Fred Phelps Wins at Supreme Court

[Vidav]

Skelly, Appa, and the others on the side of this being the right outcome rocked this mufucker.

If you want to be free and not have those freedoms infringed upon then you have to extend that same right to everyone else.

I got to this party late but I think I saw Mark say something about "offending speech" and that basically shouldn't be accepted?

Are you fucking kidding me? YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED. If you're offended...fuck off...too bad...toughen the fuck up and quit being a bitch.

I also can not see how this is a hate crime or even bordering on it. What crime have they committed?

I or anyone else don't have to say just the things that sit you well with you or that you find acceptable. Someone else can easily find it offensive and it won't sit well with them. I will say the things that I'm comfortable with and my opinions and if you don't like it tough fucking shit.

This is exactly right.

As you said, you do not have a right to not be offended.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

If everyone in this country wasnt such a pussy and would mind their own damn business this wouldnt even be an issue.

But hey everyone likes to tell people what they can and cant do, so.....................

[youngterrier]

How about a law saying that anybody convicted of punching a funeral protester in the face is only guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a $25 fine?

you sir have just solved the debt crisis

[Skjellyfetti]

I think it is safe to say that Sky has never served or had a friend or relative who served in the military. If you did your view might be a bit different.

I haven't served. I have had both friends and relatives that have served... and I attended one of their funerals at Arlington last fall. If Fred Phelps was there protesting I might have needed physical restraints to keep from punching him. I don't support their protests. I support their RIGHT to protest. The worst part about all this is that without the sacrifices of the soldiers he protests... he would not have the freedom to protest.

[catamount man]

Thank God free speech wins again. Cannot stomach WBC but I would die for their rights to free speech. It works both ways people!

[BlueHen86]

Quick and easy answer : all municipalities should now pass laws forbidding ALL demonstrations within 1000 feet of a cemetery 2hrs before, during and 2hrs after a burial ceremony.

Content neutral. Time and space only.

What constitutes a demonstration?

Membership in the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Skjellyfetti]

What constitutes a demonstration?

Here's how one law defines it:

(b) Demonstration.--For purposes of this section, the term
`demonstration' includes the following:
``(1) Any picketing or similar conduct.
``(2) Any oration, speech, use of sound amplification
equipment or device, or similar conduct that is not part of a
funeral, memorial service, or ceremony.
``(3) The display of any placard, banner, flag, or similar
device, unless such a display is part of a funeral, memorial
service, or ceremony.
``(4) The distribution of any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet,
or other written or printed matter other than a program
distributed as part of a funeral, memorial service, or
ceremony.''.

[CID1990]

I disagree with Justice Alito on this one.

France, Germany and a couple other countries have outlawed certain types of offensive speech. In those countries, if you were come on a message board like this one and deny the Holocaust (the bailiwick of another set of crackpots) you would be subject to a little time in the pokey.

Allowing WBC to spew the way they do is the very essence of the idea of freedom of speech. Regulating it in any way is the worst kind of slippery slope.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I disagree with Justice Alito on this one.

France, Germany and a couple other countries have outlawed certain types of offensive speech. In those countries, if you were come on a message board like this one and deny the Holocaust (the bailiwick of another set of crackpots) you would be subject to a little time in the pokey.

Allowing WBC to spew the way they do is the very essence of the idea of freedom of speech. Regulating it in any way is the worst kind of slippery slope.

rare day in the morning when i agree with you... but yeah.

the essence of freedom of speech is allowing a man to scream at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime denouncing at the top of yours

[89Hen]

I'm really not sure why there's even a debate here. This is akin to flag burning. You can find that act abhorrent, but you have to realize it's somebody's right to do it.

The debate was over the tension between free speech rights and common law torts such as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Despite the First Amendment, there is a common law history of protecting people from being subjected to conduct which is intended to be abusive and cause pain.

Just like burning the flag.

[93henfan]

I support free speech.

I also the support the right of a veteran or family member of a dead soldier to snipe one of these people and do a light term due to their temporary insanity.

[Appaholic]

I support free speech.

