"God Hates Fags"ers are Protected by the 1st... The Irony...

I think it reflects what a great country this is..


Even the most despicable speech is protected

I don't Agree... One that it's Protected as the 1st is Penned, or that our Allowinig it makes us Great.

Inciting and Harrassing other Citizens is Wrong and FAR from Illustrating a Redress of Grievance against the Government.

But then again, MANY Feel that the Constitution says "Separation of Church and State" or that it says that Taking Inconvenient Life without Due Process is a "Right".

:)

peace...
 
as it should be...

it is easy to be all about the 1st adm when you agree with the speaker etc....much harder when you dont...but the freedom must be defended...and yes in a fucked up way...these people get to protest at the funerals of those who died to protect the freedom that they are abusing

I would say that 'Free Speech" is not Absolute, and I Think the Court Agrees...

I would Lean towards Westboro's Actions as being Inciting more than "Free Speech" as meant by the Founders...

"Redress of Greivance"... Not Against Families at Funerals, but Against the Government.

This Ruling is Wrong in my Opinion.

And I View what Westboro does as Criminal.

:)

peace...

That is not half bad legal analysis, Mal.

Free speech was never intended to be an absolute. If it had been, the concept of treason itself would not have existed simultaneously in the Constitution.

Some speech is not to be protected.

Inciting to riot is not permissible. Calling for the overthrow of the United States government by force and violence is not permitted. Libel and slander may be permitted but are also punishable (not criminally, but civilly).

Of all the speech that IS to be protected, the highest trump card is political speech.

And in it's sickening way, the fuckstains at Westboro are engaged in political speech. That's what makes this case so difficult.

I dislike the decision (revolted at the notion that those fuckstains are protected in their vile behavior). But even so, I have a difficult time arguing that the decision itself came down legally on the wrong side.

Thanks Counselor.

"Redress of Grievance"... Not what Westboro is doing, Brother... Not Against the "Government", anyway...

Inciting and Harrassing fellow Citizens should not be Protected by any part of the Constitution.

:)

peace...
 
I'm with him Judge Alito...
"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."...." The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree."
 
Last edited:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Because the Supreme Court can and does Molest the Constitution for whatever the Modern Political Wind is, doesn't mean that 1st doesn't say what it says...

In CLEAR Language.

Westboro is NOT Illustrating 1st Amendment Protections with their Harrassment and Incitement of Private Citizens.

:)

peace...

I fail to see how they are not doing exactly what the first portion of the bolded part illustrates or are you purposefully misconstruing that statement to be one right when it is, in fact, two separate ones. You have a right to assemble, period. So do they. I am glad to see that the supreme court made the decision that they did and did so not on politically ideological lines but rather on the clear fact that speech and assembly are universal rights no matter the speech involved. No matter how distasteful it may be it remains their right and to limit it is to removes free speech for all.

Whenever there is a ruling that is so close to unanimous you might what to reexamine your position if you disagree. Even the far left and right can get together and see what must be done, why can't you?
 
:rolleyes:

"The left wanted Westboro's free speech curtailed"

When shown that the left supports the free speech of everyone, even fucktards

"The left wants Westboro to enjoy free speech because they can pretend Westboro is an example of conservatism"

Some people really are good at lying to themselves.
 
It's distastful for sure. But the right call, What decent folks should do is amass in great numbers and drown out the voices of these cock a roaches. Sing How Great Thou Are.. with a thousand voices.

That is pretty much what happens when the westboro asshats show up, be it locals or those bikers that have made it a point to stop the nutters from getting to close to the families.

Its amazing that the westboro guys can make the most extreme leftists and rightists agree that the westoboro people are complete jerks.

Edit: The picture from the CNN cover on this shows the protester holding an "anoymous" mask in a cross-fire. I have to wait to get home to check (would NEVER look up 4chan at a work computer, but holy shit, the /b/tards must be freaking out.

Washington (CNN) -- A Kansas church known for its angry, anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops won an appeal Wednesday at the Supreme Court in a case testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.

Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests - CNN.com
 
I'm with him Judge Alito...
"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."...." The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree."

Precisely.

:)

peace...
 
Alito did indeed file a strong dissent. He employed forceful logic and -- in my view -- a valid reliance on precedent and reason.

I am curious as to what interest in public policy the Westboro fuckstains were expressing themselves by claiming that thanks should be given for the death of our soldiers. How is that not simply a vile expression of hatred directed at a grieving parent?

I couldn't give a rat's ass that they have a view about gays serving in the military. I don't give a shit about their views about gays in general. I don't value in the slightest anything they say about our nation's military position regarding Iraq or terrorism. If all of that is "political speech" in some way, fine. As Alito noted. They have virtually limitless ways to express their hatred and politics. The question becomes, why they should be permitted to do what they did at a funeral in front of a parent who was grieving the loss of his son killed in the line of duty? What did the elder Mr. Snyder do to "deserve" that outrageous crap being shoved on him?

