02 Mar '11 16:23>
Hate to say I told ya so: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41868004/ns/politics-more_politics/?gt1=43001
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's harassment. They could express their opinion elsewhere and at any time but they just decided not to for the purpose of getting a reaction from the family (or simply allow the possibility of getting a reaction which generates media attention).
Good decision, of course.
Originally posted by PalynkaIf they can't protest in public, there's a good chance people will start dying to Christian zealots.
It's harassment. They could express their opinion elsewhere and at any time but they just decided not to for the purpose of getting a reaction from the family (or simply allow the possibility of getting a reaction which generates media attention).
Nobody is denying their right to express their opinions but I don't see why they should be allowed to harass ...[text shortened]... press it publicly not that all possible mediums in all possible situations must be assured.
Originally posted by PalynkaI haven't seen footage of the protests. If they were actively obstructing the funeral, then it's harassment. If they were at the funeral protesting, then I don't see a problem (except for them being idiots but that isn't illegal).
It's harassment. They could express their opinion elsewhere and at any time but they just decided not to for the purpose of getting a reaction from the family (or simply allow the possibility of getting a reaction which generates media attention).
Nobody is denying their right to express their opinions but I don't see why they should be allowed to harass ...[text shortened]... press it publicly not that all possible mediums in all possible situations must be assured.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell said.
It's harassment. They could express their opinion elsewhere and at any time but they just decided not to for the purpose of getting a reaction from the family (or simply allow the possibility of getting a reaction which generates media attention).
Nobody is denying their right to express their opinions but I don't see why they should be allowed to harass press it publicly not that all possible mediums in all possible situations must be assured.
Originally posted by PalynkaCan't something similar be said for every harsh political speech aimed at an individual?
It's harassment. They could express their opinion elsewhere and at any time but they just decided not to for the purpose of getting a reaction from the family (or simply allow the possibility of getting a reaction which generates media attention).
Nobody is denying their right to express their opinions but I don't see why they should be allowed to harass ...[text shortened]... press it publicly not that all possible mediums in all possible situations must be assured.
Originally posted by quackquackI don't think the key issue here is which minority group is being protected. I really don't think that should or did have any impact on the case.
I looked at Alito's dissent and it seemed far more reasonable to me. It is also interesting that a traditionally conservative judge would have given for more protections to a minority group (gays in the military) than the majority was willing to give.
Originally posted by sh76If people try to do it at the door of where the person lives then yes, I guess it might.
Can't something similar be said for every harsh political speech aimed at an individual?
Originally posted by sh76Obviously you are correct that a conservative judge would be more likely, when balancing free speech and another right, to put a limit on free speech. I think however it is interesting that the right that Alito wishes to protect is the right of the family of a homosexual soldier to have a funeral without hateful protests making it into a public issue. Alito's sympathy for the emotional distress of a private citizen, his lack of sympathy for the motives a church and his desire to give an aggieved citizen a cause of action against a conservative group are noteworthy especially since conservatives are often portaryed as endless defending religious groups and never defending the rights of average ordinary citizens.
I don't think the key issue here is which minority group is being protected. I really don't think that should or did have any impact on the case.
The issue here is which judges are willing to limit free speech. In that context, it is unsurprising that one of the more conservative Justices shows more of a willingness to limit free speech where the security of others (or at least the peace and quiet of others) is at stake.