I read earlier today that the Supreme Court made their ruling in the Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church (if you can call that screwed up family a church), and they ruled that WBC was exercising their right to free speech.
Now, I understand and stand behind the First Amendment. I fully believe in everyone's right to speak their opinion. But I also believe that these grieving families have the right to grieve in private, without some outrageous, publicity hungry "church" standing around spewing their version of religion.
I noticed in the article I read about it that journalists and various media outlets were hoping the Supreme Court would rule in favor of WBC, because anything else would be limiting free speech and thus put the media at risk of being censored.
While I can sort of see their point, although in my opinion it's kind of weak, here's what I'm really wondering: I was searching for any instances where the Supreme Court has ruled that something someone said or printed was not protected under free speech. And as I was searching, the thought occurred to me that when you testify in court, you are put under oath with the understanding that if you lie, you are commiting perjury and are subject to prosecution.
I'm thinking...wouldn't that be restricting free speech? I mean, granted lying is wrong, but if we're going to argue that free speech is completely unlimited, then it would seem that telling someone they must tell the truth or face legal consequences would be against that.
Please understand that I'm not saying that we should allow people to lie on the stand, I have no problem with the oath and the potential consequences for someone lies. But I'm just thinking that the argument that saying WBC can't do/say what they're doing and saying would put others at risk of losing their right to free speech really doesn't wash if we limit free speech by telling someone they can't lie on the stand.
Or another example...we can tell telemarketers and other businesses to put us on their do not call list. Wouldn't that violate their right to free speech? Or asking someone to leave your home because you don't like the language they use?
Again, I'm not saying I agree with those examples, but just wondering what other people's thoughts are.
I also think that I should be able to say whatever I want to the morons at WBC. I'd love to stand next to the females and make derogatory comments about the things I'd do to them in bed, but that would be considered sexual harassment.
I wonder if it would be possible to prosecute each sign carrier individually? Certainly their signs about "fags" would be considered sexual harassment.
These people disgust me. A friend of mine went to a counter protest at a local college. The signs they held were the best. "Where's Waldo?" "God hates Figs!" "This is a sign!"
I think they had it right. Countering ridiculous nonsense with more of the same made a fabulous statement.
I also think that I should be able to say whatever I want to the morons at WBC. I'd love to stand next to the females and make derogatory comments about the things I'd do to them in bed, but that would be considered sexual harassment.
I wonder if it would be possible to prosecute each sign carrier individually? Certainly their signs about "fags" would be considered sexual harassment.
These people disgust me. A friend of mine went to a counter protest at a local college. The signs they held were the best. "Where's Waldo?" "God hates Figs!" "This is a sign!"
I think they had it right. Countering ridiculous nonsense with more of the same made a fabulous statement.
I agree and disagree with the ruling. I know that they have to protect free speech. But it just really irks me that these people can get away with disrespecting these families and these soldiers who gave their lives, or any of the other people whose funerals they've picketed for no good reason other than to spread their hate.
I don't know...I think I'm going to exercise MY right to free speech here and say that I hope that church gets struck by lightning and burns to the ground, with all it's members in it.
I heard this on the news tonite. It incensed me. I am on the fence as to whether the Supreme Court's ruling was right.
Those idiots protested at the funeral of a local young man. This is a town of about 30-35,000(I don't live in this town, but a rural area around it). I'll tell you what happened. The local media (one itty bitty newspaper, that's way overpriced ) let it be known that they were coming. And people turned out enmasse. They formed a human chain for blocks to keep the protesters from getting anywhere near the family. Yes, the family knew they were there. But they never saw nor heard them. They had to stand waaaay off. And when they started their chanting, a local motorcycle group, BACA (bikers against child abuse) started revving up their engines, effectively drowning them out.
What I'm NOT proud of is whomever slashed the tires of the protesters. THAT is not the way to handle this, IMHO. In addition,the local business owners refused to sell them new tires (walmart to the rescue). Locally owned restaurants refused to serve them. Even some of the locally owned convenience stores refused service. They wouldn't sell them gas. They were exercising their right to refuse service to anyone they wanted. They were escorted out of town by police escort. I'd heard that BACA had blocked some exits and entrances off and on the highway, though I'm not sure about that. Could've been rumor. I didn't get there that early, so I didn't see evidence of that.
