The three part test I am talking about has been used in cases since the one you talked about. It is no longer necessary to prove that speech can only be regulated if it presents clear and presesnt danger to public safety. Now it only has to prove that it serves significant government interest.
Left out of my original post
Part B also stipulates that said regulation is narrow in focus.
While I agree with you that SCOTUS may use the three-part test to determine if this speech should (or could) be regulated, I don't think it will pass in this instance.
Truly I need to see that actual issue that the SCOTUS will be deciding on. Based on the OP's article it's kind of hard to tell.
If the SCOTUS is deciding whether it was unconstitutional for Maryland to fine the group for their actions, well that's a different story.
If they are ruling on whether or not free speech should be regulated in THIS instance is a different matter.
Maryland didn't fine them. Snyder (the father) sued for damages, and won for emotional damages; this was overturned in the appellate decision on the basis that their speech was protected.
Yeah anti-lying laws seem great right until you get to the point where 'lying' is defined. Without extremely narrow and tailored definitions, (slander and libel for instance) you've just poked a hole in free speech that leaves it completely vulnerable.
When I made the thread, I was mostly seeking fellow-ragers that these types of protests, no matter how poor in taste they are, are fully 100% legal and within their rights to take place. I know the reality is that freedom of speech has place here. I just really fucking wish it wasn't for these people but my wishing on it isn't enough merit.
Well yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone would love for them to be on the receiving end of some horrifying fantasy or another. But that's not something that should enter in to the law making process.
Absolutely. We all wish that we could just shoot terrorists who blow up children in the face as well, but recognizing the right to a trial is important. Hell, I wish the silly geese on the Jersey Shore would all get slow painful fatal cancers or that we could just not let any of the teabaggers or Bushies vote, but principal won't allow it
The three part test I am talking about has been used in cases since the one you talked about. It is no longer necessary to prove that speech can only be regulated if it presents clear and presesnt danger to public safety. Now it only has to prove that it serves significant government interest.
Left out of my original post
Part B also stipulates that said regulation is narrow in focus.
While I agree with you that SCOTUS may use the three-part test to determine if this speech should (or could) be regulated, I don't think it will pass in this instance.
Truly I need to see that actual issue that the SCOTUS will be deciding on. Based on the OP's article it's kind of hard to tell.
If the SCOTUS is deciding whether it was unconstitutional for Maryland to fine the group for their actions, well that's a different story.
If they are ruling on whether or not free speech should be regulated in THIS instance is a different matter.
Appellate decision - It was not so much about the location of the protest, which was not in the immediate vicinity of the cemetery but the content of the protest along with a written document (an "Epic") that said terrible things about how God hates gays and all the bad stuff that happens to America or Americans is because we don't kill gays etc etc.
It was undisputed at trial that Defendants com-
plied with local ordinances and police directions
with respect to being a certain distance from the
church. Furthermore, it was established at trial that
Snyder did not actually see the signs until he saw a
television program later that day with footage of the
Phelps family at his son’s funeral.
...
The complaint alleged five state law tort
claims: defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given
to private life, IIED, and civil conspiracy. The Defendants
moved for summary judgment on those claims, contending,
inter alia, that their challenged words "constitute[ ] expres-
sions of opinion, which are not actionable." J.A. 239.2 They
asserted that their words "are clearly rhetorical, hypothetical,
religious and laced with opinion," and that "it is impossible to
prove or disprove these things, particularly given that doctri-
nal viewpoints drive the opinions." Id.
..In objecting to Instruction No. 21,
the Defendants asserted that "the First Amendment has more
of a heavy balance even in civil cases than just anybody not
wanting to be offended."
The basis for the decision (having the jury determine a matter purely of law and not facts, and incorrect application of 1st Amendment standards) starts ~p20
I kind of hope some court at some point does ban protests outside of funerals. Especially as it will only apply to complete assholes
It's really just not worth opening that avenue. Public is public, and these guys are definitely the only people I've heard of that do it. Well over half that asshole's congregation are directly related to him. I mean seriously, we're talking about the minoritiest of minorities.
t. Cous: I don't care
t. moniker: I don't care either
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
t. Cous: I don't care
t. moniker: I don't care either
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
Since there doesn't need to be a reason, let alone a good one, to protest in the public square...well, I guess I don't care either then. They have a right to be assholes. Tough titty.
