Originally posted by SwissGambitWe should all hope that this verdict is reversed on appeal. No matter how distasteful the Phelps' message is, it is protected speech.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031
Kirksey's favorite church, Westboro Baptist, finally got hit with a stiff fine for protesting at funerals. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPractice away. There is a problem when political speech is restricted based on its content.
I was simply practising the same. Is there a problem?
EDIT: The Phelps also relied on a "freedom of religious expression" argument:
The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because America is too tolerant of homosexuality.
“God promised dire outpourings of very painful wrath, and there’s nothing more painful than killing one of your children and that’s what’s going on in Iraq,” church founder Fred Phelps told msnbc.com in a 2006 interview. “That’s what we’re preaching and the forum of choice to deliver such a message, obviously, is the funeral of the kid that’s been blown to smithereens."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'll check.
Isn't political speech that is mean illegal in Canada? As a matter of fact, isn't it criminal there?
EDIT: This National Review article by a law professor seems to think so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein200312020910.asp
Of course, Europe has similar laws regarding Holocaust deniers and other "hate" speech.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI couldn't agree more. When I read about it, I actually cheered.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031
Kirksey's favorite church, Westboro Baptist, finally got hit with a stiff fine for protesting at funerals. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.