I also the support the right of a veteran or family member of a dead soldier to snipe one of these people and do a light term due to their temporary insanity.

1st amendment, let me introduce you to 2nd amendment....

[houndawg]

I disagree with Justice Alito on this one.

France, Germany and a couple other countries have outlawed certain types of offensive speech. In those countries, if you were come on a message board like this one and deny the Holocaust (the bailiwick of another set of crackpots) you would be subject to a little time in the pokey.

Allowing WBC to spew the way they do is the very essence of the idea of freedom of speech. Regulating it in any way is the worst kind of slippery slope.

Great to see that your meds have been adjusted.

Total no-brainer in the same vein as "better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted..."

[AZGrizFan]

Also, I hate the Westboro Baptist Church... but, I believe what they do should be protected under the first amendment.

Supreme Court was damn close to unamimous in their decision (8-1, Alito was sole dissenter).

I need to go check myself. I agree with ky-jelly.

[CID1990]

I don't see why there is so much surprise that everyone agrees with the SCOTUS decision. It is our most fundamental freedom. Plus, folks from both sides of the spectrum know full well that if we outloaw this kind of speech today, then tomorrow we might go to jail for calling the President "Chimpy".

Quite frankly, I am a little alarmed that it got that far at all, since there are truckloads of precedent on FOS issues.

I also agree that anyone who goes up and breaks one of these cats' jaws with a good left is going to get off easy.

[danefan]

I don't see why there is so much surprise that everyone agrees with the SCOTUS decision. It is our most fundamental freedom. Plus, folks from both sides of the spectrum know full well that if we outloaw this kind of speech today, then tomorrow we might go to jail for calling the President "Chimpy".

Quite frankly, I am a little alarmed that it got that far at all, since there are truckloads of precedent on FOS issues.

I also agree that anyone who goes up and breaks one of these cats' jaws with a good left is going to get off easy.

The case went so far because there was a question of first impression - that is at which point freedom of speech and the law of intentional torts intersects - if ever.

[JohnStOnge]

I think the key is to make sure that speech is not regulated due to substantive content. For instance: If your "speech" is keeping someone awake at night because you're standing out on the street yelling through a bullhorn at 1 am people are going to want you to shut up. What you're talking about doesn't matter. To me it's reasonable to have laws against doing that.

But let's say you just say something that's "off limits" politically. Say you say that Jews are out to exploit everybody or that Blacks are innately less intelligent on average. The objections to statements like that are based on content, Content...regardless of how unpopular it is...should never be suppressed by government.

Which is why "Hate Speech" laws are indeed a violation of free speech principles.

[JohnStOnge]

Another thing: When discussions like this one come up it often seems statements along the lines of saying that a person should be free as long as they excercise that freedom responsibly are issued.

But who decides what is "responsible?" The obvious answer in our modern world is that government does. So are we to say that Liberty can be suppressed whenever government decides that the exercise of Liberty results in "irresponsible" actions?

Or say it's the majority of the people. Something is outlawed because the majority thinks it's "irresponsible."

How is that a "free" country?

It's not.

[danefan]

I think the key is to make sure that speech is not regulated due to substantive content. For instance: If your "speech" is keeping someone awake at night because you're standing out on the street yelling through a bullhorn at 1 am people are going to want you to shut up. What you're talking about doesn't matter. To me it's reasonable to have laws against doing that.

But let's say you just say something that's "off limits" politically. Say you say that Jews are out to exploit everybody or that Blacks are innately less intelligent on average. The objections to statements like that are based on content, Content...regardless of how unpopular it is...should never be suppressed by government.

Which is why "Hate Speech" laws are indeed a violation of free speech principles.

Are you saying there are hate speech laws in the US right now?

[JohnStOnge]

Are you saying there are hate speech laws in the US right now?

Not per se. I do think hate crimes laws such as making an assault a Federal crime if it's judged that the motivation is "hate" come pretty close because something becomes a federal offense due to underlying philosophical motivation. I also think various laws against inciting to violence can be used to effectively function as hate speech laws.