Supreme Court vs the Phelps

[Chibibar]

Well actually it is Snyder Vs. Phelps but looks like the Justice is trying to find a way to protect people being harass by these people.

High court: Does father's pain trump free speech? - Yahoo! News

I am interested to see how this case turns out.

 

[SpecialKO]

Much as it causes me physical pain to suggest, it would be a really bad thing is Phelps loses at this level. As loathsome a human being as Phelps is, free speech has to be protected to the fullest extent of which we are capable.

 

[Chibibar]

Much as it causes me physical pain to suggest, it would be a really bad thing is Phelps loses at this level. As loathsome a human being as Phelps is, free speech has to be protected to the fullest extent of which we are capable.

I agree to a certain level. I am torn on this issue. The 1st Amendment protect us from many things and gives us freedom to do a lot of things. While I personally don't like the Phelps on what they do, I just wish they wouldn't do it at people's funeral.

 

[Necronic]

I wonder if they can call it harrassment?

Can people get restraining orders against these people before a funeral?

 

[Cajungal]

God, assholes really do live forever. And even when old Fred kicks it, his horrible harpy of a daughter is going to rule the roost, right? Oy.

 

[phil]

Fuck it. Screw those bastards in every way imaginable. I don't think this is that slippery slope people make it out to be. You already can't say other things anyway so why not just fucking do it already?

 

[Tress]

I was thinking to myself that they could argue that the emotional pain of these protests would be a violation of the victim's rights, and therefore the speech would no longer be protected. The only problem is how to define when speech crosses a line into the category of emotionally traumatic. I couldn't come up with a hard and fast definition. Perhaps it could be like obscenity? Some kind of "I know it when I see it" standard?

 

[tegid]

I read that she-Phelps said they were only holding signs and not shouting their hateful things. I guess it is harder to define it as harassment if it's like that...

Anyway, if this kind of thing is to be forbidden, it should be on a case by case basis, like Tress says. And the Phelps can be a pretty good example of what is allowed and what isn't.

 

[Bones]

as much as I hate to say it, they need to allow these asshats to continue. However from the sounds of it the guy who sued them was taking some very aggressive attacks from the entire group, obviously I don't know the whole story, but if this is true they went far beyond their protection to shout random hateful crap at his sons funeral, and went into basically grinding his entire life to dust from what the background info seems to show. if someone knows more please enlighten me. I generally feel this kind of thing is fine as long as they stay out of earshot of the family. now if they were standing there shouting that shit right in the midst of the funeral I would probably feel they had abused their rights and needed to be politely removed by the police to a location farther away.

 

[sixpackshaker]

It kinda reminds me of the flag burning debate 20 years ago. One Louisiana lawmaker proposed a $100 fine for anyone assaulting a flag burner. Now lets propose that for these funeral vultures.

 

[strawman]

Hater's gonna hate, dog.

The best way to ge rid of these bothersome fleas is by completely ignoring them. If the news media didn't broadcast them, didn't report on them, and people ignored the stories (or wrote to their broadcasters and newspapers that they would stop watching/reading if they continued) then they would go away.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

It kinda reminds me of the flag burning debate 20 years ago. One Louisiana lawmaker proposed a $100 fine for anyone assaulting a flag burner. Now lets propose that for these funeral vultures.

Arguably, a $100 fine is a lower sentence than what would normally be incurred for assault. I think he may have done that only so that people would be more willing to assault those who burn flags.

"Oh, he hit you with a pipe? Ok, I'll fine him $100 and send him on his way."

 

[sixpackshaker]

People would line up around the block with Franklins in hand...

Besides violence never solved anything. Except Nazism.

 

[Hailey Knight]

If free speech is so sacred, why don't people appreciate it when "Fire!" is screamed frantically in a movie theater, huh?

 

[SpecialKO]

If free speech is so sacred, why don't people appreciate it when "Fire!" is screamed frantically in a movie theater, huh?

They do when the theater is on fire.

 

[Hailey Knight]

If free speech is so sacred, why don't people appreciate it when "Fire!" is screamed frantically in a movie theater, huh?

They do when the theater is on fire.[/QUOTE]

If they can lie about God, I can lie about fires.

 

[SpecialKO]

If free speech is so sacred, why don't people appreciate it when "Fire!" is screamed frantically in a movie theater, huh?

