Thank God For Dead Soldiers

[colonel Feathers 5]

Or at least the supreme court seems to think thats acceptable chants at their funerals.

[CaneBrain 95]

Or at least the supreme court seems to think thats acceptable chants at their funerals.

quite a difference btw 'acceptable' and 'legal'. The fact that it was an 8-1 vote across ideological lines should tell you something.If Scalia and Breyer agree on something, it's probably cut and dried. It sucks but that's the price you pay for something like the 1st amendment. If there is any justice, Phelps will fall down a well. Life is unfair, etc.

[custom36 4]

You don't have to agree with it to know that it's legal.

[colonel Feathers 5]

quite a difference btw 'acceptable' and 'legal'. The fact that it was an 8-1 vote across ideological lines should tell you something.

It does tell me alot. The legal system in this country is severly lacking.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

[colonel Feathers 5]

Intentional infliction of emotional distress should be illegal.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Intentional infliction of emotional distress should be illegal.

Isn't it already?

[CaneBrain 95]

Isn't it already?

it is. the threshold is pretty high though. this doesn't come close under the legal standard.

[timwakefield 68]

The legal system in this country is severly lacking.

False, at least in regards to this ruling. This is the ruling we should want, in favor of free speech.

But under the First Amendment, he went on, “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

That's a good fucking principle to found your country on. Also this:

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that a proper response to hurtful protests is general laws creating buffer zones around funerals and the like, rather than empowering juries to punish unpopular speech. Maryland, where the protest took place, now has such a law, as do, the chief justice said, 43 other states and the federal government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?hp

[hblask 1]

Anyone who doesn't agree with this SC decision is an evil baby-hating communist who is worse than Hitler.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I support the SC Decision. Seems pretty simple.Taking away these people's Right to Speech because we don't like their message would be incredibly dangerous.Recently I was at work and someone started talking 9/11 Conspiracy Crap. "Did you know that 5 out of the 7 alleged hijackers have been seen alive since then?" Instead of even engaging in a pointless idiotic conversation I made a dismissive wave of my hand and went for a Coffee.I think society needs to "police" itself sometimes. This is a case where we need to publicly identify and shun these despicable ass holes. Someone should follow them around everywhere and identify them in every social interaction they attempt to engage: "This is one of those ass holes who think it is acceptable to protest at the Funeral's of Service Men and Women. Do you still wish to talk to this ass hole?"

[Mills 0]

I support the SC Decision. Seems pretty simple.Taking away these people's Right to Speech because we don't like their message would be incredibly dangerous.Recently I was at work and someone started talking 9/11 Conspiracy Crap. "Did you know that 5 out of the 7 alleged hijackers have been seen alive since then?" Instead of even engaging in a pointless idiotic conversation I made a dismissive wave of my hand and went for a Coffee.I think society needs to "police" itself sometimes. This is a case where we need to publicly identify and shun these despicable ass holes. Someone should follow them around everywhere and identify them in every social interaction they attempt to engage: "This is one of those ass holes who think it is acceptable to protest at the Funeral's of Service Men and Women. Do you still wish to talk to this ass hole?"

As with most things in life, Mr. Show thought of it first:

[AmScray 355]

I think society needs to "police" itself sometimes. This is a case where we need to publicly identify and shun these despicable ass holes. Someone should follow them around everywhere and identify them in every social interaction they attempt to engage: "This is one of those ass holes who think it is acceptable to protest at the Funeral's of Service Men and Women. Do you still wish to talk to this ass hole?"

These people are already well outside of mainstream society; the furthest-flung reaches of the deepest and darkest fringes. They're socially ostracized to begin with, which is precisely why they join groups like this. It gives them 'something to believe in' that others believe in too, even if their comrades in the new-found cause are just as lame as they are... As is standard, it's always people like this who test the boundaries of various ideologies. The fringe cases have always been the context we employ to define the slippery slope.The justices were right here. Empowering the courts to criminalize any kind of expression of ideas- even morally heinous ones- would have been GG, free speech as we know inside of 50 years time. It is perfectly reasonable for municipalities to pass ordinances regulating protesting against funerals but putting the issue in the hands of the courts would've totally destroyed the gold standard of free speech as it exists today.This idea that 'infliction of emotional distress' should be some sort of crime is ridiculous. A logical person arguing with an illogical one will inflict emotional distress on that person as a natural function of what occurs whenever cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head. A lot of beliefs and ideologies are unpopular- and even offensive- but are nevertheless logically correct. This causes a great deal of 'distress' in the people who want to maintain their own belief structure without anyone pointing out that it's bullshit.I have friends overseas right now. Dear, beloved friends. If one of them were to eat it and these people protested their funeral, I'd confront them (probably beat them and accept whatever charges came with it) but I wouldn't sully the concept of free speech- one of the principles my friends wear that uniform to uphold- by demanding it be suspended because it's offensive.I always liked what the Freedom Riders do. They would line up hundreds of motorcycles along the funeral route and drown them out. That's free speech, too.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Just make a law that the media has to stay within 500 feet of them. The Westboros that is..

[CaneBrain 95]

Some good posts in here.I would suggest that the guy who lost this case wait for one of the Phelps' clan to pass on and then gather any and all sympathetic people and picket the crap out of the Phelps' funeral. That's as much satisfaction as he will get, unfortunately.

