|
They're Back... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I'm just saying I want the freedom to wear my Spock costume to your funeral without legal reprise, is that so hard to understand??? :mad: |
GOOD scifi only im afraid. no wake for you. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Pffft, fine. I don't even like wakes unless they have those little peel-and-eat shrimp anyways! :whip: |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
That's a tough one.
Marines have enough things screwing with their heads already.
Can't they say its Homosexuality in the Navy instead or something. |
Marines are part of the US Navy.... But for the love of your health never say that to them. :p |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Yeah it's really impressive they're not all dead yet. Can't say I'd be sorry for them to go. But I don't think they should lose their right. |
The legislation that protects citizen's rights to free speech does not cover hate speech and based on that alone, they should have had their asses legally and penally handed to them years ago. The problem here, once again, is that they are a religious group and there are few judges (if not zero) that will have the balls to act as they should. |
|
|
| FuzzQi |
| quote: | | The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, said it believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths. |
LOL. But no, that's what Prince is for. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
The legislation that protects citizen's rights to free speech does not cover hate speech and based on that alone, they should have had their asses legally and penally handed to them years ago. |
What the blue are you talking about? The term "freedom of speech" doesn't apply to only a select few "forms" of speech, it applies to exactly what is says: speech. That means anything. How many protesters could have been silenced by now had the government been able to say that they're a form of "hate speech" and that they're acting illegally? How many times can people have been sued, arrested, etc. for telling someone to off or eat ? Freedom of spech encompasses everything, whether you like it or not.
I don't agree with their concepts one bit, but unless freedom of speech is abolished in this nation, I will reluctantly allow them to continue. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
What the blue are you talking about? The term "freedom of speech" doesn't apply to only a select few "forms" of speech, it applies to exactly what is says: speech. That means anything. How many protesters could have been silenced by now had the government been able to say that they're a form of "hate speech" and that they're acting illegally? How many times can people have been sued, arrested, etc. for telling someone to off or eat ? Freedom of spech encompasses everything, whether you like it or not.
I don't agree with their concepts one bit, but unless freedom of speech is abolished in this nation, I will reluctantly allow them to continue. |
You're 100% wrong; it's not within one's rights to say anything, if it creates a situation that is dangerous to others, or "inciting imminent lawless action/lawlessness". The best/most popular example being that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater without getting arrested.
From Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919), a Supreme Court case that explored the limits of First Amendment protection of free speech... parts of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion he wrote:
| quote: | "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
"Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." |
Edit: This was re-evaluated in 1969 and agreed upon again by Justice William O. Douglas:
| quote: | | "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." |
|
|
|
| idoru |
I fail to see the "clear and present danger" that they are inciting. I don't recall there being any sort of harm to anybody that would support the "clear and present danger/imminent lawlessness" argument, although if there has been an incident(s) that I am unaware of then I will most certainly change my stance. Sure, they've had sodas thrown at them from drivers passing by, but I can't recall anything major.
| quote: | | It is a question of proximity and degree. |
Right. And they've already been barred from being within certain distances of funerals for soldiers. At that point, as long as they aren't inciting a "clear and present danger", then it's completely legal.
Aside: Again, just to make sure everybody understands, I disagree 110% with what they believe. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
I fail to see the "clear and present danger" that they are inciting. I don't recall there being any sort of harm to anybody that would support the "clear and present danger/imminent lawlessness" argument, although if there has been an incident(s) that I am unaware of then I will most certainly change my stance. Sure, they've had sodas thrown at them from drivers passing by, but I can't recall anything major.
Right. And they've already been barred from being within certain distances of funerals for soldiers. At that point, as long as they aren't inciting a "clear and present danger", then it's completely legal.
Aside: Again, just to make sure everybody understands, I disagree 110% with what they believe. |
Right... I was merely pointing out the fact that the word "anything" doesn't really apply when it comes to freedom of speech. Who knows how the case will be presented in court and who will determine the extent of the proximity/degree. The gray area here is, does freedom of speech extend to the despicable practice of protesting at military funerals, and even if it does, does the 1st Amendment hold speakers without any liability whatsoever for their actions? After all, it's hard to argue that they didn't "maliciously" intend to inflict emotional distress through their speech and actions.
I think the people bringing on this lawsuit are going to lose this one though. |
|
|
| idoru |
| The fact of the matter is that, ironically, the soldiers that died fought to protect the rights of US citizens that allow the Phelps family to do this. As far as I'm concerned, the Phelps family will more than likely be allowed to continue to protest (albeit from a certain distance), and I don't really have a problem with that. It's their right to be able to, so all the more power to them if they choose to do it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
I fail to see the "clear and present danger" that they are inciting. I don't recall there being any sort of harm to anybody that would support the "clear and present danger/imminent lawlessness" argument, although if there has been an incident(s) that I am unaware of then I will most certainly change my stance. Sure, they've had sodas thrown at them from drivers passing by, but I can't recall anything major.
Right. And they've already been barred from being within certain distances of funerals for soldiers. At that point, as long as they aren't inciting a "clear and present danger", then it's completely legal.
Aside: Again, just to make sure everybody understands, I disagree 110% with what they believe. |
Are you seriously defending the “right” of people to protest at funerals of dead servicemen, because you think the constitution says you can? |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Are you seriously defending the “right” of people to protest at funerals of dead servicemen, because you think the constitution says you can? |
You can read, can't you? |
|
|
|
|
