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

[Chris]

Yes one can sue for slander, if damage is proven.

The point is that if you have slander laws, you don't have absolute freedom of speech, obviously.

[caz]

Using your example, CD, an atheist may take offence at the "God bless your son" comment. Is an atheist entitled to ban the views of the christian due to offence? Of course not: the point is that offence is arbitary and based on the views, attitude and even daily mood of the person 'offended', which in turn is based on personal background and personal experience, and to turn this into law would be catastrophic for freedom of expression.....oh wait, we've already done this here, so it looks like the US is on its own when it comes to preserving sometinig approaching freedom!

I have to wonder what it is exactly, FM, that you want to say, and would have a perfect right to say in America, regardless of the circumstances, but you think you have no right to say here and now in the UK. What views do you hold that you genuinely fear would get you into legal hot water if you were to express them in the pub down the road from me, for instance? I would be fascinated to know what it is you want to say but cannot because the law is controlling your tongue.

And, no, someone shouting in the street must be acceptable in the interests of all of us expressing ourselves freely and without fear of being shut down by the authorities - soldiers today, dog lovers tomorrow, communists the day after, anyone making a joke about the government two days down the line.

You really think any of this applies here in the UK today? Have you forgotten Wootton Bassett, which made headlines only a year or so ago, when a handful of Muslim extremists planned a protest march through the town? There was widespread condemnation of the plan, which was finally called off. But would it have been unlawful, then or now?

The church group are American citizens and have the right to free speech. If that right infringes on another group the Court has to engage in a balancing act. Here, the Court believed that the best decision was to ensure the protection of freedom of speech for all Americans by ruling in favor of the church.

We have been at this here in America for over 200 years and this is the best we have come up with. If you have a better solution, we would love to hear it.

You said it, c.d. - once 'the Court' was given the 'right' to engage in its own 'balancing' acts, it had the responsibility, but also the freedom, to choose which way to go on the individual cases brought before it. Otherwise, what is it still there for after day one? "This Court will always rule in favour of free speech, regardless, because it's too hard to deal with any precedent set by even the most extreme case. First one out get the beers in, last one out turn the lights off and shut the door."

Next!

If that really is the best America can come up with, your 'Court' is a huge waste of your time and money.

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.

Well lucky old you, Errata. But the 'Court' didn't kill the rabid dog, nor did it ignore it in the hope it would go away. The 'Court' fed and petted the brute, allowing it to think it could now quadruple its efforts, presumably in a bid to leave a smaller and smaller percentage of your people able to 'tune the WBC out'.

What percentage would you consider not large enough to be tolerated any more? When you are surrounded day and night by hundreds of the buggers, aiming themselves at you until your ears bleed - since people seem keen to talk about logical conclusions and slippery slopes?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

CD is right about the court. I think the court should SET precedents and not review precedents already set. People who are voted into any public office should be involved with change and not with status quo. In America we've only had a few folks in recent memory who have tried to change things. One was Paul Wellstone who is gone, and the last one is Al Franken. Satirist or not, he works with the people, and not just those who elected him.

Mike

[c.d.]

SIR THOMAS MOORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

SIR THOMAS MOORE:.... Oh?.... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?.... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

A Man for All Seasons

c.d.

[c.d.]

What percentage would you consider not large enough to be tolerated any more? When you are surrounded day and night by hundreds of the buggers, aiming themselves at you until your ears bleed - since people seem keen to talk about logical conclusions and slippery slopes?

I wonder how the majority of the country back in the mid 1800s felt about the Abolitionists? You remember those annoying little buggers who spoke out about the evils of slavery. If only they could have been silenced.

c.d.

[Errata]

Well lucky old you, Errata. But the 'Court' didn't kill the rabid dog, nor did it ignore it in the hope it would go away. The 'Court' fed and petted the brute, allowing it to think it could now quadruple its efforts, presumably in a bid to leave a smaller and smaller percentage of your people able to 'tune the WBC out'.

What percentage would you consider not large enough to be tolerated any more? When you are surrounded day and night by hundreds of the buggers, aiming themselves at you until your ears bleed - since people seem keen to talk about logical conclusions and slippery slopes?

Love,

Caz
X

Well, first of all, you make it sound as though these types of attacks have never been aimed at me, and I assure you that they have. Beyond assessing whether or not I am in imminent danger, I tune them out. I had never considered it an unusual skill, and I still don't think it is. I have in fact had hundreds of people shouting their invective at me. On more than one occasion. Since I was a kid. Why would I pay attention? Do you think they have something worthwhile to say?

