PDA

View Full Version : Should the right to freedom of speech be upheld in this case?




Reason
04-13-2010, 12:42 AM
If you were a justice on the supreme court how would you vote on this?

YouTube - Father of Dead Marine Fights Funeral Protesters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRv9crJcthY)

slothman
04-13-2010, 05:53 AM
What is the text?

Bobster
04-13-2010, 06:06 AM
I believe Ron Paul has stated that "Freedom of Speech means you have to tolerate the nonsense too."

I can't watch the video because I'm at work, but if it's what I think it is then Freedom of Speech must be upheld.

fisharmor
04-13-2010, 06:14 AM
They have no right to steal our money and use it to kill brown people,
and they have no right to steal our money and use it to perform the state religion's funeral rites.

The father has a right to continue to believe that his son actually died for a reason, but he has no right to be free from people telling him he didn't.

Southron
04-13-2010, 09:35 AM
Are there no local ordinances like "disturbing the peace"?

Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go anywhere you please to exercise that right.

Jeremy
04-13-2010, 09:40 AM
Were they protesting on "public property" or private property?

MelissaWV
04-13-2010, 09:46 AM
Were they protesting on "public property" or private property?

Winner.

The poll answers are deliberately and misleadingly simple, by the way.

Ekrub
04-13-2010, 10:10 AM
oops, read that entirely wrong... I think.

TinCanToNA
04-13-2010, 10:38 AM
The father has a right to continue to believe that his son actually died for a reason, but he has no right to be free from people telling him he didn't.
Yeah, except that's not what those people were saying. Nor was a 'state religion funeral rite.' Your narrow narrative doesn't fit in this case.

It was a group of hate-mongers screaming "GOD HATES ****" at a funeral--a funeral which was part of the contract the Marine signed. Guess you have a thing against freedom to participate in contracts, too...


There's freedom of speech, the notion of contributing to the marketplace of ideas any message you want. Then there's 'fighting words.' To all the believers of unlimited freedom of speech (save perhaps private property), do I have the right to scream in your face via megaphone, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU," as I stalk your every movement (on public property, perhaps)? An extreme case, to be sure, but if you don't think someone should be able to constantly harass someone, where else should "free speech" be limited? Why not at those trying to incite violence at funerals in a naked attempt for more media coverage (the reason they go to funerals and the reason they film themselves as they go to the funerals--see the video of them driving off and getting their van window broken)?

Anti Federalist
04-13-2010, 10:48 AM
Winner.

The poll answers are deliberately and misleadingly simple, by the way.

Agreed.

chudrockz
04-13-2010, 11:06 AM
Agreed that the poll is overly simplistic.

However, they do, and should, have the right to free speech. That being said, if anyone EVER interrupted a funeral I was at, for someone I cared about, I'd gladly go to jail for assault for taking upon myself the right to beat the bloody shit out of them.

fisharmor
04-13-2010, 11:32 AM
Nor was a 'state religion funeral rite.'

I think you ought to attend a couple of them, and attend a couple non-state-religion funeral rites, and then I think the distinction will be made clear.


The father's comfort is in the idea that his son died defending our freedoms. He's mad at the protesters because they're diluting that idea. Sure, they're diluting it with crap, but I can't get too upset when people dilute crap with different crap.

I'll bet he knows deep down he's short one son for no good reason. If there was a good reason, this wouldn't be an argument because someone would have burned Westboro to the ground by now.

If the funeral was part of a contract, then treat it like contract law. I'm pretty sure I can't be forced to pay your car payment unless I signed the paperwork with you. So how does your contract example apply here?

Reason
04-13-2010, 12:03 PM
Winner.

The poll answers are deliberately and misleadingly simple, by the way.

Well, I could be wrong but I doubt the supreme court decision will be any less simple...

JK/SEA
04-13-2010, 12:59 PM
Whats the penalty for temporary insanity, say if he had beat one of those idiots to death?

slothman
04-13-2010, 01:02 PM
Agreed that the poll is overly simplistic.

However, they do, and should, have the right to free speech. That being said, if anyone EVER interrupted a funeral I was at, for someone I cared about, I'd gladly go to jail for assault for taking upon myself the right to beat the bloody shit out of them.

