US Supreme Court Pisses on Dead US Soldiers

[kwc57]

The supremes voted 8 - 1 to disrespect dead US servicemen and in favor of talking ass-wipes. Not only that, but the dead soldiers family needs to pay for the ass-wipes' legal fees. They gave a son's life to defend the USSC and the US, and only Alito got the opinion right.

Westboro Funeral Pickets Are Protected Speech, High Court Rules - FoxNews.com

Lets do a poll on who got it right, Alito or the pukes.

That darned old Constitution, it's a bitch ain't it?

 

[Dr.Drock]

They aren't doing it for free speech. The location of the protests is clearly to cause harm, not to speak their mind.

Everyone on the planet has said things to cause harm to someone mentally, let's not make government step in and regulate real life dialogue, it's bad enough we have them regulate every word in every form of media.

So you don't see any gap between everyone having said something to cause harm to someone else at some time and protesting in the face of a grieving family to be obnoxious?

Out of curiosity which extreme do you take it? Would you take out a gun and shoot someone who cut in line in front of you at Starbucks or if you were in a restaurant and a waiter poisoned your family would you just not tip them?

Look at all the suicides in america, I'm sure lots of those are caused by things people have said. Words that contribute to death aren't as bad as being obnoxious, but I don't want people to be banned from insulting people who could later commit suicide.

A terrible comparison. You're the one asking for revolutionary changes and limitations to free speech, I'm asking government to not FURTHER regulate an already way-over regulated issue, speech.

 

[kwc57]

Protecting funerals for military personnel against protesters is hardly a crack in the 1st Amendment. There should be limits of 1-mile or more, then they could have all the free speech they want. Its not the speech, its disrespecting the dead soldiers.
Keep the speech, but put a large enough buffer to protect the rights of privacy of others.

Perhaps we could get talk radio required to broadcast at one decibel too.

 

[kaz]

I object to the poll question. Not allowing them to protest at a funeral is no restriction on free speech. They have the ability to say what they are saying anywhere that protesters can go protest. Their selection is driven not by the right to speak up but to cause harm. Since preventing them from causing that harm does not restrict their right to say what they want to say or be heard in any way, it has nothing to do with "free speech."

If someone followed you around with a bull horn all day blasting your ears and saying you're an ass I would hope the police could stop them from harassing you. They are free to say you are an ass anywhere else. They are doing it with a bullhorn right by you to be obnoxious and you should be protected from that.

 

[JBeukema]

This is the best troll threads I've seen in a while

 

[kaz]

This is the best troll threads I've seen in a while

You've made it complete...

 

[kyzr]

This is the best troll threads I've seen in a while

You've made it complete...

Grammatically challenged Beu???

Rendell said on a talk show that when at a rally when there are posters with something that will look bad in the MSM they have them removed...

Case in point about the protesters at funerals, if the pols can have protesters removed, why can't dead US soldiers have a solemn funeral??? Free speech is free speech...except that some occasions are "more equal" than others.