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

[mal]

But it would make my day in a "look, I found some money" kind of way.

You and Yurt need to visit the Parrish Counselor?...

Where is he anyway?...



peace...

I dunno, it wasn't my turn to watch him.

Apparently it's my turn to watch UnRavils... Just ask her!



peace...

 

[Big Fitz]

As much as I hate to agree with the Supreme Court, I would also like to see the first Amendment be used to protect those who mete out the CONSEQUENCES (A damn good beating) on those who are protested or infuriated by this foul use of free speech.

But, actions like assault are not protected speech. Free speech is most important to protect when it is offensive or unpopular.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Easy...you are taking two groups, one you like and one you dislike, and deciding that one group is more privileged than the other...even though neither is breaking a law.

The roll model thing was a joke...darn, I keep forgetting you have no sense of humor.

 

[FA_Q2]

As much as I hate to agree with the Supreme Court, I would also like to see the first Amendment be used to protect those who mete out the CONSEQUENCES (A damn good beating) on those who are protested or infuriated by this foul use of free speech.

But, actions like assault are not protected speech. Free speech is most important to protect when it is offensive or unpopular.

As a nice second I would not mind seeing loud trumpeting protesters at the funerals of THEIR members, churches and anywhere one of them decides to go in general. It would be nice if every single one of them was followed with a few people like themselves each and every time they exited their homes. Maybe then they would see the value of STFU and practice in private.

 

[mal]

As much as I hate to agree with the Supreme Court, I would also like to see the first Amendment be used to protect those who mete out the CONSEQUENCES (A damn good beating) on those who are protested or infuriated by this foul use of free speech.

But, actions like assault are not protected speech. Free speech is most important to protect when it is offensive or unpopular.

Most Offensive?... Seriously?...

Using the 1st Amendment, Explain that Conclusion.



peace...

 

[mal]

As much as I hate to agree with the Supreme Court, I would also like to see the first Amendment be used to protect those who mete out the CONSEQUENCES (A damn good beating) on those who are protested or infuriated by this foul use of free speech.

But, actions like assault are not protected speech. Free speech is most important to protect when it is offensive or unpopular.

As a nice second I would not mind seeing loud trumpeting protesters at the funerals of THEIR members, churches and anywhere one of them decides to go in general. It would be nice if every single one of them was followed with a few people like themselves each and every time they exited their homes. Maybe then they would see the value of STFU and practice in private.

As long as it remains Legal and Supported by a Molesting Supreme Court, then I would Concur.



peace...

 

[Big Fitz]

As much as I hate to agree with the Supreme Court, I would also like to see the first Amendment be used to protect those who mete out the CONSEQUENCES (A damn good beating) on those who are protested or infuriated by this foul use of free speech.

But, actions like assault are not protected speech. Free speech is most important to protect when it is offensive or unpopular.

Most Offensive?... Seriously?...

Using the 1st Amendment, Explain that Conclusion.



peace...

The first Amendment, freedom of speech is to protect dissension, for at the time of it's writing, they were poignantly aware of the dangers censorship posed. If it weren't for pamphleteers, newspapermen and printers, the American revolution would never have occurred.

I'm not so stupid as to believe for a moment that dissent is the best way to show patriotism, I'm just saying that it is most important when there is a difference of opinion from a minority. There are limitations of course to free speech, but having an opposing opinion is not one of them... even if it is odious and deserves a boot to the head for even uttering it. Not to mention, words used to incite violence and cause confrontation are on very thin ice in that regard.

And on the record, I hope those bastards get the tar kicked out of them by an angry family one of these days for their disgusting protests.

 

[mal]

As much as I hate to agree with the Supreme Court, I would also like to see the first Amendment be used to protect those who mete out the CONSEQUENCES (A damn good beating) on those who are protested or infuriated by this foul use of free speech.

But, actions like assault are not protected speech. Free speech is most important to protect when it is offensive or unpopular.

Most Offensive?... Seriously?...

