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.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.
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.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.
They do when the theater is on fire.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 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 free speech is so sacred, why don't people appreciate it when "Fire!" is screamed frantically in a movie theater, huh?
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.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 were at the funeral with sign and chants Westboro Baptist Goes to the Supreme CourtThe 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.
Which is not, in and of itself, illegal, assuming they adhere to local law regarding cemeteries. Which they seem to be very good at.They were at the funeral with sign and chants Westboro Baptist Goes to the Supreme Court
They were at the funeral with sign and chants Westboro Baptist Goes to the Supreme Court[/QUOTE]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]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.
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.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]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]I guess if he did heard it from where he was (1000 feet) I can see he might have a case.
Both of which involve the explicit intent to commit violence.I can't say I'm going to go hurt someone.
I can't write a how-to book on assassination.
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."Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.
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.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."Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.
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]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."Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.
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]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."Fuck fuck fuck" outside daycares and nurseries and not get a ticket for disturbing the peace.
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.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.
Like Hitman...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.
But what sort of harm? You have the right to physical safety, not to be safe from hurt feelings. Unless the words being said are intended to or are reasonably expected to cause imminent violence, you can be as mean as you want. Its called "fighting words doctrine" and it is far more complex than I adequately handle at midnight.I do see it as inciting harm.
Um, yeah, I suppose like "Hitman" or "Manhunt" or the Grand Theft Auto series or whatever else Jack Thompson calls murder simulators. As far as I can tell, "this is how you murder" or "this how you make a bomb" or "the Jews need to be taken out of power" are protected speech in almost all cases. Stuff like "murder John Barrowman, I mean it, now" or "bomb Cobo Hall during the capitalist scum's auto show" or "we need to kill the Jews running CNN" would be direct incitements of violent action and therefore not protected. I think.Like Hitman...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.
Unless that's when they start putting the "any resemblance to people, real or fictional, is purely coincidence blah de blah..." inside book covers.
When did I say it was infallible? :wtf:You, who believes our free speech is infallible
Isn't the "fighting words doctrine" generally applied as an example of provocation, rather than an admonishment of speech? I.E. If someone insults you within arms reach despite being told to step away, and you punch him, it's not necessarily assault if the court agrees that you were deliberately provoked.Its called "fighting words doctrine" and it is far more complex than I adequately handle at midnight.
Um, yeah, I suppose like "Hitman" or "Manhunt" or the Grand Theft Auto series or whatever else Jack Thompson calls murder simulators. As far as I can tell, "this is how you murder" or "this how you make a bomb" or "the Jews need to be taken out of power" are protected speech in almost all cases. Stuff like "murder John Barrowman, I mean it, now" or "bomb Cobo Hall during the capitalist scum's auto show" or "we need to kill the Jews running CNN" would be direct incitements of violent action and therefore not protected. I think.[/QUOTE]Like Hitman...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.
Unless that's when they start putting the "any resemblance to people, real or fictional, is purely coincidence blah de blah..." inside book covers.