I am proud to say that I took my son out of school for the day, so we could to stand in line and join hands with the others trying to keep these hate mongers out. Many children were there that day. Many Vets...and people in every shape, size and color as well. We weren't countering them with "religion" (though some were, of course..this IS the Bible Belt after all), but with empathy and sympathy for the grieving family. It had a profound effect on my 10yo son.
What I don't understand is when "free speech" is allowed to inflict pain on someone else. But then you could get into all the magazines and newspapers who report on, let's say..the celebrities. Surely that causes pain to them. Where do you draw the line?
Maybe I'm biased, b/c I come from a line of people who have served. My father served in WW2, the Korean War, and part of the Vietnam War. Both of his brothers served, one having lost a leg. All 3 retired from the military. Both men I married had been in the service, my first husband was active Air Force when we married. My oldest daughter enlisted, and was injured severely in boot camp and they medically discharged her against her will. She was in boot camp when 9/11 happened. I still remember the fear that day. So maybe my judgment is colored a bit.
It just seems so wrong that they're allowed to inflict pain. They can hoot and holler all they want, but they're HURTING people. People who are already devastated. I don't see how they sleep at night knowing they brought further pain upon a family that was already suffering. I'll never understand that.
And do you know what they sent to Small Town, Oklahoma to do their protesting for them? Two women and 4 kids in a minivan. Cowards. All of them.
I heard this on the news tonite. It incensed me. I am on the fence as to whether the Supreme Court's ruling was right.
Those idiots protested at the funeral of a local young man. This is a town of about 30-35,000(I don't live in this town, but a rural area around it). I'll tell you what happened. The local media (one itty bitty newspaper, that's way overpriced ) let it be known that they were coming. And people turned out enmasse. They formed a human chain for blocks to keep the protesters from getting anywhere near the family. Yes, the family knew they were there. But they never saw nor heard them. They had to stand waaaay off. And when they started their chanting, a local motorcycle group, BACA (bikers against child abuse) started revving up their engines, effectively drowning them out.
What I'm NOT proud of is whomever slashed the tires of the protesters. THAT is not the way to handle this, IMHO. In addition,the local business owners refused to sell them new tires (walmart to the rescue). Locally owned restaurants refused to serve them. Even some of the locally owned convenience stores refused service. They wouldn't sell them gas. They were exercising their right to refuse service to anyone they wanted. They were escorted out of town by police escort. I'd heard that BACA had blocked some exits and entrances off and on the highway, though I'm not sure about that. Could've been rumor. I didn't get there that early, so I didn't see evidence of that.
I am proud to say that I took my son out of school for the day, so we could to stand in line and join hands with the others trying to keep these hate mongers out. Many children were there that day. Many Vets...and people in every shape, size and color as well. We weren't countering them with "religion" (though some were, of course..this IS the Bible Belt after all), but with empathy and sympathy for the grieving family. It had a profound effect on my 10yo son.
What I don't understand is when "free speech" is allowed to inflict pain on someone else. But then you could get into all the magazines and newspapers who report on, let's say..the celebrities. Surely that causes pain to them. Where do you draw the line?
Maybe I'm biased, b/c I come from a line of people who have served. My father served in WW2, the Korean War, and part of the Vietnam War. Both of his brothers served, one having lost a leg. All 3 retired from the military. Both men I married had been in the service, my first husband was active Air Force when we married. My oldest daughter enlisted, and was injured severely in boot camp and they medically discharged her against her will. She was in boot camp when 9/11 happened. I still remember the fear that day. So maybe my judgment is colored a bit.
It just seems so wrong that they're allowed to inflict pain. They can hoot and holler all they want, but they're HURTING people. People who are already devastated. I don't see how they sleep at night knowing they brought further pain upon a family that was already suffering. I'll never understand that.
And do you know what they sent to Small Town, Oklahoma to do their protesting for them? Two women and 4 kids in a minivan. Cowards. All of them.
My grandfather was in WW2, I had 2 uncles in Vietnam (one was killed, the other came home), both of my parents were in the Army, my boyfriend was in the Navy, and I currently have a cousin in the Marines. I know all about bias.