They do when the theater is on fire.[/QUOTE]

If they can lie about God, I can lie about fires.[/QUOTE]

Well, it must be admitted that watching while someone's movie theater gets burned down with the audience still inside it would not be a violation of free speech.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Screaming "God Hates ***s" at a funeral causes no harm. Screaming "Fire" in a crowded non-burning theater will get people injured or killed.

 

[Chibibar]

ok.... but screaming "Gog hates n*** (I'm not going to type it)" in predominate African American community and you might get injured or killed (worst in a Theater full of it)

 

[SpecialKO]

ok.... but screaming "Gog hates n*** (I'm not going to type it)" in predominate African American community and you might get injured or killed (worst in a Theater full of it)

They can always reasonably ignore you. Screaming "fire" or "murder" or something similar, even truthfully, cannot be reasonably ignored (because it might be truthful). Insults can be.

It's why "inciting a riot" requires that you specifically be advocating violence or physical confrontation. Telling someone that "God hates ____ and all _____ will burn in hell" really doesn't cover it.

 

[Shakey]

The difference is one is based on opinion, and the other fact. You may not believe in what they are saying, but they have a right to express their opinion. Yelling fire in a theater is not expressing any type of belief or opinion.

 

[Dave]

The father in this case saw no signs at the funeral, nor did he hear any chants. He saw/heard them later when they were broadcast on the news. The he went to their web site and was attacked there. So I don't feel he has a leg to stand on. I hate the Phelps but in this case they should win. They were given restrictions as to where they could have their protest and they followed it to the letter.

They may not be moral people but they are not dumb people.

 

[Chibibar]

The father in this case saw no signs at the funeral, nor did he hear any chants. He saw/heard them later when they were broadcast on the news. The he went to their web site and was attacked there. So I don't feel he has a leg to stand on. I hate the Phelps but in this case they should win. They were given restrictions as to where they could have their protest and they followed it to the letter.

They may not be moral people but they are not dumb people.

They were at the funeral with sign and chants Westboro Baptist Goes to the Supreme Court

 

[SpecialKO]

They were at the funeral with sign and chants Westboro Baptist Goes to the Supreme Court

Which is not, in and of itself, illegal, assuming they adhere to local law regarding cemeteries. Which they seem to be very good at.

 

[Dave]

The father in this case saw no signs at the funeral, nor did he hear any chants. He saw/heard them later when they were broadcast on the news. The he went to their web site and was attacked there. So I don't feel he has a leg to stand on. I hate the Phelps but in this case they should win. They were given restrictions as to where they could have their protest and they followed it to the letter.

They may not be moral people but they are not dumb people.

They were at the funeral with sign and chants Westboro Baptist Goes to the Supreme Court[/QUOTE]

I didn't say they weren't there - they were. But the father didn't see or hear it.

Supreme Court: Can Westboro Baptist Church protest military funerals? - CSMonitor.com

 

[Chibibar]

The father in this case saw no signs at the funeral, nor did he hear any chants. He saw/heard them later when they were broadcast on the news. The he went to their web site and was attacked there. So I don't feel he has a leg to stand on. I hate the Phelps but in this case they should win. They were given restrictions as to where they could have their protest and they followed it to the letter.

They may not be moral people but they are not dumb people.

They were at the funeral with sign and chants Westboro Baptist Goes to the Supreme Court[/QUOTE]

I didn't say they weren't there - they were. But the father didn't see or hear it.

Supreme Court: Can Westboro Baptist Church protest military funerals? - CSMonitor.com[/QUOTE]

Ah. I stand corrected. I guess if he did heard it from where he was (1000 feet) I can see he might have a case.

 

[SpecialKO]

I guess if he did heard it from where he was (1000 feet) I can see he might have a case.

Even if he could have heard them, it doesn't matter from a free speech perspective. The point of the first amendment isn't to protect speech that no one hears. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Chibibar]

I guess if he did heard it from where he was (1000 feet) I can see he might have a case.

Even if he could have heard them, it doesn't matter from a free speech perspective. The point of the first amendment isn't to protect speech that no one hears. Quite the opposite, in fact.[/QUOTE]

Well... It would be more of harassment if he did heard it. Cause they would be harassing him vocally and visually with their signs and songs during his son's funeral. (That is how I would see it)

 

[SpecialKO]

I guess if he did heard it from where he was (1000 feet) I can see he might have a case.

