Wow, read the whole thread. At first I could see how these people should all just be sprayed with a firehouse or something, but they have the legal right to do what they are doing.
Take comfort in knowing they will all die after accomplishing nothing with their lives and will probably never see the falling apart of the country or a religious apocalypse.
My biggest issue with free speech is that people are fucking retarded and will get fooled by the Glenn Becks of the world with blatant lies.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
It hurts society quite a bit, at that.
What you are proposing is terribly dangerous. It would have a huge chilling effect on free speech because it would give the government the power to go after political opponents.
The solution to "bad" speech isn't a government ban on such speech. The solution is countering it with "good" speech.
Bah, you know that good news doesn't outweigh bad news in the media.
With people like that, though, you don't need countervailing opinions. They are their own counterargument.
It's all well and good to say that reasonable limits are required on speech, but creating perfect limits has always eluded the SCOTUS, so they've decided that all free speech is better then faulty rules on free speech.
Now if only they'd apply that fine legal judgment to the death penalty. Ho hum.
Look, we can't refuse to execute people just because they "might" be "innocent"![/Scalia]
My biggest issue with free speech is that people are fucking retarded and will get fooled by the Glenn Becks of the world with blatant lies.
There should be some sort of law banning blatant lying in a public forum. I don't mean stuff you disagree with (politics, religion, etc) but stuff that is completely and factually untrue. It's one thing to say 'Allah is the one true god' (cause, hell, who knows) and another to say something like "Obama totally said he was gonna rape your grandma and kill her."
Well, first off disrupting a private function on private property is definitivly not free speech. So if thats what the WBC then they got to go. Just so we got that out of the way. Most cemetaries are however public property or public space in one way or other.
I'm not positive I agree with you, but the point is they aren't disrupting what's going on inside. You walk past the WBC folks and into the church or cemetary and bam you're no longer being disrupted by them.
Then I got to ask you what is Funerals to you? I mean its obviously more then simple waste disposal, its often a religious ceremony or secular display of grief. How is that not a form of free speech? I am not allowed to show grief because an asshole wants to make a political point? Again what are funerals if not a display of free speech? There are after all two parties in this debate WBC and the attendees of the funerals. Focusing on the free speech of WBC without considering the Free speech of the attendees is just as wrong as blanketly banning WBC from making their point.
I can't see any way to interpret a funeral as an exercise of free speech, though certainly many are exercises of religion. The point here is twofold: first is the fact that the funerals aren't actually being disrupted, because protest =! disruption, and second is that the WBC folks are on public property.
And Heckling is the core of any argument made here. These are not two separate events, one is happening in response to the other. If one event is made to purposefully prevent or disrupt the other, how is it free speech? How is my free speech protected when an asshole can interupt me without me having any recourse? Do you have the right to prevent other people from talking by screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH loudly while they try to make their point?
I think I'm gonna need some sort of cite on this one, because it seems to me that this is not what the WBC guys are doing. For instance, Snyder (the father of the dead Marine) didn't know the WBC guys were holding signs until he saw them on TV later. If they were trying to be disruptive I don't think that would be the case.
Edit. PS. the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
No, but it is the fucking law. If you want to restrict speech in public areas you need to write a law that does that. Absent a law restricting protests on public property outside funeral services it is illegal for the government to interfere unless there are issues of public safety (which were being handled by having police present much like at many student protests). You do not get to just up and invent new rules because someone is being a dick. I don't like what Glenn Beck says but he's got a fucking right to say it, and you people need to realize that if you try to take it away you're also trying to take away Cindy Sheehan's right to stand outside George Bush's ranch in Texas.
Unless you can come up with some sort of narrow, objective test that would show some difference between the two beyond 'I don't like one of them'.
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.
I guess I don't understand why they want to dedicate their lives to being complete assholes to complete strangers.
I'm not saying they have no right to do so. Rather, they have no cause to do so. It's just so... random.
Gay pride parades are a political statement that people disagree with.