It is not up to court to "kill the rabid dog". It is up to the individual. The WBC is in fact protected by the first amendment. I don't understand why this is hard for people. This does not mean that they are free to do whatever they want. This does not mean they are protected from prosecution. It means they have the right to say what they want to say within established limits, wherever they want to say it, provided they observe the law. When they cross the line, I am sure they will get hammered. And they will deserve it.

As far as percentages go, I think that is a somewhat fallacious argument. The WBC has something like 60 members. Their pickets rarely have more than a dozen people, usually more like eight or ten. Clearly they are an infinitesimal portion of the population, and highly unlikely to grow since the entire Church is related to Fred Phelps. But even so, would you consider 37% too large a population to allow to continue? Because according to new statistics that is how many people still believe in evolution. And someday soon those of us who believe in evolution are going to have to take to the streets to ensure that it is still taught in science class. Are we to be tolerated? Or should we be legislated against now to prevent us from ever expressing such an unpopular opinion?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Hats off to you, Errata. Spot on.

[sleekviper]

Hello Chris,
Ok, who claimed that we had absolute free speech? I said the actions have been limited, not that there is zero action that can take place.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have to wonder what it is exactly, FM, that you want to say, and would have a perfect right to say in America, regardless of the circumstances, but you think you have no right to say here and now in the UK. What views do you hold that you genuinely fear would get you into legal hot water if you were to express them in the pub down the road from me, for instance? I would be fascinated to know what it is you want to say but cannot because the law is controlling your tongue.

I'd be highly surprised in the event MI5 expended energy listening to my ramblings down the pub. On the other hand, Britain is renowned for being a country where the famous can sue newspapers for breach of privacy and stories are prevented from being aired, to the extent that the US has recently taken action to prevent its citizens using British courts for such cases.

Oh, and I'm guessing you've been to the US, well, in that country they don't have anything like the percentage of people who insist that we all say the 'right' words.

You really think any of this applies here in the UK today? Have you forgotten Wootton Bassett, which made headlines only a year or so ago, when a handful of Muslim extremists planned a protest march through the town? There was widespread condemnation of the plan, which was finally called off. But would it have been unlawful, then or now?

Both my Father and Uncle served in the armed forces - the only point here being that I have people close to me who served. But, the extremists and the bloke who burned the poppies are entitled to protest and make their voices heard. This is supposed to be a free country!

The point I'm making about the US, is that a lot more of them understand the importance of freedom of expression, no matter the context, for all of our sakes.

[Chris]

Ok, who claimed that we had absolute free speech? I said the actions have been limited, not that there is zero action that can take place.

Well, you said that in 1919 Justice Holmes said Freedom of Speech is not an absolute, and so on, and then you went on to say that in 1969 a "case goes to Supreme Court where the Justices are absolutists and most of the 1919 ruling is thrown out."

And some people (for example Fleetwood Mac) are very much talking as though the USA has absolute free speech (and is the only country in the world that does!).

Obviously no country has absolute free speech. No country could. It's all a question of balance.

[sleekviper]

Hello Chris,
Well most of what was set up has been thrown out. Slander requires damages; in other words two people are going for the same position, one tells the boss the other applicate is sleeping with the bosses wife to get the job. If it works, it is slander, if it does not, it is just a lie. No, we do not have absolute free speech, but it is more free than it once was held which in cases such as this is dangerous.

[Chris]

Well most of what was set up has been thrown out. Slander requires damages ...

But as I said above, the present judgment is about whether the demonstrators could be sued for damages too.

What I'm saying is that it's foolish to portray this judgment as the inevitable consequence of an overriding principle of free speech, when if the demonstrators had said something defamatory they could certainly have been sued. In other words, when people argue that the judgment should have gone the other way, it's no answer to say "We're American, America has freedom of speech." What's needed is an argument as to why this is a form of free speech that should be specially protected against suits for damages.

[Abby Normal]

But as I said above, the present judgment is about whether the demonstrators could be sued for damages too.

What I'm saying is that it's foolish to portray this judgment as the inevitable consequence of an overriding principle of free speech, when if the demonstrators had said something defamatory they could certainly have been sued. In other words, when people argue that the judgment should have gone the other way, it's no answer to say "We're American, America has freedom of speech." What's needed is an argument as to why this is a form of free speech that should be specially protected against suits for damages.

Bingo! well put!

[Abby Normal]

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.

OK-no problem.thanks for that c.d.

[Chris]

Here's an interesting transatlantic contrast.

A Muslim extremist has been found guilty of burning poppies at a protest in west London on Armistice Day.
Emdadur Choudhury, 26, of Spitalfields, east London, was fined £50 for offences under the Public Order Act.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12664346