Even if he could have heard them, it doesn't matter from a free speech perspective. The point of the first amendment isn't to protect speech that no one hears. Quite the opposite, in fact.[/QUOTE]

Well... It would be more of harassment if he did heard it. Cause they would be harassing him vocally and visually with their signs and songs during his son's funeral. (That is how I would see it)[/QUOTE]

It would be if the Phelps were much closer. But 1000 feet away is farther away than many restraining orders, which are the usual results of harassment suits.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I can't say I'm going to go hurt someone.

I can't write a how-to book on assassination.


There are plenty of situations where we don't have free speech. It's a right you have to be responsible with. It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, in any context, otherwise I could go around screaming "Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace. There's a time and place for everything, and funeral is neither for their opinions.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I would guess if there would be any block to the Phelps' freedom of speech would be that their victims are private individuals. They are not really protesting against the government. They are trespassing on and disrupting a private citizen's grief.

 

[SpecialKO]

I can't say I'm going to go hurt someone.

I can't write a how-to book on assassination.

Both of which involve the explicit intent to commit violence.

"Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.

They don't give you a ticket for saying fuck outside daycares and nurseries, they give you a ticket for being loud and disruptive. The same thing would happen if you stood outside screaming, "Durp dee durp dee durp". If you had a friendly "blue" conversation with one of the dads about football, you would not get arrested. Your wives may yell at you afterwards (or not), but you wouldn't get arrested.

 

[Hailey Knight]

"Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.

They don't give you a ticket for saying fuck outside daycares and nurseries, they give you a ticket for being loud and disruptive. The same thing would happen if you stood outside screaming, "Durp dee durp dee durp". If you had a friendly "blue" conversation with one of the dads about football, you would not get arrested. Your wives may yell at you afterwards (or not), but you wouldn't get arrested.

So if I was politely saying "fuck fuck fuck" outside the daycare/nursery, it'd be okay; it's just a matter of tone of voice and volume.

 

[SpecialKO]

"Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.

They don't give you a ticket for saying fuck outside daycares and nurseries, they give you a ticket for being loud and disruptive. The same thing would happen if you stood outside screaming, "Durp dee durp dee durp". If you had a friendly "blue" conversation with one of the dads about football, you would not get arrested. Your wives may yell at you afterwards (or not), but you wouldn't get arrested.

So if I was politely saying "fuck fuck fuck" outside the daycare/nursery, it'd be okay; it's just a matter of tone of voice and volume.[/QUOTE]

You should test it out. FOR SCIENCE!

 

[Hailey Knight]

"Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.

They don't give you a ticket for saying fuck outside daycares and nurseries, they give you a ticket for being loud and disruptive. The same thing would happen if you stood outside screaming, "Durp dee durp dee durp". If you had a friendly "blue" conversation with one of the dads about football, you would not get arrested. Your wives may yell at you afterwards (or not), but you wouldn't get arrested.

So if I was politely saying "fuck fuck fuck" outside the daycare/nursery, it'd be okay; it's just a matter of tone of voice and volume.[/QUOTE]

You should test it out. FOR SCIENCE![/QUOTE]

I personally think I'd get in trouble. You, who believes our free speech is infallible, should test it out, since you believe you have nothing to lose.

I mean, stretching this out, unless you're threatening harm or death, you believe you can say anything, anywhere, to anyone, anytime, and there will be zero legal repercussions.

 

[Norris]

I personally think I'd get in trouble. You, who believes our free speech is infallible, should test it out, since you believe you have nothing to lose.

I mean, stretching this out, unless you're threatening harm or death, you believe you can say anything, anywhere, to anyone, anytime, and there will be zero legal repercussions.

Well not exactly. I mean, you could still get a restraining order taken out against you if you politely harassed someone. But yeah, there is a good chance there would be no legal repercussions for swearing outside a daycare (as long as you weren't trespassing). Unfortunately, so jurisdictions have highly outdated verbal morality codes. Such things aren't usually enforced, so there has not been a supreme court challenge to my knowledge. I doubt they'd hold up under such scrutiny though.

It kind of boggles the mind that you seem to draw no distinction between speech that would advocates or incites harm (calls for the assassination of a specific person, yelling "fire" in a not rapidly oxidizing theater) and distasteful-but-peaceful speech (God Hates ______, or the Nazis marching in Skokie). You would have every right to write a how-to guide on assassination...so long as you stressed that it was for entertainment purposes only. The Anarchist Cookbook was legally published for decades, after all. It only ceased when the publisher decided the book was a bad idea.