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

[caz]

Isn't it just easier to leave the free speech laws as they are, and not pay any attention to the playground bully?

It might have been, if 'not paying any attention to the playground bully', in this instance, did not amount to feeding the trolls and applauding their vomit-inducing eating habits.

Defending their right to free speech is on a par, in my view, with supporting a convict's right to vote while in prison. It's quite simple: the law is an ass if it can't say, whenever a bleedin' obvious line is crossed: "you just voluntarily gave up your right to free speech by behaving like an unreasonable and unethical arsehole of a human being in the exercising of it".

These people may be 'nutters' but they have enough sense to know they crossed the line. Hell, that was the intention. And now they are laughing at those without the sense they were born with, who have just invited them to cross the line again and again.

The right to free speech in America doesn't extend beyond the grave to executed murderers, so the law can focus on behaviour first and speech second when it wants to. Why does it find its hands so tied up in this case?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Timings of posts are all screwed up again!

[Chris]

Any minute now Errata will come along and start talking about universal tolerance except for the intolerant..

[Ally]

I guess I just don't understand why people are more offended by these loons than they are by the "End Is Nigh" guy on the local street corner.

End is nigh guy on the street corner can be walked around and avoided. You can't avoid people standing outside the cemetery where you are burying your son and you can't close your ears completely and not hear what they are shouting at what is probably the most difficult time of your life, and they are there making a horrible situation more difficult.

Or the people who start screaming at you that you are a murderer outside a Planned Parenthood. They are clearly as off the charts nuts as apocalypse guy, and clearly as malicious and baiting as the people outside a clinic. But we have no problem ignoring these folks.

Planned Parenthood is a business and going there is a choice. I don't think most people make a "choice" to bury their sons. It's something that has to happen, and you don't have much choice in the matter. Yes I suppose you could choose NOT to bury your kid and just let them get rolled with a tractor into a paupers grave in some anonymous place somewhere, but that seems a little extreme to have to do to avoid his funeral being picketed.

The funny thing is, there are about 1000 ways to get these guys, and fully half are legal. I don't know why they went with a first amendment argument rather than fraud. It's like they were more concerned with making the WBC take back what it said rather than just crushing them.

This is what I said as well, except I don't think it's fraud, I think it's harassment of a private citizen in a private act and should be prevented under harassment laws. We do have limits to free speech. You couldn't do this outside a person's house so I cannot see why you can do it outside a private individuals funeral.

And while I disagree with taking it to the extreme and barring all hate speech or prosecuting all hate speech ( I truly believe Europe has lost their minds in criminalizing speech) I do think VENUE can be addressed.

We already make a distinction between what is legal speech when it comes to public vs private individuals. This is no different.

[Abby Normal]

End is nigh guy on the street corner can be walked around and avoided. You can't avoid people standing outside the cemetery where you are burying your son and you can't close your ears completely and not hear what they are shouting at what is probably the most difficult time of your life, and they are there making a horrible situation more difficult.



Planned Parenthood is a business and going there is a choice. I don't think most people make a "choice" to bury their sons. It's something that has to happen, and you don't have much choice in the matter. Yes I suppose you could choose NOT to bury your kid and just let them get rolled with a tractor into a paupers grave in some anonymous place somewhere, but that seems a little extreme to have to do to avoid his funeral being picketed.



This is what I said as well, except I don't think it's fraud, I think it's harassment of a private citizen in a private act and should be prevented under harassment laws. We do have limits to free speech. You couldn't do this outside a person's house so I cannot see why you can do it outside a private individuals funeral.

And while I disagree with taking it to the extreme and barring all hate speech or prosecuting all hate speech ( I truly believe Europe has lost their minds in criminalizing speech) I do think VENUE can be addressed.

We already make a distinction between what is legal speech when it comes to public vs private individuals. This is no different.

Agree completely. Great post.

I do think VENUE can be addressed.
Exactly. And it already has in other cases having to do with free speech/gathering. I also think you have made a very succinct point in previous posts about the fact that law requires people to bury their loved ones in a public place.
So then even more reason the law should protect funeral goers right to privacy and peace.

[Abby Normal]

I guess I just don't understand why people are more offended by these loons than they are by the "End Is Nigh" guy on the local street corner. Or the people who start screaming at you that you are a murderer outside a Planned Parenthood. They are clearly as off the charts nuts as apocalypse guy, and clearly as malicious and baiting as the people outside a clinic. But we have no problem ignoring these folks. Are people secretly afraid it's true or something? Do they already doubt the honor of their child's sacrifice?

