Westboro Baptist Church = OWNED

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Exactly. I think emotions trumped logic and free speech in this case, and I hope it gets overturned on appeal.

I agree as well. NPR this morning was talking about this and they had a free speech lawyer on and he said the only thing that might make it stick is how the future judges who see this case will interpret the "privacy" aspect of it.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

If the cops are saying "not here, not now, not that behavior...move along" then it IS preventing free speech and right of assembly.

Again, saying "your fine is $50 unless you do it again" DOES prevent free speech, because the *next* fine will be more so the person is being punished for doing/saying what he's doing/saying.

but there was typically no fine

[they were done on one off ad hoc basis & didnt seek to prevent people protesting, ..., just from protesting in a provocative manner

I take your point tho'

And protest is pursuit of happiness, too.

someone had said you had no right to a private funeral

when pursuits of happiness clash how are they to be resolved?

obviously the 1000ft rule is an attempt to keep the peace & is restricting freedom somewhat, ..., the old school Brit approach seeeks to do likewise

if nothing was to be done then protesters would always be free to disturb the legitmate peace of ppl

I've no problem with society siding with those who are burying the dead, especialy as they're soldiers. Even tho I dont like standing armies myself I recognise that to hassle the grieving is to be deliberately offensive for no other reason than to offend.

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

someone had said you had no right to private funeral

You don't. But aren't cemeteries privately owned? WBC didn't step on the cemetery land (I'm guessing) because it's private. But they had every right to stand on public land and hold their protest signs, no matter how much it angered the family.

when pursuits of happiness clash how are they to be resolved?

In this case, like this

The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us.

We don’t care what you ride or if you ride, what your political views are, or whether you’re a hawk or a dove. It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you’re from or what your income is; you don’t even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect.

Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives.

1. Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.

2. Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.

Patriot Guard Riders -->Home

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

You don't. But aren't cemeteries privately owned? WBC didn't step on the cemetery land (I'm guessing) because it's private. But they had every right to stand on public land and hold their protest signs, no matter how much it angered the family.

In this case, like this

The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us.

We don’t care what you ride or if you ride, what your political views are, or whether you’re a hawk or a dove. It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you’re from or what your income is; you don’t even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect.

Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives.

1. Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.

2. Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.

Patriot Guard Riders -->Home

Fair enough, but there must be a risk of confrontation between the Patriot Riders & the WB|C

There was recently allegations that they'd attacked a gobby vet in an anti-war demo wasnt there?

OTOH a truely huge stomping of WBC heads may actually provide sufficient encouragement to behave nicely, ..., but I doubt it somehow & wheres the free speech in that? (I'm not claiming that your advocating this)

For me the real problem with the WBC isnt their stupid message its that they promote it at others funerals in an extremely offensive manner impinging on other peoples grieving process. I think people have a right to an unimpeded grieving process, not least coz it can f*ck you up if it doesnt go right.

I wonder if without the media interest they would continue to do so. I suppose the family thought of this before launching the case as it just further encourages media coverage

I'm tempted to ask the media to stop feeding these trolls & to self-censor. Probably would just drive WBS to ever more outrageous stunts tho as they seem well addicted to the limelight.

Either way its our interest in the sensational that encourages the media, so I'm as 'guilty' as the next person, ..., more so as I've previously sworn to ignore threads on these tw*ts.

OTOH perhaps you & I should go to their compound & try to engage with them on their unchristian idiocy full time?

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by Publius

As much as I want to see these douchebags get clocked, that is a HORRIBLE ruling.

.

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

Fair enough, but there must be a risk of confrontation between the Patriot Riders & the WB|C

The patriot riders are peaceful.

There was recently allegations that they'd attacked a gobby vet in an anti-war demo wasnt there?

I don't believe so, no. It was a vet who grabbed a picture off a "casket"...he wasn't a patriot rider.

I think people have a right to an unimpeded grieving process, not least coz it can f*ck you up if it doesnt go right.

