Posted on 03/08/2006 9:05:30 AM PST by StarCMC
No, I got his point. But you did not get mine. If you had bothered to read my posts you'd see that the reason I think the good professor is wrong is that:
1) Missouri has a law governing electioneering -- it cannot be done within 25 feet of a polling place. Thus we have precedence for a spatial restriction.
2) The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" and expect to be covered by the 1st Ammendment. Yes, there is a right to free speech, but there are restrictions. Ever heard of libel? Slander?
And for the record, I do believe his liberal slant has much to do with whether we can count on him to see this law the way we (conservatives) do. Could I count on Katie Couric to give me an honest look at the news? I think not. Her slant skews what she chooses to tell me.
And for the record, I have a lot of friends who are libs, and I love them dearly. I would not, however, cast my vote for them to be anywhere in the vicinity of making public policy.
"-Krell82, the pro-gun, anti-immigration, and pro-small government liberal...."
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
I'm a free market communist myself.
I agree with the prof. As much as I hate the protestors in question, I don't think that the law will stand up to judicial review.
I disagree. See my post #40.
Whoops -- that would be 41.
Which is exactly what they want to happen. That is how they make their money.
Hi Star. I know the prof is reading FR (see his blog) so I will point out posts 22 and 25 as an example of fairness and honesty. Not his one sided views.
Now -- to our friend...
Hey Professor -- I would have posted a better picture, but that was the only one I could find. I find that I disagree with you, but at least you seem thoughtful in your arguments, so you have a measure of respect. As another FReeper pointed out on another thread (post 20):
Also, the Federal Constitution does not allow the Federal government to regulate speech whatsoever. The First amendment is quite clear.
"CONGRESS shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Since the Federal Government can in no wise make any law respecting these rights, it is a matter reserved for state governments under the 10th amendment. *snip*
On your blog your stand for dealing with someone who yells fire in a crowded theater was to yell "shut up!" back at them. That was not the point and you know it. Would you care to address that seriously? I am not an expert at First Ammendment law either, FWIW, I am a stay-st-home mom and part time bookkeeper. You invited people to comment to you on your blog. We invite you here.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Old Republic's point was made on a thread about a Federal law, and thus, I think was pretty valid. This is something for the states to decide individually. And Missouri has, with it's new law, made a statement. I don't believe that the State's law CAN be ruled unconstitutional -- at least on the grounds given by the professor, in that this law is not being made by Congress.
Bahbah and Dogrobber -- you are much more versed in this than I am. Can you tell me if I'm wrong??
Hello...
My flip answer to yell "shut up!" in reply to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater was meant to point out to a learned commenter (also a Ph.D. here in Springfield) that this hypothetical is an old and silly dodge and he ought to know it. It's not worth wasting time or breath discussing.
The MO law is a problem because the language is vague and the restrictions are broad--so broad that counter-protesting (e.g. the bikers who have offered protection from Phelps) would be outlawed. Further, any demonstration is outlawed--including a sympathetic demonstration. The MO law makes no distinctions: "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in picketing or other protest activities in front of or about any church, cemetery, or funeral establishment as defined ..." And the law defines "funeral" as including everything from the funeral home to the cemetery, including the procession. Technically speaking, if a funeral passes by a labor strike, the strikers are breaking this law. Obviously, no one intends it to be used that way. But I prefer not to trust government that much. If someone can use a law a particular way, chances are they will try.
It is true that Missouri has a defined limit zone on campaigning or protesting at polling places. I think one of the commenters on this site said it was 25 feet. I haven't checked that recently, but I accept his/her characterization of it. I am against that law, too.
It may be possible to craft a law to protect grieving families and pass Constitutional challenge. I'm not qualified to say what that would be. I suspect that the idea that's been discussed on my blog recently (i.e. protecting the grave service as speech and/or religious expression) could be a fruitful area of exploration. But that requires hard work and thought--two things the MO legislature failed to apply to the current law. This idea, by the way, creates a classic dilemma between two rights of speech or between speech and religion, thus requiring a compromise of some kind.