The funny thing is, there are about 1000 ways to get these guys, and fully half are legal. I don't know why they went with a first amendment argument rather than fraud. It's like they were more concerned with making the WBC take back what it said rather than just crushing them.

Are people secretly afraid it's true or something? Do they already doubt the honor of their child's sacrifice?

Not sure what you mean here-can you please explain?

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=caz;167676]

Defending their right to free speech is on a par, in my view, with supporting a convict's right to vote while in prison. It's quite simple: the law is an ass if it can't say, whenever a bleedin' obvious line is crossed: "you just voluntarily gave up your right to free speech by behaving like an unreasonable and unethical arsehole of a human being in the exercising of it".

Hi Caz,

But when exactly is "a bleedin' obvious line crossed?" It seems everybody is in agreement that that is the case here but what about waiving pictures of dead fetuses at anti-abortion clinics? T shirts that read Muslims=Terrorists? Pictures of President Obama doctored to make him look like Hitler? Gay slurs? The list goes on and on. Just who exactly has the right to free speech?

c.d.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

But when exactly is "a bleedin' obvious line crossed?" It seems everybody is in agreement that that is the case here but what about waiving pictures of dead fetuses at anti-abortion clinics? T shirts that read Muslims=Terrorists? Pictures of President Obama doctored to make him look like Hitler? Gay slurs? The list goes on and on. Just who exactly has the right to free speech?

c.d.

If 'everybody' is in agreement re this case, c.d., then it's a suitable one for treatment - never mind your other examples.

But again, it's not a question of 'who', but one of how, and under what circumstances, the right to free speech is being exercised. It's not the message that crosses the line, but the behaviour that goes with it. With your examples, the messengers convey their ugly messages at their own risk, and I assume the targets in each case are big and ugly enough to stick two fingers up.

How exactly could the creatures in this case complain about their right to free speech being taken away, if they were merely restricted to giving the same message anywhere other than a private function that by its very nature can only happen in a very specific public place, and where the attendees are in a temporary, involuntary and highly vulnerable emotional state?

Where is the pity? It seems to be reserved for the creatures who only risked 'losing' the freedom (which no human being deserved to have in the first place) to target funerals with their messages of hate.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Personally - I do not think that freedom of speech should permit an individual or a group to oppress another individual or group. We should all learn to be more tolerant and respectful of other people's lifestyles if they are not harming anyone else.

universal tolerance... except for the intolerant. that's not a vicious circle.

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

I would say pretty much everybody agrees that these people have crossed the line. But there is one group who doesn't feel that way and that would be the members of the church. The same goes for the people holding up pictures of dead fetuses or those holding up the muslims = terrorists signs.

Now you said never mind the other examples but are they not over the line as well? Are we only going to target some behaviors and ignore others?

As for the question of location, the church members choose the location for maximum impact of their message. If you restrict the location, you limit the impact. That is why so many groups picket outside of the Supreme Court or hold rallies at the Lincoln Memorial. Having a shopping center or used car lot as your venue simply is not the same.

I certainly hope that you are not accusing me of having no sympathy for the families of the dead soldiers. I will simply assume that is not what you meant. If I have any "sympathy" for the church members it is only that their rights are the same as mine and every other American. Do you really think that the Supreme Court as well as the Court of Appeals had any sympathy toward the church members? They were trying to protect the rights of ALL Americans.

c.d.

[Errata]

Are people secretly afraid it's true or something? Do they already doubt the honor of their child's sacrifice?

Not sure what you mean here-can you please explain?

Well, I'm not sure I can articulate this well, but I can try. I have been called many names in my life. And yeah when I was in high school it hurt, but I grew up. If someone calls me a name now that is simply an indicator that no further communication is possible at that time. It doesn't hurt, it doesn't offend. Except for the ones that are true. They don't hurt, but they offend and they cause at least a tiny amount of fear. If someone uses a one of the many slurs for Jews against me, it causes fear. I can't deny it, whether or not I am Jewish cannot be debated. I am in fact what they called me, though certainly not a term I would use for myself. My only defense against that is that their entire attitude towards Jews is wrong, and good luck convincing them of that.

