Judge: State ban on protests at military funerals unconstitutional
230 replies, posted
Isn't it hate speech?
[QUOTE=1337;24155981]Isn't it hate speech?[/QUOTE]
Refer to this case: [url]http://law.jrank.org/pages/3281/Collin-v-Smith-1977-Nazis-Must-be-Allowed-March.html[/url]
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;24119121]While it is vital that this right of protest exists, I'm fairly sure there must be sound and loitering laws that would restrict this kind of shit in a cemetery. At the very least there must be a case to be made for harassment suits.[/QUOTE]
Loitering laws in a cemetery? What the fuck kind of shit is that, a cemetery is definitely a place you'd want to spend long periods of time at.
Besides they're protesting.
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;24119103]glad to know that you don't give a shit about the first amendment[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to realize that the people this ruling supports would take a dump on the Constitution at the first opportunity.
Sigh.
We can't take away their right to protest, whether we agree with it or not. Just counter-protest them or something.
[QUOTE=1337;24155981]Isn't it hate speech?[/QUOTE]
There are no laws against hate speech in the United States unless it is a direct threat of violence.
The judge is right. It is unconstitutional.
-snip- irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;24158854]You don't seem to realize that the people this ruling supports would take a dump on the Constitution at the first opportunity.[/QUOTE]
That's not relevant.
I still don't understand why people are willing to defend the rights of hateful, spiteful, and disrespectful people who fight against the very things the country is founded upon, but not willing to defend the rights of gays.
[editline]12:54PM[/editline]
I mean sure, it's good that this freedom is expressed...but bleh
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24163785]I still don't understand why people are willing to defend the rights of hateful, spiteful, and disrespectful people who fight against the very things the country is founded upon[/QUOTE]
How are they fighting against what the country was founded upon?
[QUOTE=JDK721;24163946]How are they fighting against what the country was founded upon?[/QUOTE]
Okay maybe not quite that, but that doesn't change anything.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24163785]I still don't understand why people are willing to defend the rights of hateful, spiteful, and disrespectful people who fight against the very things the country is founded upon, but not willing to defend the rights of gays.
[editline]12:54PM[/editline]
I mean sure, it's good that this freedom is expressed...but bleh[/QUOTE]
You should read up on Voltaire. I really hate these guys, but I fully support their rights.
I know, and that's fine
[QUOTE=JDK721v2;24119287]I'm not gonna comment on your straw man[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure you're the right person to be pointing out someones logical fallacies.
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;24167149]I'm not sure you're the right person to be pointing out someones logical fallacies.[/QUOTE]
Oh great, it's you again who tried to claim I made a fallacy when it clearly wasn't one.
Fuck off.
WBC are pricks. I mean have some damn respect. If I went to a funeral and saw that, so help me I think I would have to punch one of them.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24163785]I still don't understand why people are willing to defend the rights of hateful, spiteful, and disrespectful people who fight against the very things the country is founded upon, but not willing to defend the rights of gays.
[editline]12:54PM[/editline]
I mean sure, it's good that this freedom is expressed...but bleh[/QUOTE]
I disagree 100% with their message, but the fact remains that saying they have no right to protest is bad and wrong, also.
[QUOTE=x_xPwntx_x;24172281]I disagree 100% with their message, but the fact remains that saying they have no right to protest is bad and wrong, also.[/QUOTE]
I never said they didn't have a right, they have all the right to protest however they see fit as long as they do it on public property, and although you'd think this kind of shit would count as harassment, I guess it isn't.
I am saying that these terrible people get their rights fought for and supported, but gays don't.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24173083]I never said they didn't have a right, they have all the right to protest however they see fit as long as they do it on public property, and although you'd think this kind of shit would count as harassment, I guess it isn't.
I am saying that these terrible people get their rights fought for and supported, but gays don't.[/QUOTE]
Gays should but due to our broken politics lately, they get screwed over more easily.
[QUOTE=Edgar Allan Poe;24119066]Wonderful. I love how in our country it's legal to protest the funerals of those who died in its wars.
EDIT: Some people are taking this the wrong way. Yes I know it's legal. Yes, I know it's part of the Bill of Rights. Legal or not, it's still retarded.[/QUOTE]
it's their right to do so
As much of an asshole as the people who would do this are, yes, it is their right. Tolerate them, yell back if you must.
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;24167311]WBC are pricks. I mean have some damn respect. If I went to a funeral and saw that, so help me I think I would have to punch one of them.[/QUOTE]
Punch them? screw that I would shoot them and say a snappy one liner like,
It looks like God hates you BOOM!(Just shot in the head leader of the church.)
fuck the WBC
Hit them right back with charges of disturbing the peace.
Or for pete sake just complain after the fact like your pals at fox.
1. It violates their First Amendment.
If you say this then you know nothing about the 1st Amendment.
People often mistake the 1st Amendment as their free pass to say what ever the hell they want to say. This is completely false and can be read in many places (and I will not do any of this shit for you - do your own damn research) and you will understand.
When you say they have a right to protest - what are they protesting at these funerals? What purpose do they have spreading their cause at these funerals? Absolutely none.
Toss your right to protest out the window because of the lack of evidence involved in the message attempting to be conveyed with the venue of choice where to protest it.
It'd be similar to me protesting illegal immigration infront of a preschool with signs saying "God hates Mexicans!"
Let's look at the message being conveyed.
