Reply With Quote
There isn't possible anything Christian about this hate-mongering group. I think they only call themselves a 'church' to get added cons utional protections.
What's hilarious is not understanding the difference between defending someone's actions and defending someone's rights.
There isn't possible anything Christian about this hate-mongering group. I think they only call themselves a 'church' to get added cons utional protections.
... and honestly, we aren't defending their rights because we want their rights defended. We are defending their rights because we live in a country where the "rule of law" is enforced and so anything infringing on THEIR rights simultaneously infringes on OUR rights (yours too WC, et al.). I am, therefore, quite selfishly defending MY right to free speech, despite how reprehensible I find their actions to be.
Darrin beat me to it: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."
There is a difference between going to a funeral and living at your home which is why this protects Dr's who perform abortions from being picketed at home, and doesn't protect funeral-goers from picketing near to where their loved-one's funeral is being held.
They could avoid it. They can pay their respects on a different day, etc. Yes, Yes, I know this all sucks, but once again, popular and accepted speech would not require its own amendment to the cons ution, it is there to protect unpopular speech.
What's hilarious is not seeing the part, "or their rights anyway" even thought it's in the quote.
Interfering with an individual's enjoyment of their own residence isn't really comparable to picketing a funeral IMO.
Oops.
Drachen beat me to it.
of course you would
I think so too
Could it not be considered interfering with another's freedom of religion? Isn't a funeral a religous ceremony?
how does the picketing interfere with one's right to worship whatever religion they wish to?
Not necessarily, no; but how does picketing in a public area adjacent to a funeral "interfere with" it?
Do you think the father of the dead Marine thought that the protesters interfered with his son's funeral? It seems pretty obvious to me.
If I talk loudly in a movie theater, do I interfere with others' enjoyment of the movie?
Bear in mind, in this case the circuit court ruled the WBC did not disrupt the church service.
Parsing. As a factual matter, the opinion of the family about whether the protesters "interfered" (whatever you mean by that) is neither here nor there.
Different rules apply to private establishments.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-01-2010 at 01:42 PM.
I hate the WBC as much as anyone but there are a lot of jackasses in here who really don't have a clue what freedom of speech is all about. It really doesn't surprise me that Wild Cobra doesn't have any sort of grasp of the American con ution though, he's proved as much before.
The right to peaceably assemble refers to violent behavior, not how loud or obnoxious you're aloud to be. Its exactly the opposite to your interpretation. Its there to protect the loud and obnoxious.
Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.
Was there loud and unreasonable noise?
Was the language so offensive as to immediately incite violence, or threaten the public order?
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-01-2010 at 01:54 PM. Reason: ugly adverb, removed
Luckily for the WBC, they were given permits by the city that allowed them a certain time and place where they could protest. I say luckily for them because it is exactly this which allows them to invoke the 1st amendment protecting their speech. Oh and in case you are wondering, the city can't refuse the permit on grounds of "these guys are bags."
right. Dog barking is just noise for most of us unless you speak dog. Do you speak dog?
freedom of speech is usually seen as freedom of stating your opinion without fear of retribution.
There is most definitely a line that can be crossed when getting to close to someone else's personal space or defaming their character
Was that line crossed in this instance? The court and law enforcement officials are saying no.
In this case, the police did not seem to think WCB was disorderly or otherwise a threat to public order.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