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
t. Cous: I don't care
t. moniker: I don't care either
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
'I don't care' that you don't care, we don't make laws and take away rights based on your level of concern.
t. Cous: I don't care
t. moniker: I don't care either
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
what if they were having hitler's funeral and and talking about how awesome he was and planning where to put the next concentration camps in his eulogy?
What if as part of a funeral ceremony, they sacrificed kittens to satan?
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
It is an implied right from the right of free speech. It is the same as the implied right to tell a person they are going to hell and god hates them while they are playing with their child in the park.
t. Cous: I don't care
t. moniker: I don't care either
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
what if they were having hitler's funeral and and talking about how awesome he was and planning where to put the next concentration camps in his eulogy?
What if as part of a funeral ceremony, they sacrificed kittens to satan?
etc
I'm pretty sure those two are already against the law.
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
It is an implied right from the right of free speech.
I'm just saying that if that right were stricken, I'd be fine with it.
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
It is an implied right from the right of free speech.
I'm just saying that if that right were stricken, I'd be fine with it.
So you are fine with denying freedoms due to people using it in an unpopular way.
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
It is an implied right from the right of free speech.
I'm just saying that if that right were stricken, I'd be fine with it.
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
It is an implied right from the right of free speech.
I'm just saying that if that right were stricken, I'd be fine with it.
So you are fine with denying freedoms due to people using it in an unpopular way.
heh.
In this extremely specific case, yes. Funerals are a very private intimate ceremony. The fact that they often must be held in a public area shouldn't mean that they can be intruded on in any way.
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I forgot the "not be a silly goose" exception to fundamental rights. It must be right up there with "people who hold unpopular views" exception.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
It is an implied right from the right of free speech.
I'm just saying that if that right were stricken, I'd be fine with it.
t. Cous: I don't care
t. moniker: I don't care either
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
I assure you that if we were having gay marriage in the US, there would be scores of protestors outside telling everyone how they were going to burn in hell for the sin of being in love. The people at the wedding would then be just as offended. So I guess we need to ban protests there too. Oh, and what about at a graduation. What if we had some kids graduating with their shiny new degrees in human cloning or something fundies don't like, well then they would also be justifiably upset by the protest. Looks like we have to ban protests there too.
You unfortunately cannot suppress one form of offensive speech, without fiddling with everything. If you said to me, 'Would you rather have protestors at your funeral, or at your wedding' I'd take them at the funeral every time.
I detest these people, and I hate that they're doing this but I support their right to do it. That's just part of being in the United States. The best way to get rid of them is if everyone would just take the high road and ignore them completely.
Orochi_Rockman on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
I would much rather some asshole abuse his free speech rights than the government abuse loopholes created in response to some asshole.
I couldn't look at someone who just had their freshly buried son called all sorts of forms of "silly goose" and tell them that though.
As shitty a situation it is, and I feel for the family here, I'm not prepared to put holes in the constitution because someone made them angry.
I'm not sure if the holes aren't already there, and maybe outlawing calling dead soldiers faggots at their funerals wouldn't maybe be a good thing.
Do you really think that's what the wording is going to be? The end result is, it becomes an example where a judge has said "we find this kind of free speech to be useless" and that is ALWAYS bad.
Just because Bush made his "Free Speech Zones" when everyone was letting him do whatever the fuck he wanted with the country doesn't mean you say "Oh well, constitution boned anyway, nevermind guys."
I would much rather some asshole abuse his free speech rights than the government abuse loopholes created in response to some asshole.
I couldn't look at someone who just had their freshly buried son called all sorts of forms of "silly goose" and tell them that though.
As shitty a situation it is, and I feel for the family here, I'm not prepared to put holes in the constitution because someone made them angry.
I'm not sure if the holes aren't already there, and maybe outlawing calling dead soldiers faggots at their funerals wouldn't maybe be a good thing.
Do you really think that's what the wording is going to be? The end result is, it becomes an example where a judge has said "we find this kind of free speech to be useless" and that is ALWAYS bad.
Just because Bush made his "Free Speech Zones" when everyone was letting him do whatever the fuck he wanted with the country doesn't mean you say "Oh well, constitution boned anyway, nevermind guys."
what is useful about protesting a funeral?
and no, I doubt that would be the exact wording hehe
Posts
Here's the ruling that was appealed: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf
Maryland didn't fine them. Snyder (the father) sued for damages, and won for emotional damages; this was overturned in the appellate decision on the basis that their speech was protected.