So those names bother me. There is a comforting tale about raging homophobes actually being closeted homosexuals. It's true sometimes I suppose, but generally not. But it is based on the premise that people rage against someone who openly lives someone's worst secret. Which is often true. It happened during the Holocaust. Some Jews denounced other Jews to prove they were not Jewish.

In this case, there are some possibilities as to why the WBC is so hard to ignore, despite the fact they are saying nothing new, and doing nothing new. It is possible that when the WBC holds up a sign telling a parent that their son died for nothing, the parent already fears that. Dying for King and Country is one of the most cherished illusions of a military culture. But it is mostly an illusion. There are heroes, there are patriots. There are a lot of kids in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are all worthy of honor. But they didn't die for freedom. They died because they got shot. Everyone tells the parent of a fallen soldier how brave and heroic their son was, how grateful they are that their son was willing to make that sacrifice. And the parent needs that illusion to make sense of such a tragedy. I imagine anyone who tries to strip that illusion away is going to be detested.

I also suspect that some of the hatred stems from homophobia. It was one of the last acceptable prejudices. Even now, almost nobody expects someone over the age of 50 to get with the program. Similar to the way we never bothered to correct our grandparents when they referred to someone as "colored". I think we write them off as too old to learn. But while we don't expect them to change their views on homosexuality, we do expect them to be aware that homophobia is no longer acceptable. And for some reason there is a completely different category for religion, gay marriage, etc. You can say that you don't want homosexuals to marry, but you can't say they make your skin crawl. I cannot even imagine what it would be like for someone who lived their whole life in fear and hatred for gay people. I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a son in a war, and to be told that God killed your son because our government supports people you already detest. And you can't say that. You can't say "I hate fags too and I raised my son to do the same, so back off". How dare they suggest such a thing? They come to a funeral and hold up those hateful signs and you CAN'T agree with them, even if you agree with them. And I imagine that the one thing that parent would want more than anything is to make the WBC take back what it said.

Anyway, I know that those situations do not apply to every family. I think it applies to some, and it would not surprise me if it applied to the father in this case. I probably came off as more definite, or giving more credit for reasoned internal dialogue than I think is true. It's hard to articulate.

[Robert]

Hi Maria

Re your post on page 9, no I'm not offended, of course not.

[Fleetwood Mac]

While the protests were painful, the majority wrote that the Constitution protects even hurtful speech on public issues.

CD, this is the issue that separates the United States from the rest of the world. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, no matter how ill-conceived or distasteful (well, unless you're a threat to the state - but that goes or the world over). You should hang on to that like gold dust, otherwise you'll end up like us or, worse still, the continental Europeans where everyoe has been brainwashed into "equality"!

[Robert]

Question : suppose that at the funeral of President Kennedy a handful of people had hurled obscenities as the carriage went past. Would the police not have removed them double-quick? I don't think there would have been any of this "I'm sorry we can't shut them up because it will all end with Professor Smith being unable to write his book on quantum mechanics, and Mrs Jones being locked up for asking her butcher for a pound of sausages."

[Fleetwood Mac]

If 'everybody' is in agreement re this case, c.d., then it's a suitable one for treatment - never mind your other examples.

But again, it's not a question of 'who', but one of how, and under what circumstances, the right to free speech is being exercised. It's not the message that crosses the line, but the behaviour that goes with it. With your examples, the messengers convey their ugly messages at their own risk, and I assume the targets in each case are big and ugly enough to stick two fingers up.

How exactly could the creatures in this case complain about their right to free speech being taken away, if they were merely restricted to giving the same message anywhere other than a private function that by its very nature can only happen in a very specific public place, and where the attendees are in a temporary, involuntary and highly vulnerable emotional state?

Where is the pity? It seems to be reserved for the creatures who only risked 'losing' the freedom (which no human being deserved to have in the first place) to target funerals with their messages of hate.

Love,

Caz
X

This is what it's come to in this country. Fascism in the not so subtle guise of appeal to emotion.

Honestly, we're ****ed in this country. Utterly brainwashed into thinking only those who tow the equality line are entitled to a voice, conveniently (being kind, more likely it's escaped them because they're devoid of independent thought) forgetting that morals are only ever the accepted norm, aka the voice of the majority.

This is exactly why so many Europeans moved to the US - to get away from the fascist thought police who want to tell you what to do and what to say.

There's a lot to be said for tolerance, though not at the expense of freedom of expression.