And that many others find offensive. Many people find homosexuals in and of themselves offensive, much less a loud celebration heading down the street dedicated to them. They are offended by this. In some areas these people make up the majority. Should they or should they not be able to ban gay pride parades?
So, go protest at gay pride parades. Why fuck with someone's funeral? This would be like me going to someone's wedding and screwing it all up to protest fucking up perfectly good beer with Jagermeister.
GungHo on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
Guys the Supreme Court actually has a three part test for dealing with EXACTLY this type of case. So you can stop all this wild assertions that asshole speech is protected everywhere. It is NOT. I think that this case will be handled pretty quickly by the SC. There is already precedence for rulings that would allow for this type of narrow regulation of protected speech (can't protest near a funeral).
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
The regulation must serve governmental interests. (This is interpreted as "keeping the peace" which is of significant interest to the government).
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
'That is not true. We, the government, are perfect. You are under arrest for lying.'
'Oh. Shit.'
What if it worked more like libel/slander?
Hell why can't we USE the current libel/slander laws?
Libel/slander needs to be directed at a particular person or entity. Saying "Obama's proposed health care will lead to old people being fed to wolves" is a lie, but it doesn't slander any person or entity.
Furthermore, it is very dificult for a public person (such as a politican) to win a slander/libel lawsuit. Case law has set the bar very high for such people to win. It's easier for non-public people to win libel/slander lawsuits.
But, keep in mind, this isn't a criminal law issue. There are no criminal penalties for libel/slander- this is a purely civil issue where someone sues for damages based on libel/slander directed at them.
Libel/slander wouldn't be effective against the WBC people since their speech is base on opinions, rather than factual claims about a particular person.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So, go protest at gay pride parades. Why fuck with someone's funeral? This would be like me going to someone's wedding and screwing it all up to protest fucking up perfectly good beer with Jagermeister.
Because they're assholes acting within the law and this gets them more coverage than protesting something likely already followed by protesters.
'That is not true. We, the government, are perfect. You are under arrest for lying.'
'Oh. Shit.'
What if it worked more like libel/slander?
Hell why can't we USE the current libel/slander laws?
Libel/slander needs to be directed at a particular person or entity. Saying "Obama's proposed health care will lead to old people being fed to wolves" is a lie, but it doesn't slander any person or entity.
Furthermore, it is very dificult for a public person (such as a politican) to win a slander/libel lawsuit. Case law has set the bar very high for such people to win. It's easier for non-public people to win libel/slander lawsuits.
But, keep in mind, this isn't a criminal law issue. There are no criminal penalties for libel/slander- this is a purely civil issue where someone sues for damages based on libel/slander directed at them.
Libel/slander wouldn't be effective against the WBC people since their speech is base on opinions, rather than factual claims about a particular person.
What about "Obama is a foreign agent sent to destroy America?" That's certainly directed at a particular person.
'That is not true. We, the government, are perfect. You are under arrest for lying.'
'Oh. Shit.'
What if it worked more like libel/slander?
Hell why can't we USE the current libel/slander laws?
Libel/slander needs to be directed at a particular person or entity. Saying "Obama's proposed health care will lead to old people being fed to wolves" is a lie, but it doesn't slander any person or entity.
Furthermore, it is very dificult for a public person (such as a politican) to win a slander/libel lawsuit. Case law has set the bar very high for such people to win. It's easier for non-public people to win libel/slander lawsuits.
But, keep in mind, this isn't a criminal law issue. There are no criminal penalties for libel/slander- this is a purely civil issue where someone sues for damages based on libel/slander directed at them.
Libel/slander wouldn't be effective against the WBC people since their speech is base on opinions, rather than factual claims about a particular person.
Well, what if we could add a law of some kind that can be used in a similar manner in a civil court?
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
NOTE: This is not really in reference to the OP topic- WBC being dicks. This is more a response to "Lots of people lie publicly. How can we legally do something about it?"
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.
I certainly don't want to get into the specific discussion in this thread, but I did just want to point out that, in regards to this particular comment, it's been like that everywhere forever. This is a good excuse to post one of my favorite things from Thomas Paine's Common Sense:
"Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world…"
Wet Bandit on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
'That is not true. We, the government, are perfect. You are under arrest for lying.'
