Reply With Quote
""Solemn events" aren't protected by the Cons ution though.
How much noise did they make?
Who exactly did they slander?
""Solemn events" aren't protected by the Cons ution though.
Didn't keep them from assembling, did it?
One person's right to assemble does not equate to another person's obligation to preserve the mood.
It's rather hard to move a funeral when someone unwanted arrives. The protesters do not need to protest at someone elses peaceful assembly. They can protest elsewhere. The fact the target funerals shows intent to violate the rights of others.
If the First Amendment creates a state obligation to preserve the mood at solemn gatherings, surely there is case law supporting your reading. Mind posting it, WC?
People hold a right to freedom of speech; they do not have a right to freedom FROM speech, though.
Using your reading of the First Amendment, nearly all protests would be unsuccessful, as the protest would have to be held far away from whatever they were protesting.
Do you think that Republicans/Democrats shouldn't be allowed to protest at Democratic/Republican conventions?
They didn't have to move the funeral because they were not prevented from having it. The notion that someone could capriciously state "They do not need to protest...." is almost polar opposite of the intent of the first amendment.
At some point, a person's right to free speech is overridden by the rights of others.
You can't go into a movie theater and shout "Fire!".
You can't walk down the street shouting obsenities. Well, you can, but there are consequences.
WC apparently wants the authorities to shut down WBC rallies, because he doesn't like them. Toward that end, any contortion of the law will do.
Sorry. Apples and Oranges.
Shouting "Fire" is not an application of free speech in this instance. First, the venue is not public. It's private with rules and regulations regarding behavior.
Nobody is arguing that there's freedom from consequences. Consequences are what they are.
These funeral protesters make me rage as well.
Well, you can't tell bomb jokes at the airport, can you?
Again, you can, but you will probably be arrested.
"you can't shout "fire" at an airport."
"you can't shout "bomb" at a theater."
forgot the blue text.
Ok, baker of clams. 'spain the blue text thing to me. I ain't picked up on it yet.
An interesting do ent about exceptions to the first amendment.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf
Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may
be subject to regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. In the case in which this language appears, the Supreme Court allowed a city ordinance that banned picketing before or about any residence to be enforced to prevent picketing outside the residence of a doctor who performed abortions, even though the picketing occurred on a public street. The Court noted that "the First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience
cannot avoid the objectionable speech."
Can you relate this to the OP, or does the observation stand all by itself?
blue noted for sarcasm.Ok, baker of clams. 'spain the blue text thing to me. I ain't picked up on it yet.
I think this was the basis behind the law which forbids protesting within an hour of military funerals.The Court noted that "the First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech."
I did not know that, LNGR.
It seems like it should apply to funerals in general. The people at the funeral are more or less 'captive' and can't really avoid the hate speech of those ' s.
In other words, you want Congress to make a law abridging the freedom of speech.
The hilarious part is that WC and SNC want the phobic christians punished and it's the libs that are defending them(or their rights anyway).
Instant classic thread.
I'm with SnC and WC on this by the way.
I imagine it would be similar if they'd blown up a building. Torture their terrorist asses.
nobody is defending their actions, whottt.
From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect...len_Heroes_Act
Ha! Instead of the captive audience, they classified the protests as "fighting words"... interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Here's what's interesting though: the court has narrowed down the scope of the law.
The fighting words doctrine, in United States cons utional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Cons ution. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any cons utional problem."
The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969)[2], the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said " the draft" did not cons ute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were uncons utionally overbroad.So Brandenburg v Ohio says that they can't prevent a KKK member from advocating force, except when it is likely to incite violence.In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government, holding that government cannot cons utionally prohibit advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Does this mean that the court is assuming that the funeral protestors are likely to incite violence, as well as saying that their religious beliefs are "personally abusive epithets" to the soldiers?
I'm not sure how that would hold up in court. As Barney Frank pointed out, "I think it’s very likely to be found uncons utional. It’s true that when you defend civil liberties you are typically defending people who do obnoxious things... You play into their hand when you let them provoke you into overdoing it. I don’t want these thugs to claim America is hypocritical.”[2]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