So do I. You have the right to grieve any way you see fit in the privacy of your own home. You do not have the right to go grieve in a public place and expect nobody will upset you.

I wonder if without the media interest they would continue to do so.

I believe they would. They did it before the media covered their doing it so I don't believe the cameras are their goal.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

The patriot riders are peaceful.

I don't believe so, no. It was a vet who grabbed a picture off a "casket"...he wasn't a patriot rider.

well, ..., more power to them then. My aplogies to you, them & the board for my error & slovenliness in not checking my facts etc

So do I. You have the right to grieve any way you see fit in the privacy of your own home. You do not have the right to go grieve in a public place and expect nobody will upset you.

People shouldnt have the right to so spectacularly rude.
I understand the arguement that 'free speech' needs to be defended at the very limits so that it is defended at all etc, ..., but IMO thats not required, I realise you disagree.

I believe they would. They did it before the media covered their doing it so I don't believe the cameras are their goal.

You may well be right, ..., it just shows how stupid they are for their beef is not with a dead solider or his family, ..., for all they know he could've been a homophobe himself or a Christian non-practicing homosexualist etc.

Their free speech should be protected but not to the extent where they seriously offend people who've got f*ck all to do with their problem, ..., but then they're obviously incredibly stupid in the first place

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

People shouldnt have the right to so spectacularly rude.

They should have the right. Of course, having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make you right in doing it. I won't go to Phelps' funeral and cheer when he dies, even though on the inside I'll feel a bit giddy.

Their free speech should be protected

but not to the extent where .........

You can't say both of those in the same sentence. You can't have freedom of speech if you're going to put limits on it.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

They should have the right. Of course, having the right to do something doesn't necessarily make you right in doing it. I won't go to Phelps' funeral and cheer when he dies, even though on the inside I'll feel a bit giddy.

You can't say both of those in the same sentence. You can't have freedom of speech if you're going to put limits on it.

Sure you can. We have limits on all of our rights. I think you just disagree on what those limits should be.

A pretty clear example would be speaking to a foreign country about things that might help them attack us.
As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a judicial test that is used to determine if someones free speech rights may be precluded from being exercised. It's a stringent test that errs on the side of allowing the speech but in some cases the courts will find in favor of the government and allow your 1st ammendment rights to be infringed upon. Generally speaking it has to be a serious matter with no alternatives. IE sharing info with enemies.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Sure you can. We have limits on all of our rights. I think you just disagree on what those limits should be.

A pretty clear example would be speaking to a foreign country about things that might help them attack us.
As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a judicial test that is used to determine if someones free speech rights may be precluded from being exercised. It's a stringent test that errs on the side of allowing the speech but in some cases the courts will find in favor of the government and allow your 1st ammendment rights to be infringed upon. Generally speaking it has to be a serious matter with no alternatives. IE sharing info with enemies.

I cut off his quote too soon............ "but not to the extent where they seriously offend people." I wasn't talking about national security. I was talking about just offending people.

If it's a matter of national security then speech can be limited. When it's a matter of "seriously offend(ing)" someone then it should not be.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

I cut off his quote too soon............ "but not to the extent where they seriously offend people." I wasn't talking about national security. I was talking about just offending people.

If it's a matter of national security then speech can be limited. When it's a matter of "seriously offend(ing)" someone then it should not be.

agreed.

[DosEquis]

They are being taken to court in Nebraska now. It was on the news this morning. That crazy gal dpakman interviewed awhile back has been on the tv lately.

[avsp]

They aim to provoke conflict, that is why their free speech should be l;imited, ('behaviour likely to provoke a breach of the peace')

They've every right to say it, ..., but their beef isnt with the mourners or the dead soldier, they are limting the freedom of others purely to provoke a reaction. They've even chosen to pick on the most vunerable. so they should pay the price for saying it there & then.

I recognise that this is unconstitutional.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that they should get their way & be attacked by the mourners who would get a minimal punishment in the criminal court , ..., whilst in a WSB civil suit they should be awarded 1cent & no costs.