'Oh. Shit.'
What if it worked more like libel/slander?
Hell why can't we USE the current libel/slander laws?
Libel/slander needs to be directed at a particular person or entity. Saying "Obama's proposed health care will lead to old people being fed to wolves" is a lie, but it doesn't slander any person or entity.
Furthermore, it is very dificult for a public person (such as a politican) to win a slander/libel lawsuit. Case law has set the bar very high for such people to win. It's easier for non-public people to win libel/slander lawsuits.
But, keep in mind, this isn't a criminal law issue. There are no criminal penalties for libel/slander- this is a purely civil issue where someone sues for damages based on libel/slander directed at them.
Libel/slander wouldn't be effective against the WBC people since their speech is base on opinions, rather than factual claims about a particular person.
What about "Obama is a foreign agent sent to destroy America?" That's certainly directed at a particular person.
Some pretty dumb shit like that was thrown at him. It was very smart of him to not even address the crazies so that people wouldn't spend any extra time feeding the aforementioned crazyness. Easier to ignore than to try to push it to trial, which would have completely derailed his campaign, which is what the crazypeople wanted.
What about "Obama is a foreign agent sent to destroy America?" That's certainly directed at a particular person.
Right, it is next to impossible for public officials to win a libel/slander decision. It is accepted that public officials are subjected to this kind of stuff and that they need to deal with it. Hence why presidents don't go after private citizens for crap like this.
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
How do you prove they're lying and don't actually believe that?
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
How do you prove they're lying and don't actually believe that?
Hmmm. I guess I see the point- that is technically an opinion.
There has to be SOMETHING an anti-lying law could cover!
| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless Cleric
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited March 2010
It's not that it's an opinion, it's that "being wrong" is different than "lying". When you're taking a quiz and you miss a question, are you lying?
The current standards are that "lying" isn't illegal so much as "saying things that aren't true that have specific and quantifiable negative effects against the target", and even then it's not illegal, just sue-able.
Which is how it should be.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
How do you prove they're lying and don't actually believe that?
Hmmm. I guess I see the point- that is technically an opinion.
There has to be SOMETHING an anti-lying law could cover!
Let me think about it and get back after lunch
There is no exception to the 1st Amendment for lies. Lies are a type of speech and it is up to the marketplace of ideas to sort out such lies. It's not a perfect approach and allows plenty of silly goosery, but the alternative approach of letting courts and/or the government decide what is a lie, and therefore not covered by the 1st Amendment, is a truly scary concept.
Knowing that the government could charge you you, or that you could be sued for lies or untruths would have a chilling effect on discussion.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
How do you prove they're lying and don't actually believe that?
Hmmm. I guess I see the point- that is technically an opinion.
There has to be SOMETHING an anti-lying law could cover!
Let me think about it and get back after lunch
There is no exception to the 1st Amendment for lies. Lies are a type of speech and it is up to the marketplace of ideas to sort out such lies. It's not a perfect approach and allows plenty of silly goosery, but the alternative approach of letting courts and/or the government decide what is a lie, and therefore not covered by the 1st Amendment, is a truly scary concept.
Knowing that the government could charge you you, or that you could be sued for lies or untruths would have a chilling effect on discussion.
Whoa whoa whoa.
I was with you up until this point. Are you implying that lying is somehow essential for discussion?
Because I REALLY think that lying LIMITS discussions
There is no exception to the 1st Amendment for lies. Lies are a type of speech and it is up to the marketplace of ideas to sort out such lies. It's not a perfect approach and allows plenty of silly goosery, but the alternative approach of letting courts and/or the government decide what is a lie, and therefore not covered by the 1st Amendment, is a truly scary concept.
Knowing that the government could charge you you, or that you could be sued for lies or untruths would have a chilling effect on discussion.
Whoa whoa whoa.
I was with you up until this point. Are you implying that lying is somehow essential for discussion?
