Page 1 of 1
Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:52 am
by ASUG8
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39531700/ns/politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The father of a Marine killed in Iraq is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against members of a fundamentalist church who picketed his son's funeral with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA."
The court is hearing arguments Wednesday in the dispute between Albert Snyder of York, Pa., and members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan.
The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.
Westboro members, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, have picketed many military funerals to make their point that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans' immorality, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:14 am
by kalm
ASUG8 wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39531700/ns/politics/
The father of a Marine killed in Iraq is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against members of a fundamentalist church who picketed his son's funeral with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA."
The court is hearing arguments Wednesday in the dispute between Albert Snyder of York, Pa., and members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan.
The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.
Westboro members, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, have picketed many military funerals to make their point that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans' immorality, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.
Why should it be? We even protect the speech of foreign corporations and governments financing our elections:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/05-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:15 am
by kalm
Oh yeah and Alito - gfys.
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:43 am
by SuperHornet
There already are limits on freedom of speech. Surely you haven't forgotten the tired old cliche of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. There are also laws against libel and slander which infringe upon one's freedom of speech because such speech infringes on ANOTHER person's rights.
The question is more: WHAT limits should there be on freedom of speech? There's a balancing act between THIS right and other rights when they involve other people.
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:49 am
by JoltinJoe
I don't even see this as a First Amendment issue.
They have a right to assemble and protest with whatever speech they want, and so long as they do not incite violence, the government cannot criminalize what they do.
If, however, in their exercise of free speech, they exceed common law boundaries of decency to the point that they have intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the next of kin, as that tort is defined by applicable state common law, they answer in damages to those they have harmed.
http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/tor ... f-florida/
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:51 am
by Rob Iola
1st Amendment? I'm surprised this hasn't become a 2nd Amendment issue...
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:05 am
by Cap'n Cat
JoltinJoe wrote:I don't even see this as a First Amendment issue.
They have a right to assemble and protest with whatever speech they want, and so long as they do not incite violence, the government cannot criminalize what they do.
If, however, in their exercise of free speech, they exceed common law boundaries of decency to the point that they have intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the next of kin, as that tort is defined by applicable state common law, they answer in damages to those they have harmed.
http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/tor ... f-florida/
Agree 10,000%, Jose'. Very succinctly put.
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:18 am
by AZGrizFan
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:38 am
by Appaholic
JoltinJoe wrote:I don't even see this as a First Amendment issue.
They have a right to assemble and protest with whatever speech they want, and so long as they do not incite violence, the government cannot criminalize what they do.
If, however, in their exercise of free speech, they exceed common law boundaries of decency to the point that they have intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the next of kin, as that tort is defined by applicable state common law, they answer in damages to those they have harmed.
http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/tor ... f-florida/
Nailed it!
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:52 am
by Cap'n Cat
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:02 pm
by AZGrizFan
Yes, and remember how it was pointed out that those ACTUALLY were 1st amendment issues?
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:48 pm
by Cap'n Cat
AZGrizFan wrote:
Yes, and remember how it was pointed out that those ACTUALLY were 1st amendment issues?
Right!
Now here this, bizzle. You asked for an example of how Conks abused the 1st Amendy. You were indignant about the mere thought of Conks using it for their political benefit, yet the ever-brilliant Cap'n found Sarah Palin doing it in defense of Dr. Laura's 1A rights when she used teh word, niqqer, over and over again on her show. Even quoted her.
You disappeared, tail between your legs. Go back and look it up.
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:09 pm
by AZGrizFan
Cap'n Cat wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Yes, and remember how it was pointed out that those ACTUALLY were 1st amendment issues?
Right!
Now here this, bizzle. You asked for an example of how Conks abused the 1st Amendy. You were indignant about the mere thought of Conks using it for their political benefit, yet the ever-brilliant Cap'n found Sarah Palin doing it in defense of Dr. Laura's 1A rights when she used teh word, niqqer, over and over again on her show. Even quoted her.
You disappeared, tail between your legs. Go back and look it up.
I didn't "disappear". I proved you wrong and moved on. OBVIOUSLY, you're still dwelling on your ass beating and have come back for more.
You're welcome.
Apology accepted.
Grow up.
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:22 pm
by Cap'n Cat
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:00 am
by native
Re: Should the 1st Amendment have limits?
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:06 am
by native
There should be very few, if any, limits on what one can say, but there must be limits on when and where it can be said, in cases where it infringes the rights of others.
Pretty much what Joe said.
