US Supreme Court Pisses on Dead US Soldiers

[jillian]

The court got this one wrong. Alto is correct there are multiple avenues for this WBC to conduct their Free Speech. (Free speech in their case = hate speech)

And they could do it without the disrespect they show to our heroes and their families.

I will say it again; If they ever show up at a funeral where I am attending as an honor Guard or Color guard, someone will need to come downtown and pay my bail.

I hate the fact that those animals get to harass the families of dead soldiers (or anyone else) and I think they deserve a huge butt-kicking whereever they show up. that said, and it pains me to say it, the decision was correct. free speech doesn't mean speech we like. in fact, if we like it, it doesn't need to be protected at all because no one tries to impede the things they like.

as for the poster who hypothesized that the westboro pieces of garbage are a left-wing plant, you know, that's just retarded. and it's getting really boring watching certain types of poster assign everything they dislike to "the left".

absolutely, totally.... retarded.

So justice Thomas got it right?

even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

he does what scalia does, generally.

 

[Intense]

I am against all hate speech morally, but I don't want one word of hate speech silenced governmentally. Like others have said, this viewpoint is anti-freedom of speech.

Like in this thread, we have some posters angry about this form of hate speech, but pretty much daily practice their own version of hate speech towards people who have a different religion or sexuality.

Don't read too much into this, but in the future if I'm worried about a family members funeral being picketed or ruined by these religious wackos I'll have the service inside and be buried somewhere they can't get to. I'M IN NO WAY SAYING IT'S THE SOLDIER'S FAMILY'S FAULT, but there's easier ways of fixing this problem than asking for even more government regulation on social issues.

An easy+peaceful solution for those people who are angry about this is to disrupt everything Westboro does. When they have a sermon protest outside making so much noise you ruin it. Fill their parking lots with your cars before they come, everyone has their limits but putting yourself in jail over something stupid like Westboro is pointless (although again like others have said, most ppl on here are just message board tough guys).

There are better ways than fighting Tantrum with Tantrum, try applying reason and common sense. There are allot more options than you admit to.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I am against all hate speech morally, but I don't want one word of hate speech silenced governmentally. Like others have said, this viewpoint is anti-freedom of speech.

Like in this thread, we have some posters angry about this form of hate speech, but pretty much daily practice their own version of hate speech towards people who have a different religion or sexuality.

Don't read too much into this, but in the future if I'm worried about a family members funeral being picketed or ruined by these religious wackos I'll have the service inside and be buried somewhere they can't get to. I'M IN NO WAY SAYING IT'S THE SOLDIER'S FAMILY'S FAULT, but there's easier ways of fixing this problem than asking for even more government regulation on social issues.

An easy+peaceful solution for those people who are angry about this is to disrupt everything Westboro does. When they have a sermon protest outside making so much noise you ruin it. Fill their parking lots with your cars before they come, everyone has their limits but putting yourself in jail over something stupid like Westboro is pointless (although again like others have said, most ppl on here are just message board tough guys).

There are better ways than fighting Tantrum with Tantrum, try applying reason and common sense. There are allot more options than you admit to.

"but there's easier ways of fixing this problem than asking for even more government regulation on social issues."

I wasn't listing every possible reason I could think of, just a couple, obviously there's probably thousands of other ways to get the point across legally.

 

[Intense]

I hate the fact that those animals get to harass the families of dead soldiers (or anyone else) and I think they deserve a huge butt-kicking whereever they show up. that said, and it pains me to say it, the decision was correct. free speech doesn't mean speech we like. in fact, if we like it, it doesn't need to be protected at all because no one tries to impede the things they like.

as for the poster who hypothesized that the westboro pieces of garbage are a left-wing plant, you know, that's just retarded. and it's getting really boring watching certain types of poster assign everything they dislike to "the left".

absolutely, totally.... retarded.

So justice Thomas got it right?

even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

he does what scalia does, generally.

Digital Clocks are not generally right twice a day when they malfunction.

I don't even view this as a Censorship issue at all, but one of respectable distance.

What is your position on no honking zones Jillian??? What would be your stance if a fatal accident resulted from someone hesitating to use their horn?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

Dumbest sentence I've ever read.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

And an act of desperation.

 

[konradv]

But I respect their right to freedom of speech. Just like the right to collective bargain, the government gives those rights to everyone.

My rights don't come from the government and there is no right to collective bargain. That's a privilege.

If rights don't come from the government, where do they come from? In the natural world without government your only right, if I'm stronger than you, is to wait patiently until I'm finished eating YOUR kill, so you can have the scraps. There certainly is a right to collective bargaining. Legislatures have granted it since the 30s. Calling it a privilege is just playing with words.

 

[jillian]

So justice Thomas got it right?

even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

he does what scalia does, generally.

Digital Clocks are not generally right twice a day when they malfunction.

I don't even view this as a Censorship issue at all, but one of respectable distance.

What is your position on no honking zones Jillian??? What would be your stance if a fatal accident resulted from someone hesitating to use their horn?

even in a no honking zone, you can honk in an emergency.

i'm not sure how you can not see that it's a free speech issue. all 9 justices clearly did.

there are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on commercial speech as well.

