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

HenroidHenroid NobodyNowhere fastRegistered User regular
edited March 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
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
'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
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.

Henroid on
"Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
- @Ludious
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
«13456711

Posts

  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    The Roberts court will find some way to fuck it up.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Popular speech does not need protection.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • EvigilantEvigilant Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    That kid died serving for that right. Sure he may not have been engaged directly in a battle against that liberty or what have you, however service in the military generally entails that you defend/project and protect those rights. Whether they like it or not, the family needs to be shown how they are wrong. There is nothing in the constitution that protects your kin's image/reputation/holiness in a funeral or any ceremony.

    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?

    "Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Google+ Profile Origin: 13Evigilant Steam: Evigilant
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2010
    These people need to be sodomized by something large and pointy, but I'm not really wild about limiting protests to that extent, unless the protests are going to directly cause harm in some fashion.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2010
    Evigilant wrote: »
    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?

    It's not like these people don't realize they're being assholes to people. That's kind of their point.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    These people need to be sodomized by something large and pointy, but I'm not really wild about limiting protests to that extent, unless the protests are going to directly cause harm in some fashion.

    Pretty much this. OUtside of the emotional harm, I don't see much of a reason to ban it.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Evigilant wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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?

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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?

    People do not have a right to not be offended.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm not convinced we've earned the right for free speech

    JKKaAGp.png
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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.

    That is a bizarre place. I didn't know they did that kind of thing anymore.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm not convinced we've earned the right for free speech

    Earned? You don't earn them. You just have them. They are Inherent.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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?

    People do not have a right to not be offended.

    Are you human by any chance?

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    That is a bizarre place. I didn't know they did that kind of thing anymore.

    Colma is kind of a weird place.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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.

    That is a bizarre place. I didn't know they did that kind of thing anymore.

    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.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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?

    People do not have a right to not be offended.

    Are you human by any chance?

    What does that have to do with diddly?

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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?

    People do not have a right to not be offended.

    Are you human by any chance?

    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?

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    The Westboro Baptist Church knows how the game is played, that's why so many of them are lawyers - they sue to keep protesting, if you touch them they sue you for money to keep protesting. But honestly now, they don't do anything but spout inflammatory speech and promote civil unrest - cases like this should be open-and-shut where the judge goes "you go exercise your free speech somewhere where it isn't disturbing the peace" which is a polite way of telling them to go fuck themselves with their protest signs at least 1000 feet away from the cemetery boundaries.

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The Westboro Baptist Church knows how the game is played, that's why so many of them are lawyers - they sue to keep protesting, if you touch them they sue you for money to keep protesting. But honestly now, they don't do anything but spout inflammatory speech and promote civil unrest - cases like this should be open-and-shut where the judge goes "you go exercise your free speech somewhere where it isn't disturbing the peace" which is a polite way of telling them to go fuck themselves with their protest signs at least 1000 feet away from the cemetery boundaries.

    ^ 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.

  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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?

    People do not have a right to not be offended.

    Are you human by any chance?

    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?

    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.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    I think the setup now is about right. Funeral over here, protesters down the street. Police there to keep anyone from shooting each other.

    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?

    People do not have a right to not be offended.

    Are you human by any chance?

    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?

    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.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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*

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    PSN: allenquid
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010

    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.

    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".

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • JokermanJokerman Love is careless in its choosing. Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    No one is banning free speech, don't be a silly goose.

    Chanus wrote: »
    the best asians are white people
    My blog about Beer!
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    Yeah because in the past, rallies and protests weren't nearly as bad.
    Spoiler:
    Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. When you allow people to be punished because of the content of their speech, you are violating the fundamental right of free expression. Just because the ideas are repugnant and wrong doesn't mean they aren't protected

    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.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    No one is banning free speech, don't be a silly goose.

    They are banning free speech from a public area. It's still banning free speech even if they can do it somewhere else.

    PSN: allenquid
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Popular speech does not need protection.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    No one is banning free speech, don't be a silly goose.

    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.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • JokermanJokerman Love is careless in its choosing. Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    Yeah because in the past, rallies and protests weren't nearly as bad.
    Spoiler:
    Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. When you allow people to be punished because of the content of their speech, you are violating the fundamental right of free expression. Just because the ideas are repugnant and wrong doesn't mean they aren't protected

    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 prohibitive - 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.

    you cant shout fire in the middle of a theater, there are already limits to free speech.

    Chanus wrote: »
    the best asians are white people
    My blog about Beer!
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    what's worse, KKK saying blacks should die, or people screwing up a guy's funeral. It doesn't matter! The idea behind free speech isn't rocket science. We let the KKK speak whatever the hell they want for a very important reason, so I have no problem saying that "speaking ill of the dead when you're within a certain proximity to their dead body and family members" should be quite legal.

  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Isn't there a group of motorcyclists who act as a sort of buffer guard for soldiers' funerals, so that the families of the deceased don't have to deal with the Westboro assholes?

    "If anyone tried to steal your WAX LIPS, you would eat their eyeballs and deliver an angry lecture into their empty sockets." Hearts Boxcars, The Midnight Crew
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Jokerman wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Evigilant wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    Yeah because in the past, rallies and protests weren't nearly as bad.
    Spoiler:
    Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. When you allow people to be punished because of the content of their speech, you are violating the fundamental right of free expression. Just because the ideas are repugnant and wrong doesn't mean they aren't protected

    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 prohibitive - 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.

    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!

  • JokermanJokerman Love is careless in its choosing. Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    No one is banning free speech, don't be a silly goose.

    They are banning free speech from a public area. It's still banning free speech even if they can do it somewhere else.

    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.

    Chanus wrote: »
    the best asians are white people
    My blog about Beer!
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    It's inhibiting it at worse.

    We have some emotional devoid people on this forum.

    No, you have people who don't think appeals to emotion are a great basis for creating laws.

    PSN: allenquid
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Jokerman wrote: »
    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.

    You have a public area.

    You ban free speech in that public area.

    Free speech is banned in that public area.

    PSN: allenquid
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    No one is banning free speech, don't be a silly goose.

    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.

    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.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
«13456711
Sign In or Register to comment.