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

[caz]

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.

Yes I have, but I don't need to go there to know that I cannot write certain words without them getting out the smelling salts and their little box of asterisks. It's all a tale of **** and bull and being *****rdly with our rich language when you scratch below the surface of free speech above everything.

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!

Well quite. That's why I was confused when you claimed that you had lost the freedom to make your own voice heard because you are unlucky enough to live in Europe.

Having just seen Chris's post, it would appear that you are still free to burn poppies if you fancy it, for the small fee of £50. Fill your boots, FM.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As far as percentages go, I think that is a somewhat fallacious argument.

Well you started it, Errata.

So it's not about the principle then, but the fact that the WBC has too few members to cause abject misery to more than a tiny handful of unlucky individuals? By that token you should perhaps allow your serial killers their particular brand of 'expression' because the numbers of such killers and their victims are relatively insignificant and likely to remain so.

I'm afraid I can't help you with the unpopularity of evolution where you live, despite everyone's right to express an educated view. If it gets anywhere near 99.9% not 'believing' in it, I guess you'll be buggered if you do or if you don't 'take to the streets'. Better to take to the nearest boat and never look back.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well quite. That's why I was confused when you claimed that you had lost the freedom to make your own voice heard because you are unlucky enough to live in Europe.

Having just seen Chris's post, it would appear that you are still free to burn poppies if you fancy it, for the small fee of £50. Fill your boots, FM.

Love,

Caz
X

Dear me Caz, surely my posts don't betray a mind that is lurching between bored enough, deranged enough, or petty enough to stand around like a bell end burning things; or stand around like a bell end watching people burn things before scuffling with them!?

Tell you what, you come round my home and we can burn some fish fingers instead? Not by choice but through sheer neglect of the fish fingers.

And, the poppy burners aren't free to do that. They have the option, they can make a choice to do so, but the law has clamped down on them. I mean, I have the option to run wild in a shopping mall with a bazooka, but my freedom isn't going to last long. Prison or fine, what's the difference - both wrong side of the law!

It's a decent example actually, let 'em burn stuff and just ignore them.

[Errata]

Well you started it, Errata.

So it's not about the principle then, but the fact that the WBC has too few members to cause abject misery to more than a tiny handful of unlucky individuals? By that token you should perhaps allow your serial killers their particular brand of 'expression' because the numbers of such killers and their victims are relatively insignificant and likely to remain so.

I'm afraid I can't help you with the unpopularity of evolution where you live, despite everyone's right to express an educated view. If it gets anywhere near 99.9% not 'believing' in it, I guess you'll be buggered if you do or if you don't 'take to the streets'. Better to take to the nearest boat and never look back.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah. I see where you went wrong there. Almost everyone ignores homeless people. 99.9% or thereabouts. Thus the percentage. If people would ignore the WBC the way they ignored the homeless, vanishingly few people would get upset by the WBC.

And maybe this was a little complex, so let me break it down even more. Members of the WBC are protected by the first amendment, the way everyone else is protected by the first amendment. It has nothing to do with their message, or their numbers, or their underwear size. It has to do with them being US citizens. They can say whatever they want, wherever they want until they break a law. Which they haven't done. Or, to be more specific, they have not committed the crimes of which they were accused. They are not immune from prosecution. Nor are they protected from being controlled. Communities just need to do it.

And as far as the evolution stats go, that was a national study. So that would mean the United States is increasingly fond of some nonsense called intelligent design. And school boards are already being challenged on teaching evolution. So people get their feelings hurt by a pathetic cult they shouldn't be listening to anyway, and we should change our Bill of Rights. I want my kids to NOT be taught Christian myths in science class, protecting rights I already have, and I should get on a boat. That doesn't seem terribly reasonable does it?

[Chris]

It has to do with them being US citizens. They can say whatever they want, wherever they want until they break a law.

There you go again. If that were true, no one could be sued for libel or slander in the USA, could they?

[Errata]

There you go again. If that were true, no one could be sued for libel or slander in the USA, could they?

No...

Both slander and libel are forms of defamation of character. Defamation of character requires a falsehood by it's very definition. Statements of opinion can almost never be libelous. It has been ruled libelous in certain situations where a statement of opinion was understood to be a statement of fact, or when a statement of opinion was deemed extremely influential due to the person giving an opinion.

