US Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro

[Perd Hapley]

Thank you, Larry, for pointing out that in the U.S. today, vet's families are not allowed to have any peace in which to bury their dead. The funeral must be surrounded by shrieking cretins, or something louder that drowns them out.

To what a pretty pass we've come. If only we could pass a law.

[De Selby]

You mean, like a law that prevents intentional infliction of emotional harm on someone at a funeral for a relative?

It's not the specific content, it's the intent of the speech. You know, kind of like inciting panic, it's the intent, not the content.

And I'll go with Justice Alito, rather than the majority.

Yeah, that would be only because you haven't given a read to the majority or considered the law - having the intent to get publicity is perfectly consistent with the first amendment, for obvious reasons.

Why are you so anxious to have the government decide which messages are appropriate for whatever context?

[makattak]

Yeah, that would be only because you haven't given a read to the majority or considered the law - having the intent to get publicity is perfectly consistent with the first amendment, for obvious reasons.

Why are you so anxious to have the government decide which messages are appropriate for whatever context?

So, if I started screaming FIRE! in a theatre so that people would listen to whatever other points I had, it would be ok to incite a panic if I incited the panic for publicity?

Publicity isn't the ONLY intent. The majority is, simply, wrong here.

[Ned Hamford]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

[PTK]

Freedom is more important that comfort, by far. Since I happen to be watching Star Trek, here's a quote:


“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”


Is it really worth temporary comfort at the cost of permanent rights? There may come a day when you expressing yourself is considered rude by a group of people. Perhaps you ought not to be able to protest, either.

[TommyGunn]

Since I happen to be watching Star Trek, here's a quote:
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”

What STAR TREK is that from?  I don't remember it .....

[makattak]

Freedom is more important that comfort, by far. Since I happen to be watching Star Trek, here's a quote:


“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”


Is it really worth temporary comfort at the cost of permanent rights? There may come a day when you expressing yourself is considered rude by a group of people. Perhaps you ought not to be able to protest, either.

If you would note:

This case is not about, nor am I advocating, federal (or even state) restrictions on speech.

This is about a civil penalty for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

They should be able to say whatver they want without fear of jail. That should not apply to civil remedies, though.

And as I have said, either we allow people to use the judicial system to address that intentional harm or we allow people to use more traditional means (tarring and feathering) to address that harm. We have now disallowed both. That is foolish and harmful and will not end well for our society.

[PTK]

What STAR TREK is that from?  I don't remember it .....

The Next Generation episode "Drumhead".

This is about a civil penalty for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

They should be able to say whatver they want without fear of jail. That should not apply to civil remedies, though.

The issue with allowing civil remedies, as you mention them, is that you just hurt my feelings. I will see you in court.

[Ned Hamford]

The Next Generation episode "Drumhead".

The issue with allowing civil remedies, as you mention them, is that you just hurt my feelings. I will see you in court.

Well, he didn't publish something saying [by name] your recently deceased loved one died in shame and is going to hell, then drive cross country make a scene at the funeral just for the publicity of wildly inappropriate behavior at an important religious semi-private event. 

This is such a far cry from mere hurt feelings my mind boggles at the court decision. 

The only upnote being that the SCOTUS has basically ok'ed states nixing funeral protests for the future. 

[Balog]

This reminds me of the arguments about how public nudity, beastiality, cannibalism, and necrophilia/phagy are perfectly acceptable and should be legal. Just as it's held to be evident that all men are created equal etc, I believe it's self-evident that some things are inherently wrong and should not be countenanced by a rational civilization.

[Fitz]

I'll post in here what I posted in the other board i frequent...

The shitty thing is: if everyone would ignore them, they'd go away.

They finance themselves off suing people who retaliate, people who slander them in the press, etc.

If everyone ignores them, they run out of money.

On the other hand, now that lies and slander are considered and upheld by the courts as 'protected speech' (the first via the overturning of Stolen Valor, the second via the recent Westboro decision...)

It means that I am fully within the law to go out there in a pedobear outfit with a "Phelps touches children" sign.

Who cares if it's slander and lies? The courts say that *expletive deleted*it is protected!


#winning


By the way, the next time they head to Arlington, this is EXACTLY what I plan to do.

[Ned Hamford]

http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/3633405333/wbc-promises-to-quadruple-funeral-protests-after

[De Selby]

So, if I started screaming FIRE! in a theatre so that people would listen to whatever other points I had, it would be ok to incite a panic if I incited the panic for publicity?

Publicity isn't the ONLY intent. The majority is, simply, wrong here.

Again, you're just not getting the issue.  You need to actually read the case.  The problem is that you can only make out a case for harm if you focus on the content of the speech at issue.  Hence, if you let people sue over this, you are allowing lawsuits to undo the right to free speech.  The relevant case there is Hustler, which is cited in the opinion.

Any law that would have banned Phelps would have to regulate content.  The Government has no business telling you what thoughts are acceptable to speak.  If you agree with that, there is simply no way you can come up with a law that will regulate Phelps & Co.

Ned, time, place, and manner rules have existed for a long time.  The Court explains why those were not an issue in this case.

[Ned Hamford]

I did not find the majority to be at all compelling or convincing; especially having read the cases they were citing.

"And even if a few of  the signs—such as “You’re Going  to Hell” and
“God  Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages
related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically,
that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and
dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to
broader public issues."

They published that Snyder 'died in shame' and is 'burning in hell' before driving over and have a multitude of signs that would indicate to any passerby, who didn't know about the protesting nuts, defamatory statements about the dead.

The ruling hinged on an argument not being made as making it would have been inappropriate.  The typical wrong footed SCOTUS decision where after the base case an argument is raised on appeal, that issue is addressed during the appeal, repeat, and then the Supreme Court gives a troll smile and say that the issue turned on a matter well proven at the case in trial, but not discussed at the appellate level.

Their position rests on 'what if the signs instead said: Snyder, great guy, god bless em' no case, content is untouchable. 

What I got from the ruling is yet another judicial choice to go with a bright line rule wholly appealing to academics and lawyers, inexplicable to anyone with any degree of common sense.

Their avoidance of really addressing the limits of time, place and manner, stating the state had no bar on funeral protests at the time, does nothing but avoid tackling difficult issues. 

High mindedness is used as a cover for intellectual cowardice. 

[Lee]

No, it's better to protect the freedoms we hold dear, even if it means some nutballs will take advantage of it in ways we despise.

 I think the court is nuts....but mayeb this should be handled at a local or state level.  But....it also demonstrates that sometimes, violence is a decent solution.
 I was raised as a Baptist -those folks could use some serious submersion time.  "Now we gather at the river,the beautiful, the beautiful, riverrrrr..."  

[RoadKingLarry]

Far better to suffer the problems of too much liberty than the problems of too little liberty.

[sanglant]

High mindedness

you'll hear some old timers use the phrase "high pockets". look at the back of a pair o jeans, and it'll click.

[Boberama]

This is not freedom of speech.

This is harassment.

[roo_ster]

High mindedness is used as a cover for intellectual cowardice. 

That is done lots of places, these days.