you mean the second paragraph? And i would argue that given the incediary nature of Westboro's remarks, there is a high propability for an altercation.
Cool, can you cite this? Also, define high probability.
Also, explain why this logic doesn't apply to gay pride parades and flag burning.
When people organize a gay pride parade to coincide with a funeral, i see no problem applying my logic to it.
Until then, you're just strawmanning the dialouge with "OH NOS SLIPPERY SLOPE! DEY BANNIN DEH FREE SPEACHES!"
My opinion? Not all events are equal. Funerals are technicaly a form of free speech in that you gather to honour the deceased in a semi-public ceremony (respectfull silence is a form of speech).
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
What laws exist that prevent heckling on public property?
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
No, they specifically put them up the street from the ceremonies. These protests are generally held outside of a church. They are not heard at the ceremony. However they are certainly heard by those going into the ceremony. This is not illegal though. You do NOT have a right to not be offended. You can't sue someone for making you feel bad.
But you can sue them for disrupting the attendance of a private function, which they were, as they could be heard by those trying to enter.
When people organize a gay pride parade to coincide with a funeral, i see no problem applying my logic to it.
Until then, you're just strawmanning the dialouge with "OH NOS SLIPPERY SLOPE! DEY BANNIN DEH FREE SPEACHES!"
When people organize a gay pride parade or flag burning to coincide with Memorial Day, Veterans Day, weekends, daytime hours, etc. other people see no problem applying your logic to it.
You are taking X event, saying it's too important for Y speech to occur in public.
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
Read past the first paragraph.
The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves.
Whose safety, exactly, is endangered here?
you mean the second paragraph? And i would argue that given the incediary nature of Westboro's remarks, there is a high propability for an altercation. Now we could either spend hundreds of dollars on police to keep there protest safe, or we can dictate when and where they can protest within reason. There's no need to resort to slippery slope arguments over this, it's cut and fucking dry.
You're right, it is cut and dry. You want to determine whether someone is allowed to exercise their right to free speech based on the content of that speech. You can use whatever adjective you want - offensive, incendiary, unseemly, blasphemy, inappropriate, controversial, etc etc - but Phelps abhorrent political/religious views don't approach the narrow limitations on free speech. Two dudes making out in front of a bunch of violent redneck evangelicals would be an incendiary act of free expression, but prohibiting it because they might get lynched is clearly idiotic. And speaking of lynched, can we think of any other times when protest was incendiary and police needed to be brought in to protect them? How about the march from Selma to Montgomery, when Governor Wallace called the protests "a threat to public safety" and tried to ban the protests (and then used tear gas). Its almost as if its a bullshit excuse to try to silence ideas you think are bad.
You aren't arguing that Phelps shouldn't be allowed to exercise his rights because you worry for his safety, you're arguing Phelps shouldn't be allowed to exercise his rights because what he has to say is terrible.
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
No, they specifically put them up the street from the ceremonies. These protests are generally held outside of a church. They are not heard at the ceremony. However they are certainly heard by those going into the ceremony. This is not illegal though. You do NOT have a right to not be offended. You can't sue someone for making you feel bad.
But you can sue them for disrupting the attendance of a private function, which they were, as they could be heard by those trying to enter.
You could sue them. But you would lose.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
When people organize a gay pride parade to coincide with a funeral, i see no problem applying my logic to it.
Until then, you're just strawmanning the dialouge with "OH NOS SLIPPERY SLOPE! DEY BANNIN DEH FREE SPEACHES!"
When people organize a gay pride parade or flag burning to coincide with Memorial Day, Veterans Day, weekends, daytime hours, etc. other people see no problem applying your logic to it.
You are taking X event, saying it's too important for Y speech to occur in public.
Just because they're saying they shouldnt have it scheduled during X time doesnt mean i'm applying the same logic. I'm saying in these very specific instances, it'd be better to let them protest at a different time. Hell let them protest in the cemetary, after the service is over. There is no fucking way you can compare a gay pride parade on memorial day, or even burning a flag on christmas, to a group of people holding up signs that say "THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS" outside your sons funeral.
