Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Crazy people protesting funerals
Henroid
WorthlessTyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
WorthlessTyler, TX (where hope comes to die!)Registered User regular
tl;dr to the below article - SCOTUS decided today that, later this year, they will make a ruling on where free speech stands in regard to protests in close proximity to funerals or solemn ceremonies. It will help decide if family / friends of the funeral can sue protest organizers, like our lovely friends at the Westboro Baptist Church.
Article link
Article link
I agree with people who say it shouldn't be necessary for government to intervene or manage this, that, or the other. But the sad fact of the matter is that we, the American people, are so goddamn awful to each other that we end up needing the government to make these rules for us. It's pathetic that people would fight for the right to freedom of speech for the purpose of dishonoring the dead, even if their lawyers say it isn't targeting the individual specifically. What a piece of fucking work.'Thank God for dead soldiers': Supreme Court to rule on free speech in case of soldier's funeral
March 8, 2010 | 9:22 am
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on the outer limits of free-speech protection for public protests and to rule on whether a dead soldier’s family can sue fringe religious protesters who picketed near their son’s funeral with signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers."
A Maryland jury awarded $10 million in damages to Albert Snyder, whose son Matthew was killed in Iraq in March 2006. He had sued Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., who has traveled the country for 20 years leading controversial protests at funerals for American soldiers.
He claims that God hates America because of its tolerance of homosexuality. He and his small group of followers carried protest signs at the funeral in Westminster, Md., that said, “Fag troops,” “God hates the USA” and “God hates fags.”
But a lawyer for Phelps said his protests were not targeted at Lance Corp. Matthew Snyder, the soldier, but more generally at America and the U.S. military. The protesters were kept at a distance from the church and the burial service. Nonetheless, the jury awarded damages to the Snyder family on the grounds that the funeral protests invaded their privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.
In September, however, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the entire award on free-speech grounds. “Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are constrained to concluded that the defendants’ signs are constitutionally protected,” the appeals court said.
Snyder’s family appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the protests had “tarnished” their son’s funeral. “Matthew deserved better. A civilized society deserved better,” they said.
The court announced it had voted to hear the appeal in Snyder vs. Phelps and to rule on whether the right to free speech extended to the right to intrude on a solemn ceremony. The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.
-- David G. Savage, reporting from Washington
Henroid on
Posts
The Roberts court will find some way to fuck it up.
How about rather than trying to sue people or create laws we educate people on why doing something this way is being a dick and discourage that. What happened to encouraging people to be decent f'ing human beings and when did we start having to encourage that?
Google+ Profile Origin: 13Evigilant Steam: Evigilant
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
It's not like these people don't realize they're being assholes to people. That's kind of their point.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Pretty much this. OUtside of the emotional harm, I don't see much of a reason to ban it.
Even if we made that leap right now, we need a band-aid for the generation raised to be dicks and the generation they've raised to be dicks.
That's too close, frankly. And does the setup now include keeping the protesters off the road that the Hurst is gonna be going down?
I don't know how it works where that funeral was.
But I live right next to a neighborhood that is literally a modern necropolis (it was founded and incorporated just to protect San Francisco's cemeteries) and there's a city ordinance that all traffic - vehicle and foot traffic - has to yield for funeral processions. And, yes, they will disperse and ticket people who willfully get in the way (I've seen it happen). But, as I said, this is a town that only exists because of respect for the dead.
Stating that people have a right to assemble, but have to keep X distance away from funeral proceedings out of respect for the grievers, would not seem like an onerous infringement of that right to assemble as long as X were a reasonable distance.
People do not have a right to not be offended.
That is a bizarre place. I didn't know they did that kind of thing anymore.
Earned? You don't earn them. You just have them. They are Inherent.
Are you human by any chance?
Colma is kind of a weird place.
Wow.
The word "Necropolis" normally conjures up pictures of a small portion of the Kremlin Walls or large Scourge strongholds in Warcraft. Not actually places were people live in real life.
Thank you for educating me.
What does that have to do with diddly?
You don't think a funeral, a rather exceptional point in people's lives when a loved one is lost, would grant them at least a moment's reprieve from other people's bullshit?
Honestly, I'd never considered it used in a modern context until I'd read that Wikipedia article a while back and then I was like "I live by a necropolis? Cool!"
It's just that there are a lot of cemeteries. Really big cemeteries.
^ This.
It seems to me that a very narrow ruling on this specific issue is really what's called for. They're obviously gaming the system - fuck them for it.
Nope. Not when it infringes on other peoples rights. These protesters are in public and they have the right to free speech. They aren't infringing on others rights, they are just assholes. Being an asshole isn't against the law.
Conversely a lot of our liberties are built on the assumption people will avoid using them to be assholes, generally speaking. If you make a habit of being a jerk using specific elements of the law, then frankly we need to change the law to inhibit that.
If you're from a country where space is at a premium, and cremation and other practices are very common, it's really mind boggling. At least I think so.
When I die, my remains will probably end up in a tiny locker in a shrine along some popular bike road in some unremarkable mountains. But an entire community based around maintaining graves? *whistle*
People use this exact reasoning to push laws banning flag burning. It is not the sort of reasoning I want used to ban free speech.
I sincerely disagree. When you say "our" who do you mean? I think you would be hard pressed to find something in the constitution of the US or the bill of rights, or even in general law, that would say "You have this right, unless you are a dick about it".
No one is banning free speech, don't be a silly goose.
Yeah because in the past, rallies and protests weren't nearly as bad.
You don't have a right to not be offended. No such right can exist without fundamentally violating free speech. Any speech can be offensive, so either all speech is/can be prohibited - clearly not supportable - or the speech must be permissible or prohibited based on its content. Those are literally the two primary classes of free speech violations.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They are banning free speech from a public area. It's still banning free speech even if they can do it somewhere else.
It's inhibiting it at worse.
We have some emotional devoid people on this forum.
you cant shout fire in the middle of a theater, there are already limits to free speech.
Yea, and you can't hire a hitman. It's just words! You're not actually killing anyone yourself!
no ones saying they're not free to sprout there asshatness, they just cant do it anywhere they want. That's not banning anything, it's just curtailing it.
No, you have people who don't think appeals to emotion are a great basis for creating laws.
You have a public area.
You ban free speech in that public area.
Free speech is banned in that public area.
This has nothing to do with emotion. You don't feel about rights. You think about them. I feel like that are terrible people that are doing something I disagree with. But that does not play into this. They have a right to do what they are doing. Ad Hominem attacks against the people you disagree with here does not change that fact or help your argument.