I think the thing that gets me the most about this (aside from the fact that the Supreme Court has decided that the right to free speech is more important than a family's right to grieve quietly), is that they are a different branch, but they are still the government. And the government will send our military off to another country in a war that people still argue over whether or not it's valid, but when those same military members are killed fighting in that war, that same government won't show that they respect and appreciate what that soldier and his/her family gave by telling this church to back the f*ck off. And there were 48 states, 42 senators, and a bunch of veteran's groups that were telling the Court that they needed to rule in favor of the family. I really think that should have shown the Court that the people of this country want that church stopped. Maybe it goes against the First Amendment, but to me, telling them that they can say what they want, just not within X distance of a funeral, etc., isn't. It's showing some respect, and showing that these sacrifices matter.
Although I absolutely disagree with every single message that church sends, I know they do have free speech. But just as I have the right to tell someone to get off my property, out of my house, out of my car, or walk away when I disagree with them, these families should have that right too. And they don't. This church is taking that away from them, and that's just so wrong.
Larry Flint said something along the lines of "Take heart, if the rights of someone like me can be protected, then you are all safe" (totally paraphrasing, wish I could remember his quote off the top of my head LOL)
The point is for society to police itself, and the courts to protect our rights across the board. They are not there to dictate morals, but to protect rights... it's up to uss to figure out how not to accept the unacceptable. That's over simplifying but...
Larry Flint said something along the lines of "Take heart, if the rights of someone like me can be protected, then you are all safe" (totally paraphrasing, wish I could remember his quote off the top of my head LOL)
The point is for society to police itself, and the courts to protect our rights across the board. They are not there to dictate morals, but to protect rights... it's up to uss to figure out how not to accept the unacceptable. That's over simplifying but...
You're right. But that's kind of the problem. The families have the right to grieve and have a funeral (one that they don't have to alter the procession route for). I don't see how that right was protected.
Granted it's not a right that's written into the Constitution as free speech is, but...free speech can be limited when someone sues for defamation, and that's not written into the Constitution either.
You're right. But that's kind of the problem. The families have the right to grieve and have a funeral (one that they don't have to alter the procession route for). I don't see how that right was protected.
Granted it's not a right that's written into the Constitution as free speech is, but...free speech can be limited when someone sues for defamation, and that's not written into the Constitution either.
Just really have to wonder sometimes.
We are a nation of laws, and those laws protect enumerated rights (the bill of rights). That said, there is no mourning right. It may seem one of those natural rights, and maybe it is, but unless you can prove it, it's not protected (life liberty and happiness are the HARDEST as they are vague).
It may not seem right, and I will argue to my death the mistake in even putting the Bill of Rights into the constitution, but it is what it is now. Defamation has made it into the living constitution by due process of the Supreme Court (another oops in our history, but hey, we are stuck with it now HAHA)
It is not about what is "right" it is about what is protected under LAW... the rest is up to us.
There is a differences between free speech and hate speech. hate speech is an effective tool in oppressing people, silencing people and even inciting people to violence, and we should all be protected against it because it infringes on the rights of others to live peacefully.
There is a differences between free speech and hate speech. hate speech is an effective tool in oppressing people, silencing people and even inciting people to violence, and we should all be protected against it because it infringes on the rights of others to live peacefully.
I agree, but leagally it gets tricky. Hate speech needs to be doing something more than just saying, as in directing or being the direct cause of an action. It's just a tough legal fight that most are not going to bother with because it takes a lot to have a shot at winning in court. Again... not saying I think it is right, just pointing out why it is not faught in courts
I agree and disagree with the ruling. I know that they have to protect free speech. But it just really irks me that these people can get away with disrespecting these families and these soldiers who gave their lives, or any of the other people whose funerals they've picketed for no good reason other than to spread their hate.
I don't know...I think I'm going to exercise MY right to free speech here and say that I hope that church gets struck by lightning and burns to the ground, with all it's members in it.
They are pushing the right to free speech way too far. Yes, they have the right to protest, but that's pushing the limits. I think that when one of their congregation passes away a whole bunch of people should protest the funeral...wonder what they would say to that?
I'd heard that they're trying to make it so they can't protest for 2 hours before and 2 hours after a funeral. I'd like to see them push that timeline some...3 hours is good. Or longer.
At least then the family would be allowed to grieve in peace.
