• Judge: State ban on protests at military funerals unconstitutional
    230 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24202420]It isn't as simple as having an opinion that is offensive, they're targeting the people they KNOW will be hurt my their actions, it's more than just having an offensive opinion.[/QUOTE] it's not illegal to offend people.
I would strongly suggest those of you who are fighting this to research the First Amendment and obscenity. Take the time to learn and realize how utterly stupid you are making yourselves out to be.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24203022]I would strongly suggest those of you who are fighting this to research the First Amendment and obscenity. Take the time to learn and realize how utterly stupid you are making yourselves out to be.[/QUOTE] The problem with this is that it is a very fine line they are walking. Protesting at a funeral itself is not nearly as offensive and close to "hate speech'(something that could be blocked constitutionally) and what groups such as the WBC would do. Telling somebody that their dead child is going to hell for not hating homos is sounds pretty damn close to hate speech to me. But to disallow all protesting at funerals purely because one group abuses the right is not the way to do things.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24203022]I would strongly suggest those of you who are fighting this to research the First Amendment and obscenity. Take the time to learn and realize how utterly stupid you are making yourselves out to be.[/QUOTE] k, you can be as obscene as you want under the first amendment. prove otherwise.
[QUOTE=Warhol;24204929]k, you can be as obscene as you want under the first amendment. prove otherwise.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test"]Miller test?[/URL]
Beat me to it, Xen. The sad thing is these people could have found that out themselves, yet they are so arrogant and think themselves so much correct that we have to do work for them. Thank you. :) I'll go ahead and post it in short term in quote in case these poor lazy people are still too lazy to click a link. [quote]The Miller test (also called the Three Prong Obscenity Test[1] ), is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.[/quote] Even shorter. [quote]is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.[/quote] Oh, what's this? [quote]in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution[/quote] Yet, I know nothing about the first amendment, supposedly. Funny.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24211381]Beat me to it, Xen. The sad thing is these people could have found that out themselves, yet they are so arrogant and think themselves so much correct that we have to do work for them. Thank you. :) I'll go ahead and post it in short term in quote in case these poor lazy people are still too lazy to click a link. Even shorter. Oh, what's this? Yet, I know nothing about the first amendment, supposedly. Funny.[/QUOTE] Protesting at a funeral does not inherently mean that the protest is obscene. The ban is unconstitutional, while keeping groups such as the WBC from protesting in their trademark "you looked at a fag and didn't scream, you're going to hell" is probably constitutional under the first amendment.
Have you even watched videos of them? They say more shit than what is on their signs. The fact you people just see the issue from some news article on the internet without doing proper research into the subject - and speaking as if you are totally right...it's so mind boggling. But at the same time - extremely humorous.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24211940]Have you even watched videos of them? They say more shit than what is on their signs. The fact you people just see the issue from some news article on the internet without doing proper research into the subject - and speaking as if you are totally right...it's so mind boggling. But at the same time - extremely humorous.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Just because the WBC protests at funerals in an extremely offensive and obscene way does not mean that the act of a protest at a funeral requires asshattery on that scale. That is why a ban on a protest at a funeral is unconstitutional.
How can you act in an extremely offensive and obscene way without actually being obscene? You're making no sense.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24212140]How can you act in an extremely offensive and obscene way without actually being obscene? You're making no sense.[/QUOTE] Protesting at a funeral does not mean that you are screaming insults. That's like saying that if I protest a law I am screaming obscenities on the front lawn of the courthouse. We have a right to protest under the first amendment, just because one group abuses it does not mean that the right disappears. That clear enough for you?
But they are screaming insults at the funerals, have you never watched any footage of them? Seriously. =/
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24212369]But they are screaming insults at the funerals, have you never watched any footage of them? Seriously. =/[/QUOTE] I don't know how I can make myself any more clear. A protest does not have to include screaming obscenities. To ban all protests at funerals because a some scream insults violates the first amendment. This ruling does not say its ok to scream obscenities in protest at funerals, it says that it is ok to protest. The WBC abuses that right, but that does not mean that all will. Your definition of protest is insanely flawed.
