Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Worse than an absolutist, I'm a lawyer. Now THAT is controversial. Anyway, I was giving a legal spin, not so much a personal one, though personally I support more free speech, not less. And I find that Jewish judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg's delcared distinction between "free speech" and "hate speech" to be very, very, very dangerous. In other words, "hate speech" is what she doesn't like, "free speech" is what she does. Bad, very bad.
In response to your question, all these things are likely protected, though the Supreme Court has set up "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech. So, one foot from the door of an abortion clinic might be restricted to 100 feet, same for entering a church, same for 2 a.m yelling in Harlem (too loud, wakes people up).
“Time, Place, and Manner” That sounds good. Practically all things should be considered in moderation. There are few absolutes. Very few things are black-and-white. It all comes down to where we feel that we should draw the line.
You miss the part of his comment that referred to the "jewish judge"?
Or is that ok?
Someone should really remind him, though that, as a lawyer, he should know that Ruth doesn't decide anything on her own. She's only one of nine.
But whatever....
Point taken.
Gotta watch him. He's intelligent so you might forget what a venal piece of work he is.
But nothing he says should be given serious consideratoin without calling him on the racism explicit in each one. At least that's my opinion. I can't tell anyone else what to do. I just know what I think is right.
I agree. That these hatemongers call themselves Christians annoys the hell out of me.
The First amendment has never protected people so as to allow them to invade privacy and intentionally cause emotional distress. (Nor a number of other things, but these are the two main issues in the case).
Quite honestly, if the court ruled any other way it would set a precedent that totally destroyed the need for torts of invasion of privacy and emotional distress.
And I find that Jewish judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg's delcared distinction between "free speech" and "hate speech" to be very, very, very dangerous. In other words, "hate speech" is what she doesn't like, "free speech" is what she does. Bad, very bad.
HOLD ON THERE!
First, the cause of action for "emotional distress" is as young as yesterday in the law. In fact, the law HATED IT, DOES HATE IT and probably WILL HATE IT. I can guarantee you it does not show up in Blackstone. Any lawyer will tell you that it's hard to make out a case based on that. Free speech has an older and sturdier pedigree. I am sure that if you polled Madison & Co. on which value was more important - free speech or freedom from hurt feelings - they'd laugh and ask what land you come from.
The fact is that true free speech is pretty much tied to emotional distress. If the target isn't feeling any, you're not really saying much, are you? "The weather sure is nice today" needs no protection. "You are an incompetent mayor and the biggest fool ever to hold power in this state" DOES need protection.
Ditto "invasion of privacy," another dubious tort that isn't actually hurt by free speech.
Yet another example of a society that's gone soft. Phelps is a nutter, and if I were that dad, I'd probably want to put a bullet in his head. But he may have a point about the death-causing consequences of decadence. Our nation had hardier beginnings. Now we eat cheez whiz and cry like babies whenever some "offends" us. What a joke.
...which is an easy position to claim when handing out the limitations....
however, the nanosecond you feel personally limited...
oh.. you mean like how mccarthy could rationalize witch hunting commies?
gotcha.
..and I guess yours is the lighthouse by which we get to navigate that grey area too, right?
*yawn*