"God hates fags" "God hates homos" so on and so forth. These protesters often use words as "Your son is dead because he fought for a country that supports fags" and "Your son is burning in hell" I have also heard things such as "Your son is burning in hell because he was a fag lover."
This techincally could be libel and slander. As defined;
Slander; harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech
Libel; (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast)
There for is not covered under the 1st Amendment and is actually illegal.
There are also points in the 1st Amendment that may be waivered if the overall purpose of the use of your freedom of speech and assembly is for the purpose of causing a purely negative reaction. In many ways, these 'protesters' could be charged with Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace in many aspects - why?
We once again fall back upon their purpose. Why are they protesting and speaking such hateful things to a person they never met before - or have even took the time to learn their history? Their word usage is to insight anger and negative reaction to the general public. They do this purposefully - which has been found evident in the recordings done of these individuals. They main purpose is to cause harmful negative reactions.
Which, there for, is not covered under any amendment to purposefully create disturbances with the intent to cause negative activity.
2. They are not harassing anyone.
If you say this, you are blind. Observe many videos of the WBC's 'protests' online and observe how much they truly do harass people verbally.
The fact that they have not caused so much anger in someone that they've been shot at these protests surprises me. It really does. Loss of life is an extremely emotional time - and to instill anger with the emotion of loss is not the most wise of things...
Which again, covers back to what I said. They use their message during a time and place to purposefully instill pain and instability to the general public.
Now you ask this - why then if it is not covered does it continue uncontested?
For one, a majority of the WBC are lawyers. We all know how lawyers are. A lot of people have fought them only to be sued by them.
Second of all, the 1st Amendment is an extremely contested area. There are lots of gray areas. Sometimes - gray areas are ignored until a case law comes into effect to settle it.
We likely will not see resolution in this until a case is opened on it and it is contested in court.
[QUOTE=spikemon;24177597]God never said he hated guns ya rainbow hating cuntnugget[/QUOTE]
Gotta throw some more duke into it.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24178121]1. It violates their First Amendment.
If you say this then you know nothing about the 1st Amendment.
People often mistake the 1st Amendment as their free pass to say what ever the hell they want to say. This is completely false and can be read in many places (and I will not do any of this shit for you - do your own damn research) and you will understand.
When you say they have a right to protest - what are they protesting at these funerals? What purpose do they have spreading their cause at these funerals? Absolutely none.
Toss your right to protest out the window because of the lack of evidence involved in the message attempting to be conveyed with the venue of choice where to protest it.
It'd be similar to me protesting illegal immigration infront of a preschool with signs saying "God hates Mexicans!"
Let's look at the message being conveyed.
"God hates fags" "God hates homos" so on and so forth. These protesters often use words as "Your son is dead because he fought for a country that supports fags" and "Your son is burning in hell" I have also heard things such as "Your son is burning in hell because he was a fag lover."
This techincally could be libel and slander. As defined;
Slander; harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech
Libel; (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast)
There for is not covered under the 1st Amendment and is actually illegal.
There are also points in the 1st Amendment that may be waivered if the overall purpose of the use of your freedom of speech and assembly is for the purpose of causing a purely negative reaction. In many ways, these 'protesters' could be charged with Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace in many aspects - why?
We once again fall back upon their purpose. Why are they protesting and speaking such hateful things to a person they never met before - or have even took the time to learn their history? Their word usage is to insight anger and negative reaction to the general public. They do this purposefully - which has been found evident in the recordings done of these individuals. They main purpose is to cause harmful negative reactions.
Which, there for, is not covered under any amendment to purposefully create disturbances with the intent to cause negative activity.
2. They are not harassing anyone.
If you say this, you are blind. Observe many videos of the WBC's 'protests' online and observe how much they truly do harass people verbally.
The fact that they have not caused so much anger in someone that they've been shot at these protests surprises me. It really does. Loss of life is an extremely emotional time - and to instill anger with the emotion of loss is not the most wise of things...
Which again, covers back to what I said. They use their message during a time and place to purposefully instill pain and instability to the general public.
Now you ask this - why then if it is not covered does it continue uncontested?
For one, a majority of the WBC are lawyers. We all know how lawyers are. A lot of people have fought them only to be sued by them.
Second of all, the 1st Amendment is an extremely contested area. There are lots of gray areas. Sometimes - gray areas are ignored until a case law comes into effect to settle it.
We likely will not see resolution in this until a case is opened on it and it is contested in court.[/QUOTE]
what does it matter why they're protesting? they're protesting, and that's a right.
i think you don't know about the constitution.
[QUOTE=GunFox;24123937]Why can't Muslim and Christian extremists ever go after each other.
I'd be fine with a car bomb at the WBC's compound.
Or the WBC attempting to picket a....uhhh...cave...in...the mountains of...Pakistan?[/QUOTE]
Oh sure, don't bother curbing violence, just move it to people YOU don't like.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;24178275]what does it matter why they're protesting? they're protesting, and that's a right.
i think you don't know about the constitution.[/QUOTE]
It matters that they're protesting grieving families of dead soldiers, if you honestly don't see that as being harassment (a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented; "so great was his harassment that he wanted to destroy his tormentors") then you're not thinking about this right. Sure it's their right to protest, but they're protesting things that HARASS grieving families.
harassment is a prolonged crime. It's not something that goes on for an hour, it's something that lasts days to weeks to even months.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.