins the burial process since the full 21 days may require time for the body to be returned to the United States from the location on foreign soil. No ones rights are denied, it would not set a precedent, and if someone has a problem with it, the motives are addressed as those of someone wishing to incite violence. The name on the sign belongs to someone that is not leaving the location in question, waiting until a situation is stable before expressing ones right to speech is only maintaining order, which is the goal of having laws. I would insist on a time frame breakup since knowing someone has been killed, and being able to have the actual remains for burial may take an extended amount of time if an enemy retained possession of the remains for an extended amount of time. No one should have to deal with this mess if it has been 7 days, or 7 years since a loved one has been killed.