[nutzbuster 7]

These people are already well outside of mainstream society; the furthest-flung reaches of the deepest and darkest fringes. They're socially ostracized to begin with, which is precisely why they join groups like this. It gives them 'something to believe in' that others believe in too, even if their comrades in the new-found cause are just as lame as they are... As is standard, it's always people like this who test the boundaries of various ideologies. The fringe cases have always been the context we employ to define the slippery slope.The justices were right here. Empowering the courts to criminalize any kind of expression of ideas- even morally heinous ones- would have been GG, free speech as we know inside of 50 years time. It is perfectly reasonable for municipalities to pass ordinances regulating protesting against funerals but putting the issue in the hands of the courts would've totally destroyed the gold standard of free speech as it exists today.This idea that 'infliction of emotional distress' should be some sort of crime is ridiculous. A logical person arguing with an illogical one will inflict emotional distress on that person as a natural function of what occurs whenever cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head. A lot of beliefs and ideologies are unpopular- and even offensive- but are nevertheless logically correct. This causes a great deal of 'distress' in the people who want to maintain their own belief structure without anyone pointing out that it's bullshit.I have friends overseas right now. Dear, beloved friends. If one of them were to eat it and these people protested their funeral, I'd confront them (probably beat them and accept whatever charges came with it) but I wouldn't sully the concept of free speech- one of the principles my friends wear that uniform to uphold- by demanding it be suspended because it's offensive.

excellent

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

These people are already well outside of mainstream society; the furthest-flung reaches of the deepest and darkest fringes. They're socially ostracized to begin with, which is precisely why they join groups like this. It gives them 'something to believe in' that others believe in too, even if their comrades in the new-found cause are just as lame as they are... As is standard, it's always people like this who test the boundaries of various ideologies. The fringe cases have always been the context we employ to define the slippery slope.The justices were right here. Empowering the courts to criminalize any kind of expression of ideas- even morally heinous ones- would have been GG, free speech as we know inside of 50 years time. It is perfectly reasonable for municipalities to pass ordinances regulating protesting against funerals but putting the issue in the hands of the courts would've totally destroyed the gold standard of free speech as it exists today.This idea that 'infliction of emotional distress' should be some sort of crime is ridiculous. A logical person arguing with an illogical one will inflict emotional distress on that person as a natural function of what occurs whenever cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head. A lot of beliefs and ideologies are unpopular- and even offensive- but are nevertheless logically correct. This causes a great deal of 'distress' in the people who want to maintain their own belief structure without anyone pointing out that it's bullshit.I have friends overseas right now. Dear, beloved friends. If one of them were to eat it and these people protested their funeral, I'd confront them (probably beat them and accept whatever charges came with it) but I wouldn't sully the concept of free speech- one of the principles my friends wear that uniform to uphold- by demanding it be suspended because it's offensive.I always liked what the Freedom Riders do. They would line up hundreds of motorcycles along the funeral route and drown them out. That's free speech, too.

The problem is, we already have the courts and schools trying to legislate the concept of "bullying" which to me is pretty much the same thing.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Just make a law that the media has to stay within 500 feet of them. The Westboros that is..

Yeah take away their coverage and they go away. Like the idiots burning Korans.

[timwakefield 68]

The problem is, we already have the courts and schools trying to legislate the concept of "bullying" which to me is pretty much the same thing.

Not if the bullying involves physical threats or actual violence...which is practically the definition of bullying.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Not if the bullying involves physical threats or actual violence...which is practically the definition of bullying.

Not lately. They've broadened the definition to include teasing and posting mean stuff on line.

[timwakefield 68]

Not lately. They've broadened the definition to include teasing and posting mean stuff on line.

True, I'm just saying that bullying, as a phenomenon, has very little to do with free speech, and is often associated with violence or the threat of violence. If Westboro Baptist were acting violently or making violent threats it would be deliciously easy to shut down their protests, which is why they don't do it.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

True, I'm just saying that bullying, as a phenomenon, has very little to do with free speech, and is often associated with violence or the threat of violence. If Westboro Baptist were acting violently or making violent threats it would be deliciously easy to shut down their protests, which is why they don't do it.

Yeah I know. I just think that going to a funeral and saying your son deserved to die because of homosexuals is worse than some 13 year old girl calling another girl a skank on her Facebook Page.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yeah I know. I just think that going to a funeral and saying your son deserved to die because of homosexuals is worse than some 13 year old girl calling another girl a skank on her Facebook Page.

We have always always had different rules for people under the age of 18.The first amendment rights of children on a school campus are also severely curtailed.....there was a SCOTUS case about it a couple years back:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...vFrederick.htmlThe general idea being an adult is much better equipped to deal with direct verbal abuse than a child. And I agree with that. We do lots of things different with kids and for good reason imo.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

We have always always had different rules for people under the age of 18.The first amendment rights of children on a school campus are also severely curtailed.....there was a SCOTUS case about it a couple years back:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...vFrederick.htmlThe general idea being an adult is much better equipped to deal with direct verbal abuse than a child. And I agree with that. We do lots of things different with kids and for good reason imo.

Unless you use a racial or gay slur and it becomes a "Hate Crime".

[custom36 4]

Unless you use a racial or gay slur and it becomes a "Hate Crime".

Only if you use a gay slur while beating up a gay person, I believe.