I agree with what you're saying. You were making it out as if the WBC were conducting themselves in a non-obscene manner. I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, I still think the protests of private citizen's funerals should not be allowed. Public figures are different stories - because your expectation of privacy is gone once you become one. But Joe or Jane Doe - they need to be left alone. There are no real purpose or reason behind doing such things to their funerals. It serves no constructive purpose to their 'cause'.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24212677]I agree with what you're saying. You were making it out as if the WBC were conducting themselves in a non-obscene manner. I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, I still think the protests of private citizen's funerals should not be allowed. Public figures are different stories - because your expectation of privacy is gone once you become one. But Joe or Jane Doe - they need to be left alone. There are no real purpose or reason behind doing such things to their funerals. It serves no constructive purpose to their 'cause'.[/QUOTE] I agree it serves no purpose to them and is wrong, but unless an amendment is added to the constitution there is nothing that can be done about it short of restricting the hate speech. Hopefully since this law has been struck down they will replace it with one that bars hate speech to get the WBC to at least not be assholes to the dead if they wont show respect to them.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24212369]But they are screaming insults at the funerals, have you never watched any footage of them? Seriously. =/[/QUOTE] Are you not fucking getting this? He's saying a ban on ALL people who protest at funerals stops EVERYONE, and is therefore unconstitutional, it's taking away everyones rights because of something one group did.
banning any protest is illegal... is it not?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;24220830]Are you not fucking getting this? He's saying a ban on ALL people who protest at funerals stops EVERYONE, and is therefore unconstitutional, it's taking away everyones rights because of something one group did.[/QUOTE] Yeah because I'm sure everyone will miss the right to offend grieving families
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24224482]Yeah because I'm sure everyone will miss the right to offend grieving families[/QUOTE] wow you're just all kinds of ignorant aren't you. are you suggesting we should base laws on things that offend people? that's a ridiculously terrible way of legislating.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;24224595]wow you're just all kinds of ignorant aren't you. are you suggesting we should base laws on things that offend people? that's a ridiculously terrible way of legislating.[/QUOTE] because we don't have laws against harassment or hate speech or anything [editline]06:29PM[/editline] All the legality of WBC's doing stands upon is whether the judge calls offending grieving families harassment or hate speech, otherwise they're fine.
Abuse of your first amendment.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24224723]because we don't have laws against harassment or hate speech or anything [editline]06:29PM[/editline] All the legality of WBC's doing stands upon is whether the judge calls offending grieving families harassment or hate speech, otherwise they're fine.[/QUOTE] if it was harassment or hate speech they would be tried by now.
I don't see how it isn't, they go to people's funerals and tell them that their loved ones deserved to die because of some shitty reason, and they don't leave and they keep doing it.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24226023]I don't see how it isn't, they go to people's funerals and tell them that their loved ones deserved to die because of some shitty reason, and they don't leave and they keep doing it.[/QUOTE] then go sue them.
they haven't done that to me though
When Fred Phelps dies, I'm going to picket his funeral with signs that say "God Hates Incest" and "This is why brothers and sisters shouldn't have kids." I hope someone does something to bring them over the edge. I'm not talking about killing or hurting one of the members, I mean someone finding that tiny rage button and pushing it, and letting the church members know exactly how it feels. Something like if one of the child-members were to get sick and die, and a ton of people showed up to the funeral to picked about how the WBC deserved it because they're sub-human shit.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24226212]they haven't done that to me though[/QUOTE] obviously the receiving families would have sued them, no?
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;24226294]obviously the receiving families would have sued them, no?[/QUOTE] I think they're scared to because of people like you who say it isn't harassment, so they don't want to lose thousands
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24226330]I think they're scared to because of people like you who say it isn't harassment, so they don't want to lose thousands[/QUOTE] which they would, because any good lawyer would tell them what they're doing is legal and constitutional.
I'm not saying protesting funerals is necessarily unconstitutional btw, just the way WBC does it. And why the hell is it perfectly legal to harass grieving families, I don't understand.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.