Using the 1st Amendment, Explain that Conclusion.



peace...

The first Amendment, freedom of speech is to protect dissension, for at the time of it's writing, they were poignantly aware of the dangers censorship posed. If it weren't for pamphleteers, newspapermen and printers, the American revolution would never have occurred.

I'm not so stupid as to believe for a moment that dissent is the best way to show patriotism, I'm just saying that it is most important when there is a difference of opinion from a minority. There are limitations of course to free speech, but having an opposing opinion is not one of them... even if it is odious and deserves a boot to the head for even uttering it. Not to mention, words used to incite violence and cause confrontation are on very thin ice in that regard.

And on the record, I hope those bastards get the tar kicked out of them by an angry family one of these days for their disgusting protests.

The 1st Amendment is a Protection for US Against an Intrusive and Oppressive Government...

It Denies Congress the Ability to Pass Law that would Refuse us Redress of Grievance Against it...

It's NOT for Protecting one set of Private Citizens while they Incite and Harrass another...

The Supreme Court and Fucking Lawyers have done this to this REPUBLIC...



peace...

 

[Sheldon]

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.

My understanding is that the WBC followed all the time and place ordinances in this situation. The funeral convoy was made aware of the "church's" presence, and rerouted away from them, there was no interference in the actual service, and the dad wasn't even aware of the content of the signs until after the fact when he found out about it on the internet.

I think the way the law is written here is correct, and I believe the Court done right by not altering it.

I also suspect the court would have gone the other way if the WBC's signs had said something like, "Matthew Snyder is going to Hell for buttsecks" or something like that. But the WBC knows the law to a T, and they express their message so its broad enough to legally be nothing other than public/political commentary, not matter how trollish.

 

[Liability]

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.

Easy...you are taking two groups, one you like and one you dislike, and deciding that one group is more privileged than the other...even though neither is breaking a law.

The roll model thing was a joke...darn, I keep forgetting you have no sense of humor.

You are indeed a fucking imbecile, Ravi.

I did no such thing. Yes, I loathe the WBC scumbags. But I didn't decide that they should get fewer privileges, you idiot. In fact, if you had a functioning brain in that pinhead of yours, you might have noticed that I actually agreed with the majority (reluctantly, but still, there it is). My commentary on Alito's dissent was merely to note that he was not being irrational, either.

And the "'roll' model" thing was no joke. You are a dumbass, an illiterate and a liar. But enough of your finer qualities.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Supreme Court Rules for Westboro Baptist Church Funeral Protesters

Because you Know the Left wanted to Limit Free Speech for this Case...

And it's Universal outside of that Inbred Church...

They are Scum...

But the Irony is still Entertaining.



peace...

Good to see they got one right. I wonder how those progressives are gong to react to agreeing with Alito,

 

[Liability]

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.

My understanding is that the WBC followed all the time and place ordinances in this situation. The funeral convoy was made aware of the "church's" presence, and rerouted away from them, there was no interference in the actual service, and the dad wasn't even aware of the content of the signs until after the fact when he found out about it on the internet.

I think the way the law is written here is correct, and I believe the Court done right by not altering it.

I also suspect the court would have gone the other way if the WBC's signs had said something like, "Matthew Snyder is going to Hell for buttsecks" or something like that. But the WBC knows the law to a T, and they express their message so its broad enough to legally be nothing other than public/political commentary, not matter how trollish.

According to the majority opinion, which cited to the established appellate record, the WBC scumbags DID comply with the "reasonable restrictions" which were then in effect. And I agree with you that if the WBC scumbags had violated those precise restrictions, the lower court determination would not have reversed the judgment in Snyder's favor. And the SCOTUS would probably have also let that stand. But since the WBC scumbags DID comply, that left the issue as one fitting the more difficult "matter of law" dimension.

It's easy to hate the WBC scumbags. It's easier yet to feel horrible for Mr. Snyder. I sympathize with Alito's dissenting view.

But even so, as much as it grates my nerves, I cannot actually say that the majority screwed up.