Finally, I describe myself as a First Amendment "absolutist." That's a problematic term, obviously. What I mean by it is this: In any given case, I will argue for an absolute right to free speech first and continue to do so until such point that my position is no longer defensible. Like Jefferson, think any tyranny over the mind of man is intolerable.
What fascinates me about this episode is how much of a role emotion plays in it. I've been asked many times now, including in subsequent interviews, how I would feel if it were my family member, or if I have any understanding of the feelings of the families? If it were my family member, I'd be blind with rage. But: The Constitution of the United States of America and our freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are more important than the life of any particular soldier or the feelings of a grieving family.
Sadly, the tests of our principles regarding the Bill of Rights all too often come in vile form.
--A. Cline
Pass a law that failure to respect a funeral is reason for suspension of homicide prohibitions and let these sick protesting sons of bitches and their daughters, too, be shot dead in their tracks. Let them then lie like turds at the side of the road. Harsh words later!
You are right. Free speech doesn't include the right to force open my front door and spout poisonous opinions.
That is absolutely not the American way, at least according to American ideals. Using violence against people with whom you disagree or find offensive belongs in theocracies or uncivilized areas of the world. America is defined by respect for individual rights, which includes the right to express unpopular or offensive sentiments. We also pride ourselves on the fair and impartial rule of law.
Here on this site, everyone criticized the Islamic radicals burning buildings and threatening lives over a cartoon. Everyone seemed to agree that no matter how great their outrage, they were wrong to use violence. But when the issue becomes something WE care about, suddenly new rules apply.
Suppose I said that Mohammed was a child molestor, and a Muslim citizen overheard and broke several of my limbs in response. At the trial, the judge sentenced the defendent (with a wink and a nod) to a $50 fine. Oh, and the judge coincidentally is also named Mohammed. Would that be the American way?
I am ashamed to admit that I did not read the law in question, and only adressed the idea of the 500 ft. limit to a protest. I have to agree with you that with the definitions provided, the law is overly broad.
I also agree that emotion is clouding sound thinking on the subject. I can sympathize with the emotion, of course, but still expect sober minds to prevail.
There is more to it than that. If it is private property there is no right to even be there.
"Suppose I said that Mohammed was a child molestor, and a Muslim citizen overheard and broke several of my limbs in response."
If I went to a Muslim funeral yelling Mohammed was a child molester, I'd deserve to get my ass kicked. You see some free speech right issue here?
I have to say I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. And FWIW, I tried to register so that I could post to your blog but cannot seem to get the registration finalized. As of this afternoon I still had not received the email confirmation. At any rate, thank you for joining the discussion.
I am curious to know why you disagree with the electioneering laws - and I think I was the one who brought it us, and yes, it is 25 feet -- I checked. To me it seems common sense and honestly, we shouldn't need a law in either case, but there it is. You can trust people to behave decently.
Back to the discussion - I don't see how this law contradicts the right of free speech, because, as I mentioned, the text of the First Ammendment prohibits CONGRESS (i.e. the Federal Government) from passing a law that hinders free speech. In other words, the guarantee is given that the federal government not be allowed to silence those who disagree with it. This has, in my opnion, no bearing on that a state may or may not do. And to be honest, I have not read the Missouri constitution (or whatever it would be called) and I have no idea if there are any statutes on the State level that speak to this. So I still do not see how this law can be called unconstitutional.
Yes, I do. People have a right to express unpopular opinions without being physically assaulted. Violence is only justified for self-defense. Saying something stupid, hateful, or evil does not threaten someone's safety, so violent self-defense does not apply.
I'm not saying that I don't understand why someone would assault a protester at a funeral. I can't even say I wouldn't lose control and lash out violently at someone protesting at a loved one's funeral. I do recognize that attacking the protester is not the right thing to do.
Your academic moral high ground looks to me to be just an excuse for cowardice. Why don't you just leave the tough work of living in the real world to the men, while you safely remain in the academic. You can lecture us afterward, when it is safe to come out.
Got an extra room at your house? :-)
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.