I think I'm done here

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

......they are limting the freedom of others ....

Wait.....the westboro church people are limiting the freedom of others?

How?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Wait.....the westboro church people are limiting the freedom of others?

How?

I think you could make the arguement that you have a right to mourn and bury your loved ones in peace. Yes it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution however that alone does not mean the right does not exist. Quite the contrary. We do have laws at the state level which seem to contradict the freedom of speech, ( be it symbolic speech or printed speech or otherwise ). In most places we assume that you should be able to walk down the street with your kids without being exposed to someone expressing themselves by cursing at small children. Such a person would be found to be disorderly and subsequently would face charges. We also think, in most places, That even if it is your belief that sexuality is a beautiful thing that should be shared, you can't go and have sex in a public place. Dispite the fact that you might be expressing a legitimate idea, exercising your free speech rights. Specific localities pass laws governing these sorts of things and the laws have been upheld.
If a specific locality wants to pass an ordinance that prohibits someone from intentionally targeting a funeral with speech likely to be found deeply objectionable, why should they not be allowed to do it? Especially in light of similar laws already on the books that do similar things.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think you could make the arguement that you have a right to mourn and bury your loved ones in peace.

Of course you do, just not in public. If you choose to do it in public then you do not have a right to prevent others from holding signs.

And WBC wasn't even at the funeral. They were 1000 feet away...and they couldn't be heard by anyone at the funeral. So you don't want anyone holding a sign anywhere in the vicinity of something that someone may object to? I'm not even sure if what I just typed made sense.

If a specific locality wants to pass an ordinance that prohibits someone from intentionally targeting a funeral with speech likely to be found deeply objectionable,

I find "Hillary '08" posters deeply objectionable. Where do I go to make sure they're not put up in my town/county/state?

Especially in light of similar laws already on the books that do similar things.

So you're saying "Holding a sign that someone finds offensive" should be against the law?

Again, where does the line form to keep out the Hillary signs?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Of course you do, just not in public. If you choose to do it in public then you do not have a right to prevent others from holding signs.

And WBC wasn't even at the funeral. They were 1000 feet away...and they couldn't be heard by anyone at the funeral. So you don't want anyone holding a sign anywhere in the vicinity of something that someone may object to? I'm not even sure if what I just typed made sense.

I find "Hillary '08" posters deeply objectionable. Where do I go to make sure they're not put up in my town/county/state?

So you're saying "Holding a sign that someone finds offensive" should be against the law?

Again, where does the line form to keep out the Hillary signs?

I'm not talking about a minority opinion. When a society makes rules like this on a local level it's because a significant majority believes in what they are doing. If I held up a sign of two women doing ass to ass with a double dildo becuase I believe lesbian sex is a beautiful thing, yes, most people would find it offensive and I would be precluded from exercising my free speech rights. I would probably face criminal charges. Even if it was 1000 yards from anyone. That example is pretty extreme, but it illustrates the point that speech that is objectionable can sometimes be precluded and can even be criminal in some cases. Is my lesbian ass to ass sign hurting anyone? No. Is it libeling or slandering anyone? No. It's not placing anyone in danger, or doing anything other than offending people.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not talking about a minority opinion. When a society makes rules like this on a local level it's because a significant majority believes in what they are doing. If I held up a sign of two women doing ass to ass with a double dildo becuase I believe lesbian sex is a beautiful thing, yes, most people would find it offensive and I would be precluded from exercising my free speech rights. I would probably face criminal charges. Even if it was 1000 yards from anyone. That example is pretty extreme, but it illustrates the point that speech that is objectionable can sometimes be precluded and can even be criminal in some cases. Is my lesbian ass to ass sign hurting anyone? No. Is it libeling or slandering anyone? No. It's not placing anyone in danger, or doing anything other than offending people.

We have laws on the books detailing how pornography is to be handled, do we really need laws like that to keep people from having their feelings hurt?

This shit is to subjective to legislate.