There are some good arguments to be made on both sides.

Of course, that doesn't fit in with the "black or white false dichotomy" universe of schmucks like Ravi. Oh well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Supreme Court Rules for Westboro Baptist Church Funeral Protesters

Because you Know the Left wanted to Limit Free Speech for this Case...

And it's Universal outside of that Inbred Church...

They are Scum...

But the Irony is still Entertaining.



peace...

I think I agree with Justice Alito on this. I don't think the First Amendment right to free speech gives you the right to harass people. I appreciate that the cops made them stay 1,000 feet away from the church, and I appreciate that they did so. I don't, however, think that mitigates the fact that they were still harassing the deceased's family and friends.

If I stood on the sidewalk outside someone's house and shouting hateful epithets at them, I'd be arrested, and rightly so, First Amendment or no. I think the same should be true of Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As much as I hate the Westboro Baptist Church, and as sick and twisted as I think they are, I do think they have the right to do what they do (as long as they follow the law, and remain 1,000 feet away, and are non-violent).

I think the law should provide private citizens more protection against harassment than just 1,000 feet, frankly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They're engaging in "political speech" with the intention of harassing and harming private citizens. If I come stand outside your house and scream, "God hates fags!" at the top of my lungs over and over, I may be engaging in "political speech" - however moronically - but you're still going to call the cops and have me arrested. And they WILL arrest me for it.

It would be one thing if they were protesting the church itself for whatever reason. It's another when you're protesting private citizens. I think Alito was right, and I think people in this country - the Justices included - have become so inflamed with hyper-awareness of "rights" that they tend to forget the responsibilities inherent to those rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

While one does NOT have the right to not be offended, one DOES have the right not to be harassed. Offended is when Mr. Snyder turns on his television set and sees a news report on the Westboro Shitheads saying ugly things, and turns it off in disgust. Harassment is when he can't conduct a funeral for his dead son in peace without having their putrid excreta forced on him, with no reasonable way to avoid it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As much as I hate to agree with the Supreme Court, I would also like to see the first Amendment be used to protect those who mete out the CONSEQUENCES (A damn good beating) on those who are protested or infuriated by this foul use of free speech.

But, actions like assault are not protected speech. Free speech is most important to protect when it is offensive or unpopular.

Perhaps we could return the First Amendment favor by staging a protest 1,000 feet from the Westboro Shitheads' "pastor's" home (I refuse to dignify that piece of human debris with that title for real) and shout, "God hates bigots!" for hours on end. One good harassment deserves another.

 

[Trajan]

I have to agree with the courts decision. As much as it its distasteful as to the reality on the ground, you don't have a right not to be offended by speech or call to gag someone elses because you don't like it. It would never end.

The tragedy here ( other than those walking pustules breath air) is the father is on the hook for 100k in legal bills as in court costs. I think I heard that O'reilly is going to pony that up for him, if the guy has a fund I will certainly contribute.

 

[Ravi]

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.

While one does NOT have the right to not be offended, one DOES have the right not to be harassed. Offended is when Mr. Snyder turns on his television set and sees a news report on the Westboro Shitheads saying ugly things, and turns it off in disgust. Harassment is when he can't conduct a funeral for his dead son in peace without having their putrid excreta forced on him, with no reasonable way to avoid it.

This reminds me...

Liarbility, when do we have protection against being offended? Being offended is not the same as being harassed or slandered...

 

[Liability]

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.

While one does NOT have the right to not be offended, one DOES have the right not to be harassed. Offended is when Mr. Snyder turns on his television set and sees a news report on the Westboro Shitheads saying ugly things, and turns it off in disgust. Harassment is when he can't conduct a funeral for his dead son in peace without having their putrid excreta forced on him, with no reasonable way to avoid it.

This reminds me...

Liarbility, when do we have protection against being offended? Being offended is not the same as being harassed or slandered...

Ravi, with a brain as highly developed as yours, it's a wonder you can even breathe.