19 Dec 07
1 edit
I found this link on the "Spiritual" forum, think it belongs here. I was stunned at the number of people who were defending what these morons did and argued that the jury verdict was inappropriate and unconstitutional. Seems like a clear cut case of people abusing their right to free speech, and I'm glad they got hammered for it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI really struggle with this one. On the one hand, I'm a hardcore First Amendment defender. On the other hand, these people are so repugnant that I put them right on the level with child molesters. The First Amendment isn't designed to protect speech you like. It's designed to protect people from arrest for protesting against the government. So on one level the intellectual level - it's designed exactly for this purpose and for these people. On the other hand, I'd hurt them. I'd hurt them all very badly.
I found this link on the "Spiritual" forum, think it belongs here. I was stunned at the number of people who were defending what these morons did and argued that the jury verdict was inappropriate and unconstitutional. Seems like a clear cut case of people abusing their right to free speech, and I'm glad they got hammered for it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIf you allow exceptions to the basic amendment, does that mean that more exceptions can be made? On all forms of issues?
I found this link on the "Spiritual" forum, think it belongs here. I was stunned at the number of people who were defending what these morons did and argued that the jury verdict was inappropriate and unconstitutional. Seems like a clear cut case of people abusing their right to free speech, and I'm glad they got hammered for it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI've always said that the Right to Speech is balanced by the much-less-well-publicized Right Not to Listen -- a variation on the right to privacy which unfortunately is NOT enshrined in the US Constitution.
I found this link on the "Spiritual" forum, think it belongs here. I was stunned at the number of people who were defending what these morons did and argued that the jury verdict was inappropriate and unconstitutional. Seems like a clear cut case of people abusing their right to free speech, and I'm glad they got hammered for it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031
To me, this group violated the family's right to peace and quiet -- egregiously so because they did it in their time of grief.
The punishment is deserved.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by spruce112358My dad always said, "My rights end where your nose begins." And by extension, you can say whatever you want. But I don't have to listen to it.
I've always said that the Right to Speech is balanced by the much-less-well-publicized Right Not to Listen -- a variation on the right to privacy which unfortunately is NOT enshrined in the US Constitution.
To me, this group violated the family's right to peace and quiet -- egregiously so because they did it in their time of grief.
The punishment is deserved.
On the other hand, institutions like the government MUST listen to what ANYONE has to say. Governments do not have a right to privacy the same as a citizen does (or should).
19 Dec 07
5 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirThe right to free speech is not absolute, never has been. "Exceptions" as you call them were recognized from the start and have been identified in court cases that further developed the idea of what the 1st amendment's vague language meant. It's that way with the constitution in general, it's meant to be interpreted according to the circumstances and changing times, part of the genius behind the document is it's maleability. What is considered just and reasonable can change according to the specific circumstances.
If you allow exceptions to the basic amendment, does that mean that more exceptions can be made? On all forms of issues?
So to answer your question, yes. Free speech doesn't mean you have the unconditional right to say anything anytime anywhere to anybody , the framers of the constitution certainly didn't mean that was considered OK. Common sense is required.
Going to a funeral and cheering the death of someone's child as the grief stricken parents sit at the grave was not showing common sense. If we don't censure behaviour like that, what's next?
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamDoes this same go for the right to bare arms?
The right to free speech is not absolute, never has been. "Exceptions" as you call them were recognized from the start and have been identified in court cases that further developed the idea of what the 1st amendment's vague language meant. It's that way with the constitution in general, it's meant to be interpreted according to the circumstances and ch ...[text shortened]... the constitution certainly didn't mean that was considered OK. Common sense is required.
19 Dec 07
I don't see this as a free-speech issue. The church could easily choose to protest in a public place (like in a park or public area away from cemetaries), or present their ideas in a newsletter or pamphlet of website, which I'm sure they do... so their ideas are not being stifled- their free speech is not being curtailed. the church is compelled by the filth within to harrass the families of fallen soldiers for publicicty for their idiotic ideas- but their ideas are seperate from the harrassment. I say stick em for the harassment- and hopefully 10 million will break them.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Darth SpongeExactly. That's the point the "free speech" advocates are willfully being thick-witted about. Nobody has told these jerks that they can't say what they're saying. Just don't do it at a funeral and devastate the parents while they bury their child. It's so obvious.
I don't see this as a free-speech issue. The church could easily choose to protest in a public place (like in a park or public area away from cemetaries), or present their ideas in a newsletter or pamphlet of website, which I'm sure they do... so their ideas are not being stifled- their free speech is not being curtailed. the church is compelled by th ...[text shortened]... the harrassment. I say stick em for the harassment- and hopefully 10 million will break them.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamAs pointed out in the other thread, the protestors were hundreds of feet from the funeral on public property. You really need to do some rudimentary research before you reach such erroneous conclusions; I'd give a high school student an "F" for being as sloppy as you have been.
Exactly. That's the point the "free speech" advocates are willfully being thick-witted about. Nobody has told these jerks that they can't say what they're saying. Just don't do it at a funeral and devastate the parents while they bury their child. It's so obvious.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIt seems to me if you can bend one amendment, you can bend another as well...
No, not at all, I can run around downtown with a machinegun anytime I want. I carry an assault rifle to school too.
And if one way of bending is fine, then surely another way of bending is just as favourable?
19 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"Hundreds of feet". You mean like 70 yards? Obviously not far enough to not be a nuisance.
As pointed out in the other thread, the protestors were hundreds of feet from the funeral on public property. You really need to do some rudimentary research before you reach such erroneous conclusions; I'd give a high school student an "F" for being as sloppy as you have been.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamHow about a 1000 feet?
"Hundreds of feet". You mean like 70 yards? Obviously not far enough to not be a nuisance.
"Snyder testified that he never saw the content of the signs as he entered and left St. John's on the day of his son's funeral," and recall that the signs were 1000 feet away from the church.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_04-2007_11_10.shtml#1194480175
People's opinions you don't like are always a nuisance.