A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.]

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

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.

[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.

[Errata]

Errata,
We may have to take account soon that global economic uncertainty unless halted can create the sort of economic parallels that led to Hitler"s Germany.When people are losing their jobs and looking for scapegoats prejudices seem to have a field day.
It is outrageous that these utterly loathsome scum have behaved like they have at this young man"s funeral. What we dont want though is for them to widen their campaign to include other "disaffected" types ,so that gays ,jews, gypsies anyone at all they feel like persecuting can be persecuted. Because the next question on their lips might well be how to best get rid of such people---and we all know what happened during the great depression---it led to the German people backing a barmpot like Hitler who called for the slaughter of Jews , gays, gypsies and any other groupings they didnt like ---and slaughter them they did , in their millions, in gas chambers.
So in my view they have to be stopped by public counter protest.Not the banning of free speech.

Well, fortunately for us, these guys have already alienated just about everybody. They consider any other practice of religion "devil-worship". Not just Judaism and Islam, which are popular targets, but Catholics. Eastern Orthodoxy. Methodists. Lutherans. And despite being technically Baptists, other Baptists. In fact the entire church is Fred Phelps, and the rest of his very large family. About 80 of them. All related to him. They're like the evil Osmonds. I'm not even sure they take people who aren't related to Pastor Fred.

Someday, someone will be able to replicate what Hitler did. And yes, maybe even here. It's not these guys. And the simple fact of the matter is, this country already has it's scapegoat for the bad economy. We're already blaming illegal immigrants. I have several Puerto Rican friends, and I assure you it's a real treat to watch them catch fire when someone tells them to "Go back to Mexico".

Americans hated homosexuals before Phelps, and probably will for a good while after him. Not all of us, probably not even a majority of us, but I certainly don't think more jumped on that bandwagon because of these guys. I mean, even the Klan put out a press release distancing themselves from Westboro. The Klan thinks these guys are crazy. I can't even think of the last time the Klan issued a press statement. But when the Klan disavows an organization for being over the top, that's really saying something about the churches credibility.

[ChainzCooper]

Errata,
We may have to take account soon that global economic uncertainty unless halted can create the sort of economic parallels that led to Hitler"s Germany.When people are losing their jobs and looking for scapegoats prejudices seem to have a field day.
It is outrageous that these utterly loathsome scum have behaved like they have at this young man"s funeral. What we dont want though is for them to widen their campaign to include other "disaffected" types ,so that gays ,jews, gypsies anyone at all they feel like persecuting can be persecuted. Because the next question on their lips might well be how to best get rid of such people---and we all know what happened during the great depression---it led to the German people backing a barmpot like Hitler who called for the slaughter of Jews , gays, gypsies and any other groupings they didnt like ---and slaughter them they did , in their millions, in gas chambers.
So in my view they have to be stopped by public counter protest.Not the banning of free speech.

I don't think anyone is banning them from thinking or saying what they want to. This group isn't being arrested and thrown in prison for their views (nor is any other group in America). The issue here is that they are showing up at a specific time and place of a private event, its like if I showed up to someones wedding holding up signs saying I hated the people there. Theres a difference here
Jordan

[ChainzCooper]

You can ask, but you can't compel. There's sort of varying levels of demonstration, and maybe laws vary depending on the state. I know that here, if I was holding a picket sign on the sidewalk in front of a wal-mart, they would call the cops. Who would come, and if they were feeling professional that day, would ask me if I had a permit. Now if I'm an old pro, I have one. If I don't have one, they tell me to get one. And they probably helpfully tell me where to get one. If they weren't feeling terribly professional they would just see if I was a threat to public safety, and if I wasn't they would leave me alone.

Strikers might have different rules. Every union strike I have ever seen has been right outside the gates to the factory or whatever, but still on the property. I don't know if that a negotiated thing between companies and unions, or if it's due to this being a remarkably sidewalk-free city.

Protesters of any kind are less offensive to me than religious door to door types. I didn't invite them on my property. They ring the bell, and I have to get up from whatever I'm doing to interrupt some stranger's speech on the glory of whatever religion their pushing to tell them to leave. And they do, but I have been inconvenienced. If I don't like what a protester is saying or has written on a sign, I can just not pay attention. Like I don't pay attention to baseball games that are on in an Applebees. But someone knocking on the door could be important. It could be angry cops. So I have to run out of the shower or drop my cooking even get up from the couch. I have to make an effort to reject them. And I feel bad, because this is obviously important to them, but I was watching something. And this is evidently one of the last cities in the US where having a mezzuzah on the door means NOTHING to these people.

Seriously. Let the Klan march. But please keep the Jehovah's Witnesses off my front porch. Unless they need to use the restroom. Or get some water. That's okay.

Well you can always tell the Jehovah's Witnesses to leave can't you? Forget asking someone, if someone was holding up signs at my work protesting my business I would tell them to get lost. If they stay thats trespassing. The same goes for this guy whos 'church' is protesting soldier's funerals. Last time I checked none of these people were invited so if they're told to leave and don't they should be arrested for trespassing. I don't think anyone is debating whether or not they have they right to say these things. They obviously have the right to have whatever 'religious' or moral views they want. The issue here is that they are showing up at a private event and are not welcome. Conversely, I don't think anyone has the right to sue these people if they call them names. I remember the late Reverend Jerry Falwell tried to sue Larry Flynt because he ran an ad in Hustler claiming Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. He orginally won a settlement based on emotional distress which was later changed because you obviously aren't entitled to money from someone if they only hurt your feelings. I guess that sums up how I feel about all this,its been a fun debate so far with you
Jordan

[Natalie Severn]

Errata,
We may have to take account soon that global economic uncertainty unless halted can create the sort of economic parallels that led to Hitler"s Germany.When people are losing their jobs and looking for scapegoats prejudices seem to have a field day.
It is outrageous that these utterly loathsome scum have behaved like they have at this young man"s funeral. What we dont want though is for them to widen their campaign to include other "disaffected" types ,so that gays ,jews, gypsies anyone at all they feel like persecuting can be persecuted. Because the next question on their lips might well be how to best get rid of such people---and we all know what happened during the great depression---it led to the German people backing a barmpot like Hitler who called for the slaughter of Jews , gays, gypsies and any other groupings they didnt like ---and slaughter them they did , in their millions, in gas chambers.
So in my view they have to be stopped by public counter protest.Not the banning of free speech.