Therefore, if a US citizen is saying whatever they want, and they make a false claim that fits the legal definition of defamation of character, they have broken the law. Free speech is no longer protected at that point.

The line between free speech and defamation of character is well defined. It's the same as the line between browsing and shoplifting. You can walk around in a store carrying a necklace all day without paying for it if you want. It's annoying, all the clerks will hate you and it's a rotten way to spend a day, but it's legal. The second you walk out of the store without paying for it, you have crossed the well defined line, and you are breaking the law. Oddly enough thats where the rule "the customer is always right" usually stops applying as well.

You can freely express any personal truth you like here. You can shout your opinion from the rooftops, you can call people to account. And you cannot be prosecuted for doing that. That has never meant that you won't pay a price for what you say. Just that the government will not exact one. And that's free enough for me.

[Chris]

Therefore, if a US citizen is saying whatever they want, and they make a false claim that fits the legal definition of defamation of character, they have broken the law.

Obviously I'm not talking about criminal libel (which according to online sources is a rarity in the USA anyway).

So no, they haven't "broken the law." A civil suit can be brought against them, that's all. In other words, the situation is entirely analogous to the protests we are talking about. The difference is that the court has ruled that one form of injurious "free speech" is protected against civil suits, while another form (defamation) isn't.

Now there may be a good argument in support of that distinction (though I haven't heard it yet). But it's no argument at all for people just to keep saying "We are Americans, we have free speech."

[Errata]

Now there may be a good argument in support of that distinction (though I haven't heard it yet). But it's no argument at all for people just to keep saying "We are Americans, we have free speech."

I am beginning to think that we might be having two different conversations. Which happens. But as I have no desire to continuously incorrectly answer your questions, and I imagine you would want that as well, I would ask if you could clarify your argument. Which you may have already done, and I just didn't understand.

It sounds like your argument is that the first amendment should not involved in a case the WBC, because it's protection is incomplete. However, that has always been the case. It is judged based on the case at hand. The Supreme Court decided that in this one case, The WBC was protected by the first amendment. Reading Justice Roberts opinion, it makes sense. Truth be told this was a bad case to bring before the Supreme Court. Standards and precedents already existed for this case, very little new information had to be deliberated upon.

However, if I am completely wrong about your point (as is highly likely at this juncture) I beg your pardon and would like to understand it.

[Chris]

Errata

I think you're reading too much into my comments. All I'm doing is disagreeing with the line of argument that runs "we have free speech in America, so this is bound to be the case." There are already many limitations on free speech, and different ways of dealing with these demonstrations wouldn't destroy the principle.

[Errata]

Errata

I think you're reading too much into my comments. All I'm doing is disagreeing with the line of argument that runs "we have free speech in America, so this is bound to be the case." There are already many limitations on free speech, and different ways of dealing with these demonstrations wouldn't destroy the principle.

Right on. Ironically they probably could have been legitimately sued by any number of people. I feel bad for this father, but if he didn't know what was going on until he watched the news that night, it's hard to argue that he was a captive audience, or that it interfered with the ceremony.

They are being dealt with in any number of ways. I personally am not comfortable with legally punishing them for their beliefs. Totally comfortable doing it socially, hell, it should be an Olympic sport. I am even comfortable with saying that certain rules should apply to certain situations. That some things are sacred, and nobodies political view belongs there. But I'm just not okay with singling anyone out for their beliefs.

[RonIpstone]

The difference is that the court has ruled that one form of injurious "free speech" is protected against civil suits, while another form (defamation) isn't.

Now there may be a good argument in support of that distinction (though I haven't heard it yet). But it's no argument at all for people just to keep saying "We are Americans, we have free speech."

The Supreme Court emphasised that free speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of protection given by the First Amendment. When one strays into personal attacks on the character of individuals, the protection no longer exists and one is liable to be mulcted in damages for such torts as defamation, and the intriguingly named intrusion upon seclusion, whatever that might be.

[Chris]

The Supreme Court emphasised that free speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of protection given by the First Amendment. When one strays into personal attacks on the character of individuals, the protection no longer exists and one is liable to be mulcted in damages for such torts as defamation, and the intriguingly named intrusion upon seclusion, whatever that might be.

None of that really affects the point I was making, particularly as defamatory statements relating to matters of public concern are not immune from suits for defamation. The point is that there is no absolute freedom of speech, even on matters of public concern.