U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Anti-Gay Funeral Protesters

[Archaic]

A hundred years ago, certain posters here would have said we have to keep allowing men to beat their wives or where will it end?

This reminds me of an interesting historical fact. In the U.S., cruelty to animals was outlawed before cruelty to children!

Children were still viewed more as "legal property". The lawyer who argued that children had the right to not be severely beaten and abused by their parents used the precedent that animals had certain basic protections, and so children should have at least as much protection. It's incredible now that this was a novel concept.

I can't remember the date offhand, but I believe it was in the 1890's.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Just checked the date. The law was passed in 1889 and a slightly more stringent law was passed in 1904.

[Natalie Severn]

For Fleetwood Mac,
And would you go so far as to say that it is,to say the very least,a violation of the human rights of America"s prisoners in Gantanomo Bay to have been taken to Egypt for the most heinous kind of torture---such as has been discussed on TV recently?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And would you go so far as to say that it is,to say the very least,a violation of the human rights of American"s prisoners in Gantanomo Bay to have been taken to Egypt for of the most heinous kind of torture---such as has been discussed on TV recently?

I'd go as far as to say that the United States has no jurisdiction whatsoever to detain anyone without a trial, and no jurisdiction to put on trial non US citizens. But, we do that as well! And part of the reason why is because of this very discussion - we are so used to having people shut down that when it comes to detaining people it's just another step in the same direction to many - apathy has set in. If we were more concerned with our individual sovereignty, then we'd be more concerned with other people's, too.

[Natalie Severn]

I'd go as far as to say that the United States has no jurisdiction whatsoever to detain anyone without a trial, and no jurisdiction to put on trial non US citizens. But, we do that as well! And part of the reason why is because of this very discussion - we are so used to having people shut down that when it comes to detaining people it's just another step in the same direction to many - apathy has set in. If we were more concerned with our individual sovereignty, then we'd be more concerned with other people's, too.

Yes,we do do it too and are and have been complicit in it. Good to have your reply,thankyou.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=c.d.;168260]

Abby,

As I stated earlier, I have not read the decision. There is usually a lag time before the decisions are published in their entirety. Yes, you are right that the court is going to rule on whether or not the church's funeral protests are protected speech. In doing so, they discuss the principles of law that they relied upon in making that determination. That discussion is called dicta. Dicta has the force of law. Think of it this way...the Court is going to be addressing funeral protests but what about protests outside grocery stores or shopping centers? The court simply does not have time to hear cases on those issues so it attempts to lay out broad principles that can be applied to other cases. So if what they have to say here is applicable to other cases, courts which hear those cases have to rely on what the Supreme Court says in this case in making a decision on a related case.

c.d.

Hi CD
But we are not talking about protests at other public places-we are talking about the right to protest at funerals. This is what was before the court in this case. In our earlier debates on this thread I pointed out to you that there already laws on the books having to do with more specifically defining free speech/gathering in terms of timing and venue. This could have been done in this case also. You have stated previously that if the court had sided against westboro that you believe free speech would have been weakened-I disagreed and said it would be strengthened as it more clearly defined the law. To use an analogy-the problem(s) of the broad protection under the first ammendment could be tackled with a sharp knife as opposed to a baseball bat. That is what the courts are for-its there job-too bad if there is more work to do (maybe that is why the supreme court punted on this one).

However, I do appreciate you elaborating on your point on the time it would take for the court to hear all the issues and therefore has to be broad. I have not heard you make this point before and it is a valid and reasonable consideration and I think i have a better grasp on your stance.
I don't agree with it but I respect your view.
I'll leave it at that.

[Sister Hyde]

Caz? about a hundred years ago, all the posters here would have been considered as a bunch of fruitcakes anyway... Oh wait...

[c.d.]

Hi Abby,

I am probably not making this as clear as I can but I will try one more time. The courts in the U.S. operate under the principle of stare decisis. That means that they try for uniformity in the law. If one court ruled one way and another court ruled another way in a similar case there would be chaos and no one would know what the law is. So all courts look to previous decisions in other cases to help them decide what to do in the case before them. This is what the lawyers on each side do. They present other cases similar to the one they are arguing where that court ruled in a way that would be favorable to their client in this case. Now ALL lower courts are REQUIRED to follow the decisions (and the principles laid out in them) of the Supreme Court. So let's take a hypothetical case. A group is protesting outside of a grocery store. The store takes them to court claiming that they have no legal right to protest outside of a grocery store. So the first thing the lower court does is to see if the Supreme Court has ever ruled on the right to protest outside of a grocery store. Let's say there has never been such a case. And let's also say that in the Westboro case the court says (while addressing the issue of funerals) something like the venue where protests take place is of no condideration when applying the principle of the right to free speech. Notice that they said absolutely nothing about grocery stores. But the lower court now has a principle of law laid out by the Court in the Westboro case and they will apply it to the grocery store case. So in this instance the Westboro case has given the protestors outside of the grocery store the legal right to be there.