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
Read past the first paragraph.
The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves.
Whose safety, exactly, is endangered here?
you mean the second paragraph? And i would argue that given the incediary nature of Westboro's remarks, there is a high propability for an altercation. Now we could either spend hundreds of dollars on police to keep there protest safe, or we can dictate when and where they can protest within reason. There's no need to resort to slippery slope arguments over this, it's cut and fucking dry.
You're right, it is cut and dry. You want to determine whether someone is allowed to exercise their right to free speech based on the content of that speech. You can use whatever adjective you want - offensive, incendiary, unseemly, blasphemy, inappropriate, controversial, etc etc - but Phelps abhorrent political/religious views don't approach the narrow limitations on free speech. Two dudes making out in front of a bunch of violent redneck evangelicals would be an incendiary act of free expression, but prohibiting it because they might get lynched is clearly idiotic. And speaking of lynched, can we think of any other times when protest was incendiary and police needed to be brought in to protect them? How about the march from Selma to Montgomery, when Governor Wallace called the protests "a threat to public safety" and tried to ban the protests (and then used tear gas). Its almost as if its a bullshit excuse to try to silence ideas you think are bad.
You aren't arguing that Phelps shouldn't be allowed to exercise his rights because you worry for his safety, you're arguing Phelps shouldn't be allowed to exercise his rights because what he has to say is terrible.
But your examples were of good guys doing good guy things, while the Westboro Church is bad guys.
My opinion? Not all events are equal. Funerals are technicaly a form of free speech in that you gather to honour the deceased in a semi-public ceremony (respectfull silence is a form of speech).
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
What laws exist that prevent heckling on public property?
Ehhh, wouldn't that be the first ammendment? Heckling someone is preventing them from using it.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Henroid is the sort of person who would hate the ACLU.
How dare you! After the central premise of this thread was shown to be nothing but a knee jerk attack on free speech? Do you know how emotional and upsetting such a time is? You are so getting sued, because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when there are these many emotions fluttering around.
Henroid is the sort of person who would hate the ACLU.
How dare you! After the central premise of this thread was shown to be nothing but a knee jerk attack on free speech? Do you know how emotional and upsetting such a time is? You are so getting sued, because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when there are these many emotions fluttering around.
I am so emotional I could probably hit a dude. Someone should stop this before it causes me to be violent. Free speech, free smeech!
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
My opinion? Not all events are equal. Funerals are technicaly a form of free speech in that you gather to honour the deceased in a semi-public ceremony (respectfull silence is a form of speech).
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
What laws exist that prevent heckling on public property?
Ehhh, wouldn't that be the first ammendment? Heckling someone is preventing them from using it.
What reason do you have for banning WBC's expression here?
Is it because you find the things they say to be offensive? Because that's not a legitimate reason to ban it, as SCOTUS has ruled quite a few times.
Is it because they're holding signs that say awful things on them? That's not a legitimate reason either.
Is it because they are inciting direct violent action? I'm not sure you could make a reasonable case for this, they aren't saying 'HEY LETS GO KILL THOSE GUYS' they're saying 'America sucks' and that happens to be legal.
Be honest here. Turn the situation around. Is this really all that different from people protesting for equal rights for homosexuals? It's obviously the polar opposite of the argument but from an objective point of view you just have two parties, one saying something really loudly and the other being incredibly offended by it.
This is America, and that means that sometimes incredibly dumb people are going to walk down the street shouting things that are obnoxiously offensive to you. Get over it. You don't get to legislate based on how you feel about something. If you could, there would be no Brown v Board of Education, no Civil Rights Act, no gay pride parades, it would be legal to fire teachers for being gay, it would be legal to bar non-Christians from office, you could require all students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments before breakfast, and a whole host of other bullshit.
They aren't in the cemetery. The cemetery is private property. They are outside, on public property. I've told you this.
You selective quoted one thing i said while leaving out everything else. Stop that.
I said let them protest in the cemetary AFTER THE SERVICE.
you know, when they wont be there specifialy to upset a dead soldiers family.
