Originally posted by Sam The ShamI find it somewhat ironic that you now want people to "shut up about it" when this thread is a resurrection of a thread in Spirituality that had become somewhat moribund. Maybe you should have "shut up about it" if you didn't want to hear contrary opinions.
If it's not overturned, then will you please shut up about it?
If it isn't overturned, then that decision would be a terrible blow to the 1st Amendment, so no, I wouldn't "shut up about it".
Originally posted by no1marauderi think that the exact placement of the "protests" is important. the question isn't about protests in a city While a funeral is going on Somewhere, but is it protected speech to protest a funeral directly, albeit 1000 ft away? it seems to me, in my webmedia ill informed analysis, that the Church is placing the protests in a position to harrass the families. otherwise, why not do it somewhere else? one could argue that the church has the right to harrass... or direct their protests at the families- but I still think that if they are really interested in getting their political/religious message out there, the church will find that the have many other options. in other words- they don't have to protest the funerals, but choose a confrontation with greiving families...
Why? Their "argument" is that God is punishing the US by killing off our soldiers because our laws are too lenient towards homosexuals. This is certainly a political and religious message. I have never heard that political and/or religious messages were banned from a city while a funeral was going on. As I pointed out, they were protesting a 1000 feet away on public property. How is this "invading the family's private time"?
and I realize this is a particularly dangerous issue, as all protests could be seen by some as harrassment... so I think that funerals should have special protections.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeOrange marches.
i think that the exact placement of the "protests" is important. the question isn't about protests in a city While a funeral is going on Somewhere, but is it protected speech to protest a funeral directly, albeit 1000 ft away? it seems to me, in my webmedia ill informed analysis, that the Church is placing the protests in a position to harrass the fam ...[text shortened]... be seen by some as harrassment... so I think that funerals should have special protections.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeIt's not up to you or the government to decide where, as a tactical matter, people decide to have protests. In point of fact, Snyder never even saw the group's signs that day. But even if he had; so what? Perhaps the group thinks it will get more media attention that way. Even parents of dead soldiers aren't entitled to muzzle opinions they don't like.
i think that the exact placement of the "protests" is important. the question isn't about protests in a city While a funeral is going on Somewhere, but is it protected speech to protest a funeral directly, albeit 1000 ft away? it seems to me, in my webmedia ill informed analysis, that the Church is placing the protests in a position to harrass the fam ...[text shortened]... be seen by some as harrassment... so I think that funerals should have special protections.
Funerals have the protection that they can't be directly interfered with and that is sufficient.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThey're protestant marches in Northern Ireland and they always march through catholic areas. Provoking is a part of nature.
could you elaborate? do they march at funerals, or just that some people regard their marches as harrassment?
Yes, one could argue that they should be banned or forced to reroute, but then we'll be forced to reroute away from a Nazi rally, which defeats the point of rallying against them.
And that's a route in history we really don't want to let happen again.
Originally posted by no1marauderi totally agree- so my question is, what constitutes direct interference? if the protestors are on the route to the funeral? if they are less than x ft away? how loud they are yelling?
It's not up to you or the government to decide where, as a tactical matter, people decide to have protests. In point of fact, Snyder never even saw the group's signs that day. But even if he had; so what? Perhaps the group thinks it will get more media attention that way. Even parents of dead soldiers aren't entitled to muzzle opinions they don't like. ...[text shortened]... als have the protection that they can't be directly interfered with and that is sufficient.
These people are gathering in a public place and expressing their opinion. They're not rioting, making threats of violence, or committing slander. They're expressing a religious opinion, which is absolutely within their first amendment rights. It might qualify as hate speech, but hate speech is still speech, and is totally legal in the US.
Also, eleven million dollars? Retarded. This is an example of the government trying to regulate speech just because it's unpopular, and a perfect demonstration of why we need the first amendment in the first place.
Originally posted by darthmixThis church has an anti gay agenda. They've protested at over 300 soldiers funerals. Their signs say "God hates fags". They portest at soldiers funerals because the US allows gays to join the military. Somehow this means (to them) that all the soldiers are gay. THIS IS HATE SPEECH! These people are low life scum bag HATERS. May they all get arrested, put in jail and get bung holed by big bubba. Sam is 100% right in his belief. CASE CLOSED.