Because I REALLY think that lying LIMITS discussions
He chose his words poorly. It's more that you don't want the government deciding what's a lie and what isn't, and being able to criminally charge people with crimes based on what they decide.
Even the slander/libel civil suits have to be really cut and dry to win (usually).
Guys the Supreme Court actually has a three part test for dealing with EXACTLY this type of case. So you can stop all this wild assertions that asshole speech is protected everywhere. It is NOT. I think that this case will be handled pretty quickly by the SC. There is already precedence for rulings that would allow for this type of narrow regulation of protected speech (can't protest near a funeral).
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
The regulation must serve governmental interests. (This is interpreted as "keeping the peace" which is of significant interest to the government).
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
Yeah aren't there laws in place anyway which limit free speech because of "keeping the peace"?
Julius on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
Guys the Supreme Court actually has a three part test for dealing with EXACTLY this type of case. So you can stop all this wild assertions that asshole speech is protected everywhere. It is NOT. I think that this case will be handled pretty quickly by the SC. There is already precedence for rulings that would allow for this type of narrow regulation of protected speech (can't protest near a funeral).
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
The regulation must serve governmental interests. (This is interpreted as "keeping the peace" which is of significant interest to the government).
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
Yeah aren't there laws in place anyway which limit free speech because of "keeping the peace"?
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
How do you prove they're lying and don't actually believe that?
Hmmm. I guess I see the point- that is technically an opinion.
There has to be SOMETHING an anti-lying law could cover!
Let me think about it and get back after lunch
There is no exception to the 1st Amendment for lies. Lies are a type of speech and it is up to the marketplace of ideas to sort out such lies. It's not a perfect approach and allows plenty of silly goosery, but the alternative approach of letting courts and/or the government decide what is a lie, and therefore not covered by the 1st Amendment, is a truly scary concept.
Knowing that the government could charge you you, or that you could be sued for lies or untruths would have a chilling effect on discussion.
Whoa whoa whoa.
I was with you up until this point. Are you implying that lying is somehow essential for discussion?
Because I REALLY think that lying LIMITS discussions
He's saying that knowing the courts would impose a penalty on you if something you say is wrong would cause you to say a lot fewer things. (even if what you say is actually right)
edit: what the hell I just agreed with Modern Man.
Guys the Supreme Court actually has a three part test for dealing with EXACTLY this type of case. So you can stop all this wild assertions that asshole speech is protected everywhere. It is NOT. I think that this case will be handled pretty quickly by the SC. There is already precedence for rulings that would allow for this type of narrow regulation of protected speech (can't protest near a funeral).
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
The regulation must serve governmental interests. (This is interpreted as "keeping the peace" which is of significant interest to the government).
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
Yeah aren't there laws in place anyway which limit free speech because of "keeping the peace"?
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Actually SCOTUS changed it to be even more restrictive on the part of the State. Today speech has to represent imminent lawlessness in order to be legally curtailed. Brandenburg v Ohio.
moniker on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Actually SCOTUS changed it to be even more restrictive on the part of the State. Today speech has to represent imminent lawlessness in order to be legally curtailed. Brandenburg v Ohio.
Oh, good.
[tiny]I've been on the internet way too fucking long, I read that shit as "lawl-essness" at first glance. Like that's how my eyes broke down the word. WHAT THE UNHOLY FUCK.[/tiny]
Guys the Supreme Court actually has a three part test for dealing with EXACTLY this type of case. So you can stop all this wild assertions that asshole speech is protected everywhere. It is NOT. I think that this case will be handled pretty quickly by the SC. There is already precedence for rulings that would allow for this type of narrow regulation of protected speech (can't protest near a funeral).
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
The regulation must serve governmental interests. (This is interpreted as "keeping the peace" which is of significant interest to the government).
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
Yeah aren't there laws in place anyway which limit free speech because of "keeping the peace"?
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Actually SCOTUS changed it to be even more restrictive on the part of the State. Today speech has to represent imminent lawlessness in order to be legally curtailed. Brandenburg v Ohio.