Let me ask you a question. How far would you extend there free right to protest, anywhere at anytime?
Jokerman on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
This thread is horrid. I mean the premise is the same kind of amateur letting emotions override rational thinking that leads to people saying shit like 'just kill all rapists' or 'think of the children'. And then you have Jokerman up there using FREE SPEECH ZONES, a tactic the fucking BUSH ADMINISTRATION used to limit protests against the war as a good idea.
Is this the opposite thread? I think it's the opposite thread.
Here's a possible solution: soundproofing. Dumbasses get to scream all they want and the mourners get to mourn in peace.
Now if only there were a way to soundproof a funeral site.
My opinion? Not all events are equal. Funerals are technicaly a form of free speech in that you gather to honour the deceased in a semi-public ceremony (respectfull silence is a form of speech).
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
What laws exist that prevent heckling on public property?
Ehhh, wouldn't that be the first ammendment? Heckling someone is preventing them from using it.
Now define heckling.
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
No, they specifically put them up the street from the ceremonies. These protests are generally held outside of a church. They are not heard at the ceremony. However they are certainly heard by those going into the ceremony. This is not illegal though. You do NOT have a right to not be offended. You can't sue someone for making you feel bad.
But you can sue them for disrupting the attendance of a private function, which they were, as they could be heard by those trying to enter.
You could sue them. But you would lose.
Actually this case is based on people who sued and were awarded $5 million in damages and the various appeals therein.
My opinion? Not all events are equal. Funerals are technicaly a form of free speech in that you gather to honour the deceased in a semi-public ceremony (respectfull silence is a form of speech).
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
What laws exist that prevent heckling on public property?
Ehhh, wouldn't that be the first ammendment? Heckling someone is preventing them from using it.
Now define heckling.
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
If you're standing on a street corner shouting your political viewpoint, there is nothing preventing me from standing next to you and shouting mine.
Let me ask you a question. How far would you extend there free right to protest, anywhere at anytime?
First off, the cemetery owners don't have to let them on to protest. They can tell them to get the fuck off any time and be well within their rights. So saying they should be let in afterward is meaningless as far as no one is advocating they be allowed to protest on private property whenever they want.
But to answer your question, no. If it can actually be demonstrated to be a significant threat of safety to others. Something I actually asked you to demonstrate and you still haven't.
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
Not illegal. Unless you are doing something else illegal, this isn't an issue. I can say "don't listen to that guy, he doesn't know what he is talking about, he is an idiot" all I want. Not illegal. Congress cannot make a law abridging free speech. I can say don't listen to you all I want.
You are clearly misinterpreting what the law says.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Let me ask you a question. How far would you extend there free right to protest, anywhere at anytime?
First off, the cemetery owners don't have to let them on to protest. They can tell them to get the fuck off any time and be well within their rights. So saying they should be let in afterward is meaningless as far as no one is advocating they be allowed to protest on private property whenever they want.
But to answer your question, no. If it can actually be demonstrated to be a significant threat of safety to others. Something I actually asked you to demonstrate and you still haven't.
How do you want me to demonstrate that? Hm? You want me to go to one of these protest and ask around?
Actually this case is based on people who sued and were awarded $5 million in damages and the various appeals therein.
A case that will probably be appealed and overturned. Does anyone have the transcript of the ruling and the reason given for said ruling? Maybe there are other factors at work here we do not know about.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
My opinion? Not all events are equal. Funerals are technicaly a form of free speech in that you gather to honour the deceased in a semi-public ceremony (respectfull silence is a form of speech).
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
What laws exist that prevent heckling on public property?
Ehhh, wouldn't that be the first ammendment? Heckling someone is preventing them from using it.
Now define heckling.
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
If you're standing on a street corner shouting your political viewpoint, there is nothing preventing me from standing next to you and shouting mine.
Depends on your purpose: To offer a counter argument or to simply drown out mine. Drowing out mine expression of free speech is not in itself free speech. Hecklers veto and all that.