That is how it works.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I am probably not making this as clear as I can but I will try one more time. The courts in the U.S. operate under the principle of stare decisis. That means that they try for uniformity in the law. If one court ruled one way and another court ruled another way in a similar case there would be chaos and no one would know what the law is. So all courts look to previous decisions in other cases to help them decide what to do in the case before them. This is what the lawyers on each side do. They present other cases similar to the one they are arguing where that court ruled in a way that would be favorable to their client in this case. Now ALL lower courts are REQUIRED to follow the decisions (and the principles laid out in them) of the Supreme Court. So let's take a hypothetical case. A group is protesting outside of a grocery store. The store takes them to court claiming that they have no legal right to protest outside of a grocery store. So the first thing the lower court does is to see if the Supreme Court has ever ruled on the right to protest outside of a grocery store. Let's say there has never been such a case. And let's also say that in the Westboro case the court says (while addressing the issue of funerals) something like the venue where protests take place is of no condideration when applying the principle of the right to free speech. Notice that they said absolutely nothing about grocery stores. But the lower court now has a principle of law laid out by the Court in the Westboro case and they will apply it to the grocery store case. So in this instance the Westboro case has given the protestors outside of the grocery store the legal right to be there.

That is how it works.

c.d.

I know how the system works. I did not ask for you "try one more time" to explain it-I understand your point.Did you read my last post? I even tried to graciously agree to disagree and this is your response-a lecture on how the the legal system in the US works. I know how it works.If the supreme court sided with the funeral goers then it would have been simple: westboro is not protected by the first amendment to protest at funerals. Just like Alito ruled. I think he knows more about the how the system works than you do. Other protests at other public venues would not be affected. Freedom of speech still stands.

Thanks for the patronizing lecture. I tried to be gracious and leave it. Now I dont care what you think.

[c.d.]

Abby,

It was certainly not my intention to come off as patronizing or condescending. If it seemed to you that I did so, my apologies.

c.d.

[sleekviper]

Actually we did have a tighter grip on free speech. In 1919, a case before the Supreme Court dealt with a man named Schenck( I think, always want to call him Shrek), who had decided to call draftees for the first World War, and tell them not to register since it was a form of slavery. He was arrested, and the case rose to the Supreme Court as a test of free speech. Justice Holmes, the son of the man I use as a signature, said Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. He went on to say that if speech becomes problematic or dangerous to innocent parties to the point where a law maybe broken, it is up to the local or federal authority to make the call on when to pull the plug. Justice Holmes is the person that said, in this very case, in the most stringent protection of free speech, nothing would protect an individual from yelling fire in a crowded theater for the sake of causing panic. He went on to clarify that when clear and present danger is involved, action may happen as it is deemed necessary. In this case, words were a danger to America since we were at war, and this man was seeking to make people dodge the draft. The rule of "Clear and present danger" stayed in place until 1969, it was then a Court of Justices overruled Justice Holmes when a case of the Klan made it to the top court. A chapter of the Klan, in Ohio, had been filmed by a television crew, saying that they were going to kill N-words. Television crew turned it into the police, police arrested people. This case goes to Supreme Court where the Justices are absolutists and most of the 1919 ruling is thrown out. Since people were not killed, no criminal action should be taken, so words no longer hold the power to bring action, even if action is what halted the words from taking place. They may have killed people, if the state of Ohio had not chosen to take action first. The thing is, under Holmes rule of "Clear and Present Danger", if we hear some nutcases want to fly planes into buildings, we can act; actions are extremely limited since 1969, except yelling fire in a crowd, they left that in.

[Archaic]

Short News Video Explaining the Issues

Here's a 2-minute video from CBS News which shows the protests, interview's a dead soldier's Dad, and explains the issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM6ZzEwJJs0&feature=BF&playnext=1&list=QL&index=2

Best regards,
Archaic

[Chris]

actions are extremely limited since 1969, except yelling fire in a crowd, they left that in.

But it is still possible to serve a writ for slander, surely.