So you think they should have free speech but you don't mind if they pummel you for doing something they don't like? :confused:

silus
04-13-2010, 01:16 PM
They have no right to steal our money and use it to kill brown people,
and they have no right to steal our money and use it to perform the state religion's funeral rites.

The father has a right to continue to believe that his son actually died for a reason, but he has no right to be free from people telling him he didn't.
You don't like reading, do you.



So you think they should have free speech but you don't mind if they pummel you for doing something they don't like? :confused:
The law of freedom of speech has nothing to do with the laws for how to avoid getting your ass beat.

Brian4Liberty
04-13-2010, 01:21 PM
So you think they should have free speech but you don't mind if they pummel you for doing something they don't like? :confused:

This is the oldest argument in the "your freedom vs. my freedom" debate. How much can you infringe upon me?

In this case, their right to free speech is infringing upon another person's right to a funeral.

If the idiots from this church want to test the bounds of free speech, they should go to the major Party conventions and push for their right to protest anywhere they want, and take that to court. That kind of speech is specifically what the founders had in mind, and it is being infringed.

In the founders time, interrupting funerals would have resulted in more deaths, one way or another (riot, lynching, duals, etc.).

KCIndy
04-13-2010, 01:53 PM
Ugh.

Well.... <retch>... I... <<ggaaagggg>>>

... I find myself in the loathsome position of having to agree that the Westboro *ssholes were within their free speech rights.

Here's an AP story about the case:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikyWFurOtNk9_KCCfi6GmDi8hEtgD9F1UP301

And here's a segment of the story, discussing some of the facts of the case:


They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.

The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.


IF, IF IF these are indeed the true facts of the case, then it means that the Westboro *ssholes were assembling with a permit to protest - on public land - and were outside the immediate visual and hearing range of the funeral in question.

As much as these Westboro d*psh*ts make me want to puke, I'll have to agree they were within their rights.

Gah. I feel like I need a shower.

TinCanToNA
04-13-2010, 04:57 PM
I think you ought to attend a couple of them, and attend a couple non-state-religion funeral rites, and then I think the distinction will be made clear.


The father's comfort is in the idea that his son died defending our freedoms. He's mad at the protesters because they're diluting that idea. Sure, they're diluting it with crap, but I can't get too upset when people dilute crap with different crap.

I'll bet he knows deep down he's short one son for no good reason. If there was a good reason, this wouldn't be an argument because someone would have burned Westboro to the ground by now.

If the funeral was part of a contract, then treat it like contract law. I'm pretty sure I can't be forced to pay your car payment unless I signed the paperwork with you. So how does your contract example apply here?Oh, so you're coming from a position of anarchy, or at the very least a pennyless state (hence anarchy). Well then I shall waste no more time on you. You see things through too skewed a lens to bother with. Green is blue to you, I get it.

The simple matter is the Westboro Church is looking for maximum media exposure; they admit this themselves. That's why they go to these things. They are egging people on, spoiling for a fight. The fact that so many tend to say or imply that they will beat or kill them if they ever showed up to a funeral for one of their friends tends to confirm that these cretins are merely using the argument of freedom of speech as a catalyst for protecting fighting words.

By the way, threatening someone with violence is assault, at least if they know you are threatening them.

ammorris
04-13-2010, 05:15 PM
They are within their rights to do what they do. That said, if one of the family members beat the crap out of them and I was on the jury, I wouldn't vote to convict.

KCIndy
04-13-2010, 05:22 PM
They are within their rights to do what they do. That said, if one of the family members beat the crap out of them and I was on the jury, I wouldn't vote to convict.

Personally, I would be quite amused to see one of the Westboro protesters get hit by a bolt of lightning while waving one of their disgusting picket signs overhead.

foofighter20x
04-13-2010, 05:37 PM
Wow. Unanimous so far. 35-0 that they have the right to free speech, despite how tasteless and offensive it is.

I'm so proud of you guys! :D

Danke
04-13-2010, 05:43 PM
I think you ought to attend a couple of them, and attend a couple non-state-religion funeral rites, and then I think the distinction will be made clear.