 

[kaz]

you dont like free speech when it's speech you dont like?

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

 

[Dr.Drock]

you dont like free speech when it's speech you dont like?

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.

 

[Sheldon]

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

Are you implying that the WBC signs etc are hate speech, and exempt from 1st protections? If so, I'm not so sure about that.

My understanding is that, legally, for speech to be hate speech it has to directly incite violence towards those that are the target of the speech.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

Are you implying that the WBC signs etc are hate speech, and exempt from 1st protections? If so, I'm not so sure about that.

My understanding is that, legally, for speech to be hate speech it has to directly incite violence towards those that are the target of the speech.

The SC decision was correct.
I do not support to notion of hate crimes hate speech or other nanny state ideas.

 

[Intense]

even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

he does what scalia does, generally.

Digital Clocks are not generally right twice a day when they malfunction.

I don't even view this as a Censorship issue at all, but one of respectable distance.

What is your position on no honking zones Jillian??? What would be your stance if a fatal accident resulted from someone hesitating to use their horn?

even in a no honking zone, you can honk in an emergency.

i'm not sure how you can not see that it's a free speech issue. all 9 justices clearly did.

there are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on commercial speech as well.

even in a no honking zone, you can honk in an emergency.

Yes, that was added in because of the harm it caused, still, concerning accidents that happen because of hesitation, because of the signs, it is an issue.

My position is adequate distance is the solution, not censoring speech, not subjecting Mourners to undue pain and hardship, during a burial service, because of political correctness. There is a distinction between Free Speech and Harassment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I hate those bastards. They hate me as a liberal, I meant them while in school. They are really no one's friend.

But I respect their right to freedom of speech. Just like the right to collective bargain, the government gives those rights to everyone. You can't take them away because you hate someone's opinion. If they obey the police perimeters, protest peacefully with no violence, they should have the right to do it.

The WBC does not have the right to bargain, collectively or otherwise.

The point is government can give rights and then take them away. I don't like taking away anyone's rights. Because just like that Nazi quote can't think of the name but it went like this:

"I didn't speak up for the Jews, because I wasn't Jewish; then they came for me, but no one was around to speak up for me."

That quote makes me stick up for others because when I need someone to stick up for me, I will have people that will. Like I said, I met them in college. They were protesting, I tried to have a reasonable conversation, yeah didn't happen. But they don't like anybody to be honest. But I will defend their right to say it.

The government cannot give you any rights, they exist witt, or without, the cooperation of the government. If they did not, no one would be saying a word about Qaddafi killing the people in Libya, because he is the government, and can kill them if he wants.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener’s inability to offer an intelligent response.

Dumbest sentence I've ever read.

You are young and new here.

 

[kaz]

you dont like free speech when it's speech you dont like?

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?

 

[JBeukema]

WBC has as much right to be bigots and assholes as Al Sharpton and the KKK

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How fucked up is Alito? He ruled against free speech...what a justice he is.

How fucked up is Alito? He ruled against free speech...what a justice he is.

Alito's words - But in staking out his lone dissent, Alito suggested that when publicly offensive speech is also -- and perhaps primarily -- personally painful, the Constitution doesn't protect it.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote.

The article is here- Westboro Baptist Church Ruling: Dissenting Justice Samuel Alito Draws Free Speech Line

Not only that but we have never had absolutely free and unrestricted speech. For one thing, we cannot threaten others. "Free speech" has always been limited and should be. The question is, "is this one of those times"? The other eight felt that it was not the time while Alito felt that it was.

I struggle with this question because, I think WBC is a bunch of assholes (and that is coming from a Christian) but then again, as long as they are not hurting others, we should continue to guarantee their right to be assholes.

I like the idea of a buffer zone between them... the bigger the zone, the better.

Immie

They were 1000 feet away because there was a buffer zone imposed on them. A perfectly reasonable, and constitutional, restriction.

 

[Sheldon]

Digital Clocks are not generally right twice a day when they malfunction.

I don't even view this as a Censorship issue at all, but one of respectable distance.

What is your position on no honking zones Jillian??? What would be your stance if a fatal accident resulted from someone hesitating to use their horn?

even in a no honking zone, you can honk in an emergency.

i'm not sure how you can not see that it's a free speech issue. all 9 justices clearly did.

there are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on commercial speech as well.

even in a no honking zone, you can honk in an emergency.

Yes, that was added in because of the harm it caused, still, concerning accidents that happen because of hesitation, because of the signs, it is an issue.

My position is adequate distance is the solution, not censoring speech, not subjecting Mourners to undue pain and hardship, during a burial service, because of political correctness. There is a distinction between Free Speech and Harassment.

And that's where the OP's poll got it all wrong. The majority decision--or, pukes --didn't say there's no limits on free speech. In fact, Roberts explicitly pointed out that 44 states and the Feds have recent laws on their books buffering protests from funeral services--and that if these regulations are content neutral they can be constitutional. That's the nuance here, something the OP just glossed over completely.