I can certainly appreciate the commitment of the Court to defending even the extremes of Free Speech. And yet, even so, there are still valid lines. I'm not sure they were properly drawn of discerned in this instance. Sickening case.
 
Alito did indeed file a strong dissent. He employed forceful logic and -- in my view -- a valid reliance on precedent and reason.

I am curious as to what interest in public policy the Westboro fuckstains were expressing themselves by claiming that thanks should be given for the death of our soldiers. How is that not simply a vile expression of hatred directed at a grieving parent?

I couldn't give a rat's ass that they have a view about gays serving in the military. I don't give a shit about their views about gays in general. I don't value in the slightest anything they say about our nation's military position regarding Iraq or terrorism. If all of that is "political speech" in some way, fine. As Alito noted. They have virtually limitless ways to express their hatred and politics. The question becomes, why they should be permitted to do what they did at a funeral in front of a parent who was grieving the loss of his son killed in the line of duty? What did the elder Mr. Snyder do to "deserve" that outrageous crap being shoved on him?

I can certainly appreciate the commitment of the Court to defending even the extremes of Free Speech. And yet, even so, there are still valid lines. I'm not sure they were properly drawn of discerned in this instance. Sickening case.
Bottom line...you don't have a right to not be offended. The offense was great to the familes of the dead but it is still not a protected right.

Interesting that you put one group of Americans above another group of Americans, though.

Gotta love "conservative" roll models.
 
FTR I would just like to see them dead. The silencing part is more of a side effect.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mal
Alito did indeed file a strong dissent. He employed forceful logic and -- in my view -- a valid reliance on precedent and reason.

I am curious as to what interest in public policy the Westboro fuckstains were expressing themselves by claiming that thanks should be given for the death of our soldiers. How is that not simply a vile expression of hatred directed at a grieving parent?

I couldn't give a rat's ass that they have a view about gays serving in the military. I don't give a shit about their views about gays in general. I don't value in the slightest anything they say about our nation's military position regarding Iraq or terrorism. If all of that is "political speech" in some way, fine. As Alito noted. They have virtually limitless ways to express their hatred and politics. The question becomes, why they should be permitted to do what they did at a funeral in front of a parent who was grieving the loss of his son killed in the line of duty? What did the elder Mr. Snyder do to "deserve" that outrageous crap being shoved on him?

I can certainly appreciate the commitment of the Court to defending even the extremes of Free Speech. And yet, even so, there are still valid lines. I'm not sure they were properly drawn of discerned in this instance. Sickening case.
Bottom line...you don't have a right to not be offended. The offense was great to the familes of the dead but it is still not a protected right.

Interesting that you put one group of Americans above another group of Americans, though.

Gotta love "conservative" roll models.

Although it is akin to asking an obviously insane person to "be reasonable," it still might be interesting to have Ravi explain her incoherent gibberish.

What group of Americans have I supposedly placed above another group of Americans? Try to limit your response to what I actually SAID in the quoted text of mine to which your commentary was "responsive."

And, also, of course, you are wrong from jump street. You started off with an oft-quoted platitude that 'nobody has a right not to be offended.' That is often true but it is not always true. You must learn, someday, the proper use of the power of the limiting phrase, Ravi.

And it's "role" model, stupid.

Try to keep up.
 
Alito did indeed file a strong dissent. He employed forceful logic and -- in my view -- a valid reliance on precedent and reason.

I am curious as to what interest in public policy the Westboro fuckstains were expressing themselves by claiming that thanks should be given for the death of our soldiers. How is that not simply a vile expression of hatred directed at a grieving parent?

I couldn't give a rat's ass that they have a view about gays serving in the military. I don't give a shit about their views about gays in general. I don't value in the slightest anything they say about our nation's military position regarding Iraq or terrorism. If all of that is "political speech" in some way, fine. As Alito noted. They have virtually limitless ways to express their hatred and politics. The question becomes, why they should be permitted to do what they did at a funeral in front of a parent who was grieving the loss of his son killed in the line of duty? What did the elder Mr. Snyder do to "deserve" that outrageous crap being shoved on him?

I can certainly appreciate the commitment of the Court to defending even the extremes of Free Speech. And yet, even so, there are still valid lines. I'm not sure they were properly drawn of discerned in this instance. Sickening case.
Bottom line...you don't have a right to not be offended. The offense was great to the familes of the dead but it is still not a protected right.

Interesting that you put one group of Americans above another group of Americans, though.

Gotta love "conservative" roll models.

Making Shit up that the Constitution doesn't say is the Playground of the Left...

I see you are Comfortable there.

:)

peace...
 

Forum List

Back
Top