The father's comfort is in the idea that his son died defending our freedoms. He's mad at the protesters because they're diluting that idea. Sure, they're diluting it with crap, but I can't get too upset when people dilute crap with different crap.

I'll bet he knows deep down he's short one son for no good reason. If there was a good reason, this wouldn't be an argument because someone would have burned Westboro to the ground by now.

If the funeral was part of a contract, then treat it like contract law. I'm pretty sure I can't be forced to pay your car payment unless I signed the paperwork with you. So how does your contract example apply here?

fisharmor makes a lot of good points.

Mini-Me
04-13-2010, 05:45 PM
Were they protesting on "public property" or private property?

As Melissa said, this cuts to the heart of the issue. On public property, we must tolerate the nonsense. If you're wanting to conduct a funeral or another solemn event, it may be wiser to have it on private property, where you're within your rights to evict troublemakers.

Of course, if someone beat the living shit out of these demonstrators and I were a judge / on a jury determining his sentence, the circumstances would guarantee a light slap on the wrist. ;)

Danke
04-13-2010, 05:49 PM
Of course, if someone beat the living shit out of these demonstrators and I were on a judge determining his sentence, the circumstances would guarantee a light slap on the wrist. ;)

Wow. I thought better of you Mini-me.

Mini-Me
04-13-2010, 06:01 PM
Wow. I thought better of you Mini-me.

Hey, everyone has their vices. ;) Seriously though, I was exaggerating a bit about a slap on the wrist, but I do think that extreme provocation should be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance when someone crosses the line into assault. I recall a case where a rapist taunted the victim's mother about the rape, and the mother shot [and killed] him in a rage...that's a different kettle of fish from cold-blooded, premeditated murder. These kind of things are way too subjective and complicated (i.e. dangerous) to be made into one-size-fits-all legislation, but I tend to trust juries in particular (who IMO should decide sentencing as well as guilt) with these kind of isolated judgment calls.

Expatriate
04-13-2010, 06:10 PM
Looks like a bad case of trolls in real life. Public property causes nothing but strife.

:mad:

TinCanToNA
04-13-2010, 07:08 PM
It's good to see y'all sticking to your guns on free speech, but I respectfully disagree to some extent. What Westboro does in some cases (though not in the one the article mentioned) is much, much more akin to harassment and 'fighting words' which are not and should not be protected free speech. Their platform is to advocate the execution of homosexuals, and in some cases they have done this screaming at people during a funeral--funerals specifically targeted to draw the most pain and anguish, hence harassment.

silus
04-13-2010, 07:49 PM
It's good to see y'all sticking to your guns on free speech, but I respectfully disagree to some extent. What Westboro does in some cases (though not in the one the article mentioned) is much, much more akin to harassment and 'fighting words' which are not and should not be protected free speech. Their platform is to advocate the execution of homosexuals, and in some cases they have done this screaming at people during a funeral--funerals specifically targeted to draw the most pain and anguish, hence harassment.
Good point. I'm wavering now. Not sure.

DirtMcGirt
04-14-2010, 01:26 AM
It's good to see y'all sticking to your guns on free speech, but I respectfully disagree to some extent. What Westboro does in some cases (though not in the one the article mentioned) is much, much more akin to harassment and 'fighting words' which are not and should not be protected free speech. Their platform is to advocate the execution of homosexuals, and in some cases they have done this screaming at people during a funeral--funerals specifically targeted to draw the most pain and anguish, hence harassment.

I know we are talking about freedom of speech but can these mourning families get rid of these jackoffs by charging them for trespassing or disturbing the peace?

Warrior_of_Freedom
04-14-2010, 02:45 AM
this is why i used to hate religion, but I realized it was a small amount of crazy radical people like these, and the rest practiced moderately

submarinepainter
04-14-2010, 02:57 AM
They have no right to steal our money and use it to kill brown people,
and they have no right to steal our money and use it to perform the state religion's funeral rites.

The father has a right to continue to believe that his son actually died for a reason, but he has no right to be free from people telling him he didn't.

Although I agree I really think the father should turn the tables on them and protest outside their church with a group of Gay soldiers :)