Guys the Supreme Court actually has a three part test for dealing with EXACTLY this type of case. So you can stop all this wild assertions that asshole speech is protected everywhere. It is NOT. I think that this case will be handled pretty quickly by the SC. There is already precedence for rulings that would allow for this type of narrow regulation of protected speech (can't protest near a funeral).
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
The regulation must serve governmental interests. (This is interpreted as "keeping the peace" which is of significant interest to the government).
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
Yeah aren't there laws in place anyway which limit free speech because of "keeping the peace"?
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Actually SCOTUS changed it to be even more restrictive on the part of the State. Today speech has to represent imminent lawlessness in order to be legally curtailed. Brandenburg v Ohio.
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.
Caselaw doesn't automatically expire, it has to be overridden, though admittedly that does become more likely with time, especially in this sort of area.
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.
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.
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
How do you prove they're lying and don't actually believe that?
Hmmm. I guess I see the point- that is technically an opinion.
There has to be SOMETHING an anti-lying law could cover!
Let me think about it and get back after lunch
There is no exception to the 1st Amendment for lies. Lies are a type of speech and it is up to the marketplace of ideas to sort out such lies. It's not a perfect approach and allows plenty of silly goosery, but the alternative approach of letting courts and/or the government decide what is a lie, and therefore not covered by the 1st Amendment, is a truly scary concept.
Knowing that the government could charge you you, or that you could be sued for lies or untruths would have a chilling effect on discussion.
Whoa whoa whoa.
I was with you up until this point. Are you implying that lying is somehow essential for discussion?
Because I REALLY think that lying LIMITS discussions
He's saying that knowing the courts would impose a penalty on you if something you say is wrong would cause you to say a lot fewer things. (even if what you say is actually right)
edit: what the hell I just agreed with Modern Man.
This. If a news agency, blogger, or whoever knew that there was a non-zero chance of having to defend what they reported in a court of law, they would become hesitant to report certain stories. Look at, for example, the cases in Canada where certain writers and reporters were brought before so-called Human Rights Commissions because certain groups filed complaints that they were engaging in hate speech. The reporters won the cases, but they still had to pay legal fees and spend their time on the hearings.
Such laws are a very effective tool to shut down speech you might not like.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited March 2010
The WBC was sued for infliction of 'emotional distress' and the plaintiff was awarded damages. The appeals court set it aside.
Posts
With people like that, though, you don't need countervailing opinions. They are their own counterargument.
I don't think this is illegal. You don't need a law to permit something that isn't illegal.
Oh wait...right, escalation and whatnot.
I'm not positive I agree with you, but the point is they aren't disrupting what's going on inside. You walk past the WBC folks and into the church or cemetary and bam you're no longer being disrupted by them.
I can't see any way to interpret a funeral as an exercise of free speech, though certainly many are exercises of religion. The point here is twofold: first is the fact that the funerals aren't actually being disrupted, because protest =! disruption, and second is that the WBC folks are on public property.
I think I'm gonna need some sort of cite on this one, because it seems to me that this is not what the WBC guys are doing. For instance, Snyder (the father of the dead Marine) didn't know the WBC guys were holding signs until he saw them on TV later. If they were trying to be disruptive I don't think that would be the case.
No, but it is the fucking law. If you want to restrict speech in public areas you need to write a law that does that. Absent a law restricting protests on public property outside funeral services it is illegal for the government to interfere unless there are issues of public safety (which were being handled by having police present much like at many student protests). You do not get to just up and invent new rules because someone is being a dick. I don't like what Glenn Beck says but he's got a fucking right to say it, and you people need to realize that if you try to take it away you're also trying to take away Cindy Sheehan's right to stand outside George Bush's ranch in Texas.
Unless you can come up with some sort of narrow, objective test that would show some difference between the two beyond 'I don't like one of them'.
'The government is being mean to group X'
'That is not true. We, the government, are perfect. You are under arrest for lying.'
'Oh. Shit.'
There are, however, laws against libel, which sometimes apply. But the test is pretty strict. (Didn't apply in this case)
What if it worked more like libel/slander?