Absolutely. We all wish that we could just shoot terrorists who blow up children in the face as well, but recognizing the right to a trial is important. Hell, I wish the silly geese on the Jersey Shore would all get slow painful fatal cancers or that we could just not let any of the teabaggers or Bushies vote, but principal won't allow it
Appellate decision - It was not so much about the location of the protest, which was not in the immediate vicinity of the cemetery but the content of the protest along with a written document (an "Epic") that said terrible things about how God hates gays and all the bad stuff that happens to America or Americans is because we don't kill gays etc etc.
The basis for the decision (having the jury determine a matter purely of law and not facts, and incorrect application of 1st Amendment standards) starts ~p20
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's really just not worth opening that avenue. Public is public, and these guys are definitely the only people I've heard of that do it. Well over half that asshole's congregation are directly related to him. I mean seriously, we're talking about the minoritiest of minorities.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
What if the people are protesting on behalf of the deceased?
But what if I wanted to protest outside Hitler's funeral? Do you want to support Hitler?
They are complete assholes, but unless violence is almost certain, I don't think they should be banned from being complete assholes.
t Cerv: how would you protest on behalf of the deceased? Wouldn't that be 'just being at the funeral'?
t. Cous: hitler is already dead, so no worries.
For example, if the person received the death penalty, anti-death penalty protestors might like to show up in support.
tough titty, it isn't their funeral
It isn't the family member's funeral either if it is a public funeral.
It is their sidewalk, however.
t. moniker: I don't care either
there is no good reason to protest at a funeral. You can protest anything you would protest at a funeral (or directly outside a funeral) at any other time and not be a silly goose.
Since there doesn't need to be a reason, let alone a good one, to protest in the public square...well, I guess I don't care either then. They have a right to be assholes. Tough titty.
I don't think it should be a fundamental right to make the death and burial of a loved one even worse for someone else.
'I don't care' that you don't care, we don't make laws and take away rights based on your level of concern.
what if they were having hitler's funeral and and talking about how awesome he was and planning where to put the next concentration camps in his eulogy?
What if as part of a funeral ceremony, they sacrificed kittens to satan?
etc
It is an implied right from the right of free speech. It is the same as the implied right to tell a person they are going to hell and god hates them while they are playing with their child in the park.
I'm pretty sure those two are already against the law.
I'm just saying that if that right were stricken, I'd be fine with it.
I wouldn't be.
Impasse.
heh.
In this extremely specific case, yes. Funerals are a very private intimate ceremony. The fact that they often must be held in a public area shouldn't mean that they can be intruded on in any way.
agree to disagree sir!
I assure you that if we were having gay marriage in the US, there would be scores of protestors outside telling everyone how they were going to burn in hell for the sin of being in love. The people at the wedding would then be just as offended. So I guess we need to ban protests there too. Oh, and what about at a graduation. What if we had some kids graduating with their shiny new degrees in human cloning or something fundies don't like, well then they would also be justifiably upset by the protest. Looks like we have to ban protests there too.
You unfortunately cannot suppress one form of offensive speech, without fiddling with everything. If you said to me, 'Would you rather have protestors at your funeral, or at your wedding' I'd take them at the funeral every time.
I'm not offhand sure that there have been any (probably have I guess).
Maybe I just don't like public protests at private ceremonies.
So we should only ensure people have the right to protest under certain specific conditions that the government deems allowable.
or maybe just not at private, intimate, expensive ceremonies.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
I couldn't look at someone who just had their freshly buried son called all sorts of forms of "silly goose" and tell them that though.
Wouldn't be the first time laws have been passed to enforce basic human decency.
you mean like free speech zones?
As shitty a situation it is, and I feel for the family here, I'm not prepared to put holes in the constitution because someone made them angry.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Then turn away while you uphold basic liberties.
I'm not sure if the holes aren't already there, and maybe outlawing calling dead soldiers faggots at their funerals wouldn't maybe be a good thing.
Do you really think that's what the wording is going to be? The end result is, it becomes an example where a judge has said "we find this kind of free speech to be useless" and that is ALWAYS bad.
Just because Bush made his "Free Speech Zones" when everyone was letting him do whatever the fuck he wanted with the country doesn't mean you say "Oh well, constitution boned anyway, nevermind guys."
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
what is useful about protesting a funeral?
and no, I doubt that would be the exact wording hehe
We all know who the Westboro Baptist Church is and what they stand for, that's what is useful about it