Posted on 03/03/2011 10:01:14 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Sorry FRiend, we won’t win the battle by abandoning everything we stood for in the first place. The First Ammendment says what it says. It protects you and me every bit as much as it protects the Westboro thugs, which is as it should be.
LLS
Romnen, Trump?
How could someone that WAS a Palin supporter jump to Romney or Trump?
What are you smoking?
Unfortunately I don’t follow the blind faith...I closely evaluate the person and decide when I have had enough. Palin has reached that point for me.
Granted the abhore the Westboro crazies but I respect their right to free speech and quite frankly even though I don’t always agree with SCOTUS I will go with an 8:1 decision in these trying times...I would rather much err on the side of liberty then to entrust the public good to the current crop of miscreants running amuck...
“Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter in the case that pits free speech against privacy rights. He argued the First Amendment does not protect Americans who launch “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.”
Are you going to write off Sam too... because he agrees with Palin... so do I.
LLS
Perhaps you are not familiar with these slimeballs....they are not a church, but a group of lawyers. The so called “Protests” they state are designed to do one thing, get people to assault them so they can sue, and they have been moderately successful at it. The signs and words they use are carefully crafted.
What I am trying to say is that their speech IS politically offensive ON PURPOSE, and they are well within their rights to say it. They are not permitted in the cemetary, nor are they permitted in the funeral homes. They draw permits, stay on the sidewalk, and are peaceable. Their material is offensive to most people, but the constitution gives us a right derived from god to peacable assemble and protest. ANY restrictions upon that right leads down a path nobody here wants to go down.
The government is always looking for a way to control the people ( John Dingle, democrat, michigan ) “It took a long time to find a way to control the people.”...He said this about obamacare..do you really want to give an asshole like this the power to regulate your speech?
Try sitting in front of the White House and screaming “obummer is a muslim... or a fag”... and see how free you are. Some of us are more free than others... We Conservatives are the least free of all.
LLS
““Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter in the case that pits free speech against privacy rights. He argued the First Amendment does not protect Americans who launch “vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate” during “a time of intense emotional sensitivity.””
“Are you going to write off Sam too... because he agrees with Palin... so do I.”
There are ways to deal with obnoxious jerks like the WBC in a court of law. If they came to a funeral and the father punched one in the face (repeatedly), he would likely be arrested. Given the facts in the case I doubt he would be convicted. That precident being set, fathers would have a free shot at these creeps. That would probably cause the WBC to rethink their actions. Same thing if their cars all got flat tires. Good luck convicting the perps. I like to think it works that way.
There was a BBC documentary about them a few years ago that interviewed the family, and it was pretty clear that they just go through the motions for the old man, who gives the orders. But they've been raised to obey so they obey. The old man doesn't go anymore--he's getting old and frail. When he dies, I expect that you'll never hear another thing out of them again.
If I had the free time, it sure would make for an interesting court case, wouldn’t it?
Well, you and almost everyone by now believes that, but it isn't true.
Please cite the Constitutional text that you believe confers a right of protest in the way these idiots are claiming it.
Among all their other misfeasances, the legal mainstream understanding of exactly what the First Amendment protects has gone seriously off the rails.
The right to speak and the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition for redress are not the same right. No one has a right to do that which is wrong. If mocking the family of a dead child at the child's funeral is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. To punish Phelps (who should have been horsewhipped long ago), the court would have to discriminate between assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances and this disorderly (because provocative) mob.
But wait--there's more! In order to protect Phelps's "right," it is required by eight of nine justices that the mourners suppress their natural, healthy reaction to this perverse assembly. If they did not suppress their natural, normal, manly feelings then Phelps would have suffered the consequences of his misbehavior long ago.
As with many other novel "rights," such as the "right" of women to dress provocatively without eliciting male interest, the government is behaving in a totalitarian manner by requiring humans to behave in a non-human, even anti-human, way.
She makes what could be strong statements sometimes: “there were plenty of wtf moments...” comes to mind. But when she takes heat she backpedals and huminahumina’s.
Dang it...say what you mean and mean what you say or don’t say it.
I would rather be ticked off because I disagree with her than to have her changing what she said to make it more acceptable.
But thats just me.
>> I was a firm backer of sarah, but this leaves me with little room to maneuver...
>> Palin just shot herself in the foot.
She’s drawing contrast to court decisions where the obscene is protected but Christianity gets locked in chains.
It’s a well stated tweet that makes no assertion about limiting speech.
“in the way these idiots are claiming it.”
So, the only way to protest is YOUR way....sounds like a big government response to me
“Among all their other misfeasances, the legal mainstream understanding of exactly what the First Amendment protects has gone seriously off the rails. “
You are gonna have to justify to me what exactly in the first amendment you are speaking of. Am I supposed to just adhear to whatever viewpoint you happen to have at any particular moment in time, or listen to the supreme court and what I read in the document that I have displayed in my garage for all to see?
“But wait—there’s more! In order to protect Phelps’s “right,” it is required by eight of nine justices that the mourners suppress their natural, healthy reaction to this perverse assembly.”
You mean resist your natural urge to do harm or kill another human being? I overcame that urge decades ago. The law allows for different viewpoints to be expressed, no matter how offensive they may be to you. The law does not allow for assault or murder. You are just a little off topic here
“As with many other novel “rights,””
Funny, I do not consider any of the Rights under the constitution as “Novel”....perhaps you would feel more comfortable in another country...try cuba or china, they would not tolerate the type of Freedom you are expressly speaking of prohibiting..
Read the decision. The Court was very careful to point out that the protestors were on a public street, 1,000 feet from the Church where the funeral was taking place, and behind a barricade put up by the police, and that the plaintiff (the father of the dead soldier) didn't even know the protest was going on until he saw it on the news that night. The Court said that, under different facts, there might not be First Amendment protection.
“It’s a well stated tweet that makes no assertion about limiting speech.”
Thanks. I should know by now that headlines here get so twisted or out of context that they cant be trusted. Always read what the person actually said and make your own interpretation.
What do you mean by "listen to the Supreme Court"?
The language of Amendment I is crystal clear and does not require interpretation. Any "interpretation" which changes the clear meaning which lacks the concurrence of 2/3 of each House of Congrgess and 3/4 of the states is just meaningless blather.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech - fine. Phelps can say anything he wants.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right... of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances - fine. Phelps and his people can peaceably assemble, and they can do so for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress.
The parents of the 9 year old killed in Tucson are not the government. Phelps may not assemble to petition them - for anything.
The trend of USSC decisions which conflate the rights of speech and peaceable assembly to permit riotous "demonstrations" is not in MY constitution, and it's not in yours, either, in your garage or elsewhere.
Any time before 50 years ago, Phelps would have been horsewhipped long since - an outcome perfectly in accord with the Founders, and the Constitution.
Indeed.
LLS
Very true. In this case, common sense is not always Constitutional.
You have to consider how this judgment could be used as settled law in a case that is not on your side.
The ruling is bigger than the scum of WBC, who use this to put people like us in this position.
But you uphold the right of the Westboro people to protest at religious ceremonies.
That's not principled observation of the First Amendment. That is just cowardice on the part of the right.
Left has might, right has none. Left is brave, right is cowardly.
That is why we are in the mess we are in.
And I am not your friend, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.