Hell why can't we USE the current libel/slander laws?
I'm not saying they have no right to do so. Rather, they have no cause to do so. It's just so... random.
So, go protest at gay pride parades. Why fuck with someone's funeral? This would be like me going to someone's wedding and screwing it all up to protest fucking up perfectly good beer with Jagermeister.
Because the view they're expressing is religious and can't be proven.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
Furthermore, it is very dificult for a public person (such as a politican) to win a slander/libel lawsuit. Case law has set the bar very high for such people to win. It's easier for non-public people to win libel/slander lawsuits.
But, keep in mind, this isn't a criminal law issue. There are no criminal penalties for libel/slander- this is a purely civil issue where someone sues for damages based on libel/slander directed at them.
Libel/slander wouldn't be effective against the WBC people since their speech is base on opinions, rather than factual claims about a particular person.
Rigorous Scholarship
Because they're assholes acting within the law and this gets them more coverage than protesting something likely already followed by protesters.
What about "Obama is a foreign agent sent to destroy America?" That's certainly directed at a particular person.
Well, what if we could add a law of some kind that can be used in a similar manner in a civil court?
"Person X said this thing, that group Y claims is a lie." Then you hear Person X's statement and weigh it against the counterpoint. It would have to be very specific, but it could be used for things like "Obamacare will kill grandma"
NOTE: This is not really in reference to the OP topic- WBC being dicks. This is more a response to "Lots of people lie publicly. How can we legally do something about it?"
I certainly don't want to get into the specific discussion in this thread, but I did just want to point out that, in regards to this particular comment, it's been like that everywhere forever. This is a good excuse to post one of my favorite things from Thomas Paine's Common Sense:
"Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world…"
Some pretty dumb shit like that was thrown at him. It was very smart of him to not even address the crazies so that people wouldn't spend any extra time feeding the aforementioned crazyness. Easier to ignore than to try to push it to trial, which would have completely derailed his campaign, which is what the crazypeople wanted.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Right, it is next to impossible for public officials to win a libel/slander decision. It is accepted that public officials are subjected to this kind of stuff and that they need to deal with it. Hence why presidents don't go after private citizens for crap like this.
How do you prove they're lying and don't actually believe that?
Hmmm. I guess I see the point- that is technically an opinion.
There has to be SOMETHING an anti-lying law could cover!
Let me think about it and get back after lunch
The current standards are that "lying" isn't illegal so much as "saying things that aren't true that have specific and quantifiable negative effects against the target", and even then it's not illegal, just sue-able.
Which is how it should be.
Knowing that the government could charge you you, or that you could be sued for lies or untruths would have a chilling effect on discussion.
Rigorous Scholarship
Whoa whoa whoa.
I was with you up until this point. Are you implying that lying is somehow essential for discussion?
Because I REALLY think that lying LIMITS discussions
He chose his words poorly. It's more that you don't want the government deciding what's a lie and what isn't, and being able to criminally charge people with crimes based on what they decide.
Even the slander/libel civil suits have to be really cut and dry to win (usually).
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Yeah aren't there laws in place anyway which limit free speech because of "keeping the peace"?
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
He's saying that knowing the courts would impose a penalty on you if something you say is wrong would cause you to say a lot fewer things. (even if what you say is actually right)
edit: what the hell I just agreed with Modern Man.
Actually SCOTUS changed it to be even more restrictive on the part of the State. Today speech has to represent imminent lawlessness in order to be legally curtailed. Brandenburg v Ohio.
Oh, good.
[tiny]I've been on the internet way too fucking long, I read that shit as "lawl-essness" at first glance. Like that's how my eyes broke down the word. WHAT THE UNHOLY FUCK.[/tiny]
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
That is a case from 1969. That is not recent.
...okay?
Left out of my original post
Part B also stipulates that said regulation is narrow in focus.
Yeah, I was just about to say no one is being stopped from attending or performing a funeral, so I wasn't sure where you were going with that.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
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.
Such laws are a very effective tool to shut down speech you might not like.
Rigorous Scholarship