For me, although I abhor what they and others like them do...I'm afraid that once they start tampering with our Constitutional Rights, then nothing is safe anymore. I believe the government has an inability to act prudently in some situations. In my opinion. And just in case someone wants me to provide evidence for my last statement, I'll state now that that is just my opinion, and I've not the time nor the inclination to go searching for what it is that I would want.
I think in order to protect the Constitutional rights, but also protect those against others who intend harm, they're going to have to enact other laws. Each state their own.
I just sure wish that father had won his case, and the church devastated trying to pay him the millions of dollars they would have owed him. I can honestly see some laws changing over this group.
I think people who live close enough should protest every "worship" service the church has. But then, they'd probably get arrested on a noise complaint or something.
I think what it is I want to see is not so much the limitation of free speech, but...well, like I said before, I can remove someone from my home if they say something I disagree with or find offensive or whatever. I cannot go on private property and say whatever I want because they can have me arrested for trespass.
They can say what they want; we all disagree with what they say, but we all acknowledge their right to say it and show their ignorance. I do think that we can put limits on where they can be. Telling them they can't stand outside a funeral and protest...to me, that's not limiting their free speech. They can still protest, they just have to go somewhere else to do it. The same as I can ask someone to leave my home, these families should be able to tell this "church" to leave, and the "church" should be required to respect that.
And I totally agree with protesting at the funeral of a member of their family. I don't have a lot of money, but if I heard someone in that family died, I'd frigging sell my body if I had to to get the money to go and protest. LOL
Specific churches, funeral homes and cemeteries are free to impose certain restrictions, rules and guidelines of behavior within their property lines, and towns are free to impose certain restrictions on public assembly/loitering/disturbing the peace. Again, some things will be challenged there, but there are also things that cannot be challenged. THIS is where action needs to be taken as THIS is where the rights of the property owners will be protected against certain impositions of free speech.
People have to know how to play the game of law. Federal law will win out, and free speech is federally protected, BUT private property rights are equally protected...
It's a silly game, but at the same time, it is a silly game that does serve to protect all of our rights. It is not about changing the game, but being the better player. That said... the bast*rd preacher may be the son of satan, but he is good at the game and plays it to his advantage. The only way to beat him is to play it better (AND to get everyone and their mother to ignore the annoying little child seeking attention )
I think what it is I want to see is not so much the limitation of free speech, but...well, like I said before, I can remove someone from my home if they say something I disagree with or find offensive or whatever. I cannot go on private property and say whatever I want because they can have me arrested for trespass.
They can say what they want; we all disagree with what they say, but we all acknowledge their right to say it and show their ignorance. I do think that we can put limits on where they can be. Telling them they can't stand outside a funeral and protest...to me, that's not limiting their free speech. They can still protest, they just have to go somewhere else to do it. The same as I can ask someone to leave my home, these families should be able to tell this "church" to leave, and the "church" should be required to respect that.
And I totally agree with protesting at the funeral of a member of their family. I don't have a lot of money, but if I heard someone in that family died, I'd frigging sell my body if I had to to get the money to go and protest. LOL
On private land, say as a business (there is a difference between business and personal property in law) you can do things like prohibit language (like cussing), noise levels, picket signs, etc... BUT it is harder to limit things like the word fag, or what many call "hate" language simply because hate is subjective. Sure, burning crosses and swastikas are accepted objectively as "hate language", we have yet to solidify all offensive language as legally "hateful". Again, I hate it as much as anyone.. I am disgusted! I am just pointing out the trickiness of law vs morals in America. You DON'T want to legally impose laws, which is what happens when you tangle certain things up into free speech and the such. Fine lines... kind of like a "be careful what you wish for". There are things that can be legally done with this guy and his church, that later down the line will be turned into an extreme in the wrong direction, but precedent will make it impossible to stop.
Free Speech? 
) let it be known that they were coming. And people turned out enmasse. They formed a human chain for blocks to keep the protesters from getting anywhere near the family. Yes, the family knew they were there. But they never saw nor heard them. They had to stand waaaay off. And when they started their chanting, a local motorcycle group, BACA (bikers against child abuse) started revving up their engines, effectively drowning them out. 
I can honestly see some laws changing over this group. 
)
