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

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Fleetwood Mac;168235][QUOTE=Natalie Severn;168155]

A healthy democracy defends other rights of its minorities than just "freedom of speech", such as the right to bury their dead in peace and dignity

Surely those people protesting are a minority? You can't pick and choose which minority you defend based on your view of what's acceptable! It's either all minorities or not at all.

What you're saying is, in effect, is that you don't give a **** about minorities who do what you don't like, but you will defend those minorities who do what you like, which in anyone's book, is tyranny!

Don"t swear at me!!!!


I was talking about a PARITY OF CIVIC RIGHTS.I was demonstrating that it is every bit as important for the legal system to protect other RIGHTS such as the RIGHTS of people to grieve at funerals, as it is to protect "Freedom of Speech" which ,in this instance amounted to homophobic tyranny and bullying that in point of fact denied those being bullied and shouted at their human rights.
Ofcourse the question of their being a minority in a democracy is an issue but it has to be weighed against the rights of other minorities ,especially when their sole purpose at this funeral was to deny not only the freedom to express their grief in peace and dignity but their right to freedom of expression.

[c.d.]

I think you've misunderstood what the judgment was about. It wasn't about banning these demonstrations. It was about whether the demonstrators should have immunity from being sued for damages by their victims.

That's true Chris but the Court is also going to elaborate on the limits to free speech and what they say in that respect becomes law.

c.d.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Robert;168232]So, CD, you persist in believing that the court's decision has a bearing on rights of free speech in general?

Hi Robert,

Yes, Robert I persist it that belief because that is the way the U.S. legal system works.

c.d.

[Robert]

From where I'm sitting, and going on what I'm being told, it looks as though your whole democracy and your whole civilisation is at stake each time a small bunch of lawyers makes a decision.

Now that's what I call living dangerously!

[Chris]

That's true Chris but the Court is also going to elaborate on the limits to free speech and what they say in that respect becomes law.

Do they not specifically say in the judgment that it doesn't have any implications for legislation to outlaw such demonstrations?

[Natalie Severn]

From where I'm sitting, and going on what I'm being told, it looks as though your whole democracy and your whole civilisation is at stake each time a small bunch of lawyers makes a decision.

Now that's what I call living dangerously!

Exactly Robert.That"s how it is coming across.

[c.d.]

Do they not specifically say in the judgment that it doesn't have any implications for legislation to outlaw such demonstrations?

I have not read the decision yet, Chris. Have you been able to do so?

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;168244]

I was talking about a PARITY OF CIVIC RIGHTS.I was demonstrating that it is every bit as important for the legal system to protect other RIGHTS such as the RIGHTS of people to grieve at funerals, as it is to protect "Freedom of Speech" which ,in this instance amounted to homophobic tyranny and bullying that in point of fact denied those being bullied and shouted at their human rights.

[QUOTE]

I know exactly what you're saying. You want to prevent people from speaking because you don't like the context. And you're entitled to your opinion as much as I am. What I'm saying is that once you authorise a body to prevent someone from speaking whom you don't like, then tomorrow it may be you because someone else doesn't like what you're saying. And it could be me, too, and you and more like you (i.e. the majority) have granted the power to some body to prevent me from speaking - why should you have that sort of authority over my life?

And this is why freedom of expression is so important, it isn't about what someone is saying, nor is it about the 'feelings/emotions' of someone else - it is about power.

It's also where the democracy, 2 wolves, sheep comment comes from, and it's apt. The US republic and constitution is designed to protect individual sovereignty - we could learn something from them.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=c.d.;168246]

So, CD, you persist in believing that the court's decision has a bearing on rights of free speech in general?

Hi Robert,

Yes, Robert I persist it that belief because that is the way the U.S. legal system works.

c.d.

c.d.
Why do you keep insisting that other aspects of free speech would be affected? This case was about whether or not that the Westboro church's funeral protests are protected under the first ammendment for free speech. Are you saying that if the majority of judges took the same ruling as Alito did and the court as a whole did not side with Westboro that freedom of speech (and gathering) as a whole would be shot down?

[Errata]

Do we have a constitutional right to not get our feelings hurt? Because if we do why isn't the worlds population of ex-boyfriends bankrupt?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Do we have a constitutional right to not get our feelings hurt? Because if we do why isn't the worlds population of ex-boyfriends bankrupt?

I'd imagine this will go round in circles.

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?

[Natalie Severn]

[[B]QUOTE[/]

And this is why freedom of expression is so important, it isn't about what someone is saying, nor is it about the 'feelings/emotions' of someone else - it is about power.

It's also where the democracy, 2 wolves, sheep comment comes from, and it's apt. The US republic and constitution is designed to protect individual sovereignty - we could learn something from them.[/QUOTE

Fleetwood Mac,

do you believe the people in American custody such as those held in Guantanomo Bay have rights and individual sovereignty?

[Chris]

I have not read the decision yet, Chris. Have you been able to do so?

Not the whole thing, but I have read an excerpt from it.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;168254]

c.d.
Why do you keep insisting that other aspects of free speech would be affected? This case was about whether or not that the Westboro church's funeral protests are protected under the first ammendment for free speech. Are you saying that if the majority of judges took the same ruling as Alito did and the court as a whole did not side with Westboro that freedom of speech (and gathering) as a whole would be shot down?

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood Mac, do you believe the people in American custody such as those held in Guantanomo Bay have rights and individual sovereignty?

They don't hve a right, Natalie, but in the interests of peace and order, and my peace and order, it is certaily in my interests that they are afforded due process.

I'm a massive fan of innocent until proven guilty and a fair trial.

Oh, and we have our own problems in this regard, such as detaining people without a trial - such a thing as getting your own house in order!