Why we do not need to restrict free speech to shut down WBC

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Quantum Windbag, Oct 7, 2010.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    A lot of people think there are only tow ways to deal with something. The right way to deal with the idiots that make up the WBC is to allow them to say whatever they want, secure in the knowledge that we, as a country, are not represented by them.

    The wrong way is to pass laws in an attempt to limit "hate" speech, or hope that the Supreme Court finds some twisted logic to justify shutting them down.

    The American way is to step out and who them, and the people they are protesting, how we feel about them.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6gneH1DRU[/ame]

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10T_Ih222E[/ame]

    We don't need the government to protect us from hate.
     
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    I think an SC ruling on where speech becomes harassment might be helpful though. I dunno. It's a very, very hard one. I don't want free speech curtailed, but I also loathe the actions of these guys.... and those that harass women going into abortion clinics. There are better ways to speak your mind than to scream like banshees at ordinary people going about their private business.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    Let them say what they want.
    And let a jury decide if they are liable for their speech.
    That is what this case is about. There is nothing in this case about laws against hate speech. This case is 100% about an appeal of a jury verdict and an overturning of that jury verdict by a Federal court.
    Right wing screams like monkeys on fire when Federal courts overturn rulings and verdicts all the time but this time they remain silent.
     
  4. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Absolutely.
     
  5. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    I agree with you, Quantum Windbag, and so do most legal commentators I have read. There doesn't seem to be any novel con law question presented on these facts and it's a puzzler why the SCOTUS took the cert.

     
  6. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    So handle them the same way we handle the freaks that harass women going into clinics - establish a mandatory buffer zone around the site and let them spew whatever they want from outside that perimeter.

    It worked in the Snyder case. The WBC assholes were kept a few hundred yards away, they got to wave their little signs and the family never even knew they were there.
     
  7. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Have you read the 4th Circuit opinion and the transcript of yesterday's questioning? It seems the Court is looking at whether the 4th Circuit was correct in disregarding the public v. private nature of the individuals and event and focusing on the type of speech instead. There's also a side issue of amicus waivers. Interesting stuff if you haven't looked at it.
     
  8. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    I can see mebbe clarifying when someone becomes a "public figure" for purposes of libel and slander law -- but even that is a stretch, as I am not persuaded anything the WBC wrote on its signs or shouted at passers by could be legally regarded as libelous.

    Beyond that, I am not convinced the SCOTUS can find anything new to say about the First Amendment on these facts. "Harrassment" is a matter of criminalizing conduct, not speech.....I doubt the Synder family could have filed a police report on the WBC for any harrassment type crime in connection with their son's funeral.

    How can a reasonable person be "put in fear, etc." by a protest they were not aware of until the paper reported on it the next day?
     
  9. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    The attorney for the church is the daughter of the nut case pastor.
    The public v. private nature is THE argument for the church as the ruling in the Jerry Fallwell v. Hustler case is what they are hanging their entire argument on.
    How they can claim the father of the soldier is a public figure is absurd. That is the entire case. The father IS NOT a public figure and is a private citizen.
    The jury verdict must stand.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  10. Madeline
    Offline

    Madeline BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,505
    Thanks Received:
    1,624
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland. Feel mah pain.
    Ratings:
    +1,624
    No, may I have a link? I wonder where they are going with this...sure sounds like libel and slander is gonna get refined, eh?
     

Share This Page