Good ruling, but important to note that the 1st only protects you from government interference with your freedom of speech....it doesn't protect you from the people you piss off when you run your suck somewhere you shouldn't.
[Broken External Image]
Hate:
An intense feeling of dislike. It may occur in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects or animals, to hatred of other people, entire groups of people, people in general, existence, or everything; themselves
They are there to express hatred and provoke violence towards themselves. Their message is to only cause more sorrow and pain to people already dealing with enough. Don't fool yourself, if they could protest on that man's grave, they would.
I know you are a Libertarian, but liberty runs both ways and somewhere common sense needs to be established by the people.
Indeed. Should there be a restricting it? Absolutely not.
But some people seem to be confused on the meaning of "free speech". Free speech is not license to say anything you want without repercussions. Walk into a barrio or black neighborhood in any major city on a Sunday afternoon and start yelling slurs...then tell me about your free speech being violated.
I 100% believe they should have the right to say whatever they want. But why are they protected by law enforcement for what they want to say? Can I call TPD and tell them I want 5 officers to come with me to the bar on Saturday night, because I'm fixin' to tell a bunch of drunk bikers I diddled their woman and slapped their mother, and don't want to get punched?
What is the line that separates calling people at a funeral fags, and me walking into a bar and calling the biggest, drunkest dude there a ***? Is it my right to go into a bar and do that, and expect the police to ensure I leave with all my teeth?
I'm being a bit hyperbolic and Devil's Advocate-ish (and I think I know your answer already), but there is a point there somewhere. Mainly just trying to get some discussion going.
That's the problem. . .I don't want SCOTUS ruling by "feeling."
The State funded protection is what I have a concern with too. I understand the necessity to have free speech, even when it is stupid and ignorant, but at who's expense? I believe that these people are in it to get recognition and get physically attacked. An easy fix would be to let the officer's go back to their routine and have the counter protesters go back to their jobs. If the protesters want to get up and harass the mourners, let the family take care of the protesters.
We have laws that take care of a person's civil rights. What about the family's civil rights?
First, they aren't calling the people at funerals fags. They are protesting about public issues. They are using funerals as a platform to gain more publicity.
So in the former case, the speech is public and not directed at any individual in particular.
In the latter, where you picked the biggest, drunkest due in the bar, you picked an individual directly, and thus your speech is directed specifically at that individual. At that point, you can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Keep in mind if you ever try such a thing on me in a bar that I'll probably look for some way to screw you over more than my knuckles disfiguring your pretty face.
How were the Snyders' civil rights violated?
I thought it would be the public issue vs. individual thing.
I'm just wondering what makes a protest "legit". Lets drop the hypothetical me insulting an individual. Say I want to use WBC tactics to "protest" a public issue. What do I have to do to get police protection?
If I want to stand alone in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Possumfawk Arkansas and stage a one man protest saying "fat ass hillbilly redneck Wal-Mart customers cause dead soldiers"...can I get police protection from hillbilly asswhippins?
I wouldn't be targeting an individual. No more than WBC targets individual homosexuals.
Thanks for sparing my pretty face, it's how I make my livin'.
I wonder which 1st. Amendment case will effect Americas future the most, the WBC case or the one below.
The Buying of America
"In Arizona, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch set the template that is being followed in Wisconsin. They funded extremist groups and spread hate through lies and half-truths, allowing them to manipulate elections."
Twenty-five protesters were arrested in Rancho Mirage, California, where billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch and conservative political donors converged for a strategy session, 01/30/11. (photo: AP)
The Buying of America
By Rodolfo F. Acuna, Reader Supported News
01 March 11
Reader Supported News | Perspective
RSN Special Coverage: GOP's War on American Labor
reader responded to my article on the Arizona and Wisconsin connection that "... the Koch brothers are just the tip of the iceberg," - a statement with which I totally agree.
The Phoenix resident predicted that the corporate takeover of the state and federal governments had just begun. What would make this possible was "The Citizens United Supreme Court decision [that] will only make money laundering for public office worse, since there is no accountability measure to provide transparency about who is contributing to Tea Party or other candidates."
The US Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) held that the First Amendment requires that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," and that a "prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech." According to the Court, "A PAC [political action committee] is a separate association from the corporation." Because speech is fundamental to democracy, the regulation on spending infringes on political speech.
In essence, Citizens United gives corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign ads - no matter how outrageous the ads are. The case struck down campaign reform, and a provision in the law that prohibited all corporations and unions from contributing as much money as they wanted to elections. The outcome is that the rich are protected by the First Amendment and have the right to buy elections.
President Obama criticized the decision, saying that it "Gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates."
Even more outrageous, the decision shields rich contributors by giving them anonymity. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they have a license to place an unlimited number of ads, and by forming "501(c) (4)s" nonprofits, the identity of the donors is hidden.
In Arizona, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch set the template that is being followed in Wisconsin. They funded extremist groups and spread hate through lies and half-truths, allowing them to manipulate elections.
Given these facts, it is hard not to recognize a conspiracy between the Koches and the five Supreme Court Justices that formed the majority in Citizens United.
For example, on January 30-31, 2011, the Koches held a secretive retreat for billionaires in Palm Springs, California. Featured speakers at past billionaire juntas were Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the five majority justices in Citizens United. Thomas' wife is the founder and president of Liberty Central, a conservative political advocacy group with ties to the Tea Party and the infamous Koches.
The corporate assault on democracy began as far back as 1868 with the passage of the "due process clause" in the 14th Amendment. Its intent was to protect the rights of African-Americans by protecting them from the southern states that wanted to keep them in a de facto state of slavery. Instead of enforcing the amendment and giving blacks equal protection, pro-business justices expanded the 14th amendment to shield corporations from state and federal regulation. They raised the legal fiction that corporations were persons and thus a protected class.
Since the 1980s, corporations, dominated by the billionaire class, have become more proactive in politics. Emboldened by William E. Simon's ghost-written "A Time for Truth" (1978), the right wing has founded a bevy of tax-free non-profits to fund right-wing causes.
As of 2007 there were 2.7 millionaires and 371 billionaires in the United States out of a population of 307 million Americans - less than one percent. The Koch brothers had only two votes, but had a combined wealth of $41 billion dollars.
The golden opportunity for the Koch cabal came in Gore v. Bush (2000) that resolved the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 5-4 decision was a political decision with Thomas and Scalia heading the majority.
Gore v. Bush made the Citizens United case possible, as Bush became president, and he proceeded to stack the Supreme Court as well as the lower federal courts with right-wing ideologues. He nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Court - both judicial conservatives with deep right-wing ties.
These two justices joined Scalia and Thomas in the passage of Citizens United, which represented an extreme departure from previous case law.
In Arizona the billionaire club used the Tea Party, the Minutemen and the Nazis to spread fear, misinterpretation and gross stereotypes. Like Professor Rudy Rosales has pointed out, "This attack [is] on working class people, Mexicanos and Latinos all over, African-Americans, Native Americans, Asians, women, gays, homosexuals, [and it] is possible because they do it piece by piece - first immigrants, then gays, then women, then African-Americans."
Their goal is to destroy the liberal capitalist state.
Because