[ChainzCooper]

Actually we did have a tighter grip on free speech. In 1919, a case before the Supreme Court dealt with a man named Schenck( I think, always want to call him Shrek), who had decided to call draftees for the first World War, and tell them not to register since it was a form of slavery. He was arrested, and the case rose to the Supreme Court as a test of free speech. Justice Holmes, the son of the man I use as a signature, said Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. He went on to say that if speech becomes problematic or dangerous to innocent parties to the point where a law maybe broken, it is up to the local or federal authority to make the call on when to pull the plug. Justice Holmes is the person that said, in this very case, in the most stringent protection of free speech, nothing would protect an individual from yelling fire in a crowded theater for the sake of causing panic. He went on to clarify that when clear and present danger is involved, action may happen as it is deemed necessary. In this case, words were a danger to America since we were at war, and this man was seeking to make people dodge the draft. The rule of "Clear and present danger" stayed in place until 1969, it was then a Court of Justices overruled Justice Holmes when a case of the Klan made it to the top court. A chapter of the Klan, in Ohio, had been filmed by a television crew, saying that they were going to kill N-words. Television crew turned it into the police, police arrested people. This case goes to Supreme Court where the Justices are absolutists and most of the 1919 ruling is thrown out. Since people were not killed, no criminal action should be taken, so words no longer hold the power to bring action, even if action is what halted the words from taking place. They may have killed people, if the state of Ohio had not chosen to take action first. The thing is, under Holmes rule of "Clear and Present Danger", if we hear some nutcases want to fly planes into buildings, we can act; actions are extremely limited since 1969, except yelling fire in a crowd, they left that in.

Thats crazy- I bet these current 'justices' would have given these klan members a pardon considering their logic. They also recently ruled a citizen in Chicago could not have a firearm in his home to protect himself from drug dealers. Ridiculous
Jordan

[sleekviper]

Hello Chris,
Yes one can sue for slander, if damage is proven. Back to the point of no harm/ no foul.

[Errata]

A more interesting question is how you get round the problem that John Locke couldn't. He brought people together in the face of civil and religious chaos with his emphasis on tolerance, but he couldn't afford tolerance to the intolerant in his world of peace, order and prosperity. He was quite successful, really, when you compare 1650 with 2011.

So, how do you get round this problem? Is it an evitable consequence of human existence that some people will be intolerant and we must live with that, or is there an idea, or a means, that can move all people toward tolerance without coercion?

I actually get through this problem effortlessly. Intolerance is healthy. It's how change is made. No one would argue that an intolerance towards slavery was a bad thing, or even that looking down on the Nazis as a raw deal. Intolerance for homosexuals is not okay in my book. So I don't do it. I can't change anyone's mind on the subject, and I don't try. If somehow I feel that the intolerance is a product of a lack of education, I will educate them. But that is all I can do.

I have my own prejudices, my own blinders. I try to identify them and not act on them, but I don't always succeed. I have no pretensions whatsoever that I am perfect. And people may say things that hurt me. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Sometimes people even say things that scare me. And that's okay. I'm a big girl and I can take care of myself. I don't like it, but I don't like going to the dentist either. It's a part of life. No one ever told me it wasn't. In fact what I WAS told was that humans are awful creatures, but the ones who surprise you make up for the rest. I've found that to be pretty accurate.

Oddly enough I actually was told that life is fair. That people get what they ask for. And I've also found that to be true. People who are bothered intensely by the WBC are getting what they deserve. Not that they deserve the treatment. They don't. They deserve to be enraged by these people because they are making the simple mistake of listening to them. To me they are an ideological rabid dog. You don't try to get through to a rabid dog. You kill it. If someone is spending more than 5 minutes thinking about what these people say, and how awful it is, and how unfair it is, all you are doing is waiting for the rabid dog to bite you.

I don't entertain what they say. I don't care. They are insane. They are predatory. They are a$$holes of an unreasonable caliber. Nothing they could ever say about their deranged ideas could bother me. They don't matter. I don't even particularly care if they live or die. Why would I care what they have to say? Why would I care about their opinion of me? It's just noise. They can make it all they want. Anyone who buys their crap is also not worth my time. I actually have better things to think about. Like how to keep gay kids from killing themselves because people like that exist. Like how to be a person in the world. Like when was the last time I got my oil changed?

I have actual problems in my life. These people are nothing to me. Let them do their schtick. Why exert the energy towards giving a crap about these people? I'm better than they are. I don't get off on trying to hurt other people. Maybe there was a time in my life when I would have... I don't know... listened? cared? not written them off after one minute of listening? If there was such a time I can't remember it. I can't save them. If this makes them happy, well so be it. They aren't hurting anyone who isn't willing to be hurt by them. My advice to the world would be to pay as much attention to these people as you pay to the homeless. Which isn't going to help the homeless, but at least 99.9% of people could tune the WBC out.