These people are gathering in a public place and expressing their opinion. They're not rioting, making threats of violence, or committing slander. They're expressing a religious opinion, which is absolutely within their first amendment rights. It might qualify as hate speech, but hate speech is still speech, and is totally legal in the US.
Also, [i]eleve ...[text shortened]... unpopular, and a perfect demonstration of why we need the first amendment in the first place.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869You're missing the grander point smw6869.
This church has an anti gay agenda. They've protested at over 300 soldiers funerals. Their signs say "God hates fags". They portest at soldiers funerals because the US allows gays to join the military. Somehow this means (to them) that all the soldiers are gay. THIS IS HATE SPEECH! These people are low life scum bag HATERS. May they all get arrested, put in ...[text shortened]... ail and get bung holed by big bubba. Sam is 100% right in his belief. CASE CLOSED.
GRANNY.
Take a step back from what you think is right and wrong. Look at what's going on. Try to be objective.
You're wrapped up in your flag, the "our young men dying for your freedoms" argument and anger.
Now. What's happening is that a group of people are protesting against something. Trying to make a point.
Don't you think that's worth having? Even if it a couple of examples rub your hair the wrong way?
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed.
It's not up to you or the government to decide where, as a tactical matter, people decide to have protests. In point of fact, Snyder never even saw the group's signs that day. But even if he had; so what? Perhaps the group thinks it will get more media attention that way. Even parents of dead soldiers aren't entitled to muzzle opinions they don't like. ...[text shortened]... als have the protection that they can't be directly interfered with and that is sufficient.
The whole thing has been handled badly, I'm a firm believer that people choose to be offended and by recognising these nutcases to some small degree their message is given credance (plus the press and attention they crave)
Ridicule is the way to deal with them.
Originally posted by smw6869Whether or not it's hate speech is irrelevant, since hate speech is not a crime in the United States. It's protected by the first ammendment.
This church has an anti gay agenda. They've protested at over 300 soldiers funerals. Their signs say "God hates fags". They portest at soldiers funerals because the US allows gays to join the military. Somehow this means (to them) that all the soldiers are gay. THIS IS HATE SPEECH! These people are low life scum bag HATERS. May they all get arrested, put in ...[text shortened]... ail and get bung holed by big bubba. Sam is 100% right in his belief. CASE CLOSED.
GRANNY.
The content of the Westboro people's speech is irrelevant, too. It doesn't matter if it's offensive, or wrong, or distasteful. It's not illegal to be anti-gay or anti-troops. It's your right as an American to be those things, if you want.
Congress clearly violated the constitution when they banned these protests. I hope these laws get struck down by SCOTUS. They should.
Originally posted by shavixmirThese demonstrators are at All the dead soldiers funerals, not just those that are gay. How would they know if ther're gay or not? That's called defamation of character speech and is not covered by the first Ammendment. Again, Sam is right. They better PRAY that Bog Bubba isn't on Viagra.
You're missing the grander point smw6869.
Take a step back from what you think is right and wrong. Look at what's going on. Try to be objective.
You're wrapped up in your flag, the "our young men dying for your freedoms" argument and anger.
Now. What's happening is that a group of people are protesting against something. Trying to make a point. ...[text shortened]... think that's worth having? Even if it a couple of examples rub your hair the wrong way?
Granny.
2 edits
Originally posted by smw6869Yes, slander and defamation was indeed one of the issues, by being there at the time of the burial ceremony with their anti-homo demonstration and signs, chanting "death to fags", etc. they were indeed giving the inference that the soldier was gay to all those passing by. Can't hide behind the 1st amendment on that one.
These demonstrators are at All the dead soldiers funerals, not just those that are gay. How would they know if ther're gay or not? That's called defamation of character speech and is not covered by the first Ammendment. Again, Sam is right. They better PRAY that Bog Bubba isn't on Viagra.
Granny.
Thank you for pointing that out granny.
1 edit
They weren't claiming that the dead soldiers themselves were gay. They were claiming that God allowed the soldiers to be killed to punish America, the country, for tolerating homosexuality. Nothing the Westboro folks did comes anywhere close to the legal standard of slander or defamation. It's a religious belief, the expression of which is very clearly protected by the constitution.