Even a geniune display of free speech could be regulated in order to avoid a public disturbance. In your case if you got there second, the police can tell you to move somwhere else(and will if it gets loud). If I had a permit for that location, then the goverment would not give you a permit for the same place.
Free speech is universal, but it still uses common sense regulations in order to function.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Assholes have first amendment protections too. Just like in that other thread, terrorists have a right to counsel.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I mean, this Supreme Court case IS the case we're talking about. It was appealed by WBC and overturned then appealed AGAIN to the Supreme Court which will hear it in the fall.
Actually this case is based on people who sued and were awarded $5 million in damages and the various appeals therein.
A case that will probably be appealed and overturned
That...
I just said that.
On further review, it has already been overturned.
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.
I wish that the court had just let it go though. This worrys me extremely that they would take it up, since they might side against free speech. I think that would be a huge mistake.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Actually this case is based on people who sued and were awarded $5 million in damages and the various appeals therein.
A case that will probably be appealed and overturned. Does anyone have the transcript of the ruling and the reason given for said ruling? Maybe there are other factors at work here we do not know about.
In looking for more information I found this:
Westboro’s adherents argue that the First Amendment is designed to protect speech the majority may not want to hear. But Phelps-Roper is ambivalent, noting that man’s law won’t matter much when America meets divine wrath.
“Her destruction is imminent,” she said. Laughing, she added: “And it’s going to be marvelous.”
I am not entirely unconvinced that these people are actually cartoon villains brought to life through some sort of reverse-Tron process.
Posts
When people organize a gay pride parade to coincide with a funeral, i see no problem applying my logic to it.
Until then, you're just strawmanning the dialouge with "OH NOS SLIPPERY SLOPE! DEY BANNIN DEH FREE SPEACHES!"
What laws exist that prevent heckling on public property?
You mess with the dolphin, you get the nose.
Shit, you're right. Ban them all!
but they're listening to every word I say
God help them if they disagree with him at a funeral.
You mess with the dolphin, you get the nose.
But you can sue them for disrupting the attendance of a private function, which they were, as they could be heard by those trying to enter.
When people organize a gay pride parade or flag burning to coincide with Memorial Day, Veterans Day, weekends, daytime hours, etc. other people see no problem applying your logic to it.
You are taking X event, saying it's too important for Y speech to occur in public.
Gonna make it a double-header!
How does their speech prevent others from entering? Saying offensive things doesn't keep people from entering private areas.
You're right, it is cut and dry. You want to determine whether someone is allowed to exercise their right to free speech based on the content of that speech. You can use whatever adjective you want - offensive, incendiary, unseemly, blasphemy, inappropriate, controversial, etc etc - but Phelps abhorrent political/religious views don't approach the narrow limitations on free speech. Two dudes making out in front of a bunch of violent redneck evangelicals would be an incendiary act of free expression, but prohibiting it because they might get lynched is clearly idiotic. And speaking of lynched, can we think of any other times when protest was incendiary and police needed to be brought in to protect them? How about the march from Selma to Montgomery, when Governor Wallace called the protests "a threat to public safety" and tried to ban the protests (and then used tear gas). Its almost as if its a bullshit excuse to try to silence ideas you think are bad.
You aren't arguing that Phelps shouldn't be allowed to exercise his rights because you worry for his safety, you're arguing Phelps shouldn't be allowed to exercise his rights because what he has to say is terrible.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You could sue them. But you would lose.
but they're listening to every word I say
You mess with the dolphin, you get the nose.
Just because they're saying they shouldnt have it scheduled during X time doesnt mean i'm applying the same logic. I'm saying in these very specific instances, it'd be better to let them protest at a different time. Hell let them protest in the cemetary, after the service is over. There is no fucking way you can compare a gay pride parade on memorial day, or even burning a flag on christmas, to a group of people holding up signs that say "THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS" outside your sons funeral.
But your examples were of good guys doing good guy things, while the Westboro Church is bad guys.
Ehhh, wouldn't that be the first ammendment? Heckling someone is preventing them from using it.
How dare you! After the central premise of this thread was shown to be nothing but a knee jerk attack on free speech? Do you know how emotional and upsetting such a time is? You are so getting sued, because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when there are these many emotions fluttering around.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They aren't in the cemetery. The cemetery is private property. They are outside, on public property. I've told you this.
I am so emotional I could probably hit a dude. Someone should stop this before it causes me to be violent. Free speech, free smeech!
but they're listening to every word I say
Is it because you find the things they say to be offensive? Because that's not a legitimate reason to ban it, as SCOTUS has ruled quite a few times.
Is it because they're holding signs that say awful things on them? That's not a legitimate reason either.
Is it because they are inciting direct violent action? I'm not sure you could make a reasonable case for this, they aren't saying 'HEY LETS GO KILL THOSE GUYS' they're saying 'America sucks' and that happens to be legal.
Be honest here. Turn the situation around. Is this really all that different from people protesting for equal rights for homosexuals? It's obviously the polar opposite of the argument but from an objective point of view you just have two parties, one saying something really loudly and the other being incredibly offended by it.
This is America, and that means that sometimes incredibly dumb people are going to walk down the street shouting things that are obnoxiously offensive to you. Get over it. You don't get to legislate based on how you feel about something. If you could, there would be no Brown v Board of Education, no Civil Rights Act, no gay pride parades, it would be legal to fire teachers for being gay, it would be legal to bar non-Christians from office, you could require all students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments before breakfast, and a whole host of other bullshit.
You selective quoted one thing i said while leaving out everything else. Stop that.
I said let them protest in the cemetary AFTER THE SERVICE.
you know, when they wont be there specifialy to upset a dead soldiers family.
Let me ask you a question. How far would you extend there free right to protest, anywhere at anytime?
Is this the opposite thread? I think it's the opposite thread.
Here's a possible solution: soundproofing. Dumbasses get to scream all they want and the mourners get to mourn in peace.
Now if only there were a way to soundproof a funeral site.
Interfering and preventing someone from expressing their opinion through disruptive displays and actions.
Actually this case is based on people who sued and were awarded $5 million in damages and the various appeals therein.
His heart gots the drop on all you foos!
You mess with the dolphin, you get the nose.
But if they're not in the cemetery then you don't need to wait until after the service. Problem solved.
If you're standing on a street corner shouting your political viewpoint, there is nothing preventing me from standing next to you and shouting mine.
First off, the cemetery owners don't have to let them on to protest. They can tell them to get the fuck off any time and be well within their rights. So saying they should be let in afterward is meaningless as far as no one is advocating they be allowed to protest on private property whenever they want.
But to answer your question, no. If it can actually be demonstrated to be a significant threat of safety to others. Something I actually asked you to demonstrate and you still haven't.
Who decides someone did this.
And as Yod pointed out, why does their speech trump mine?
Not illegal. Unless you are doing something else illegal, this isn't an issue. I can say "don't listen to that guy, he doesn't know what he is talking about, he is an idiot" all I want. Not illegal. Congress cannot make a law abridging free speech. I can say don't listen to you all I want.
You are clearly misinterpreting what the law says.
but they're listening to every word I say
How do you want me to demonstrate that? Hm? You want me to go to one of these protest and ask around?
A case that will probably be appealed and overturned. Does anyone have the transcript of the ruling and the reason given for said ruling? Maybe there are other factors at work here we do not know about.
but they're listening to every word I say
That...
I just said that.
Even a geniune display of free speech could be regulated in order to avoid a public disturbance. In your case if you got there second, the police can tell you to move somwhere else(and will if it gets loud). If I had a permit for that location, then the goverment would not give you a permit for the same place.
Free speech is universal, but it still uses common sense regulations in order to function.
So you have no proof these protests cause a significant danger to anyone?
On further review, it has already been overturned.
I wish that the court had just let it go though. This worrys me extremely that they would take it up, since they might side against free speech. I think that would be a huge mistake.
but they're listening to every word I say
In looking for more information I found this:
I am not entirely unconvinced that these people are actually cartoon villains brought to life through some sort of reverse-Tron process.
What about emotional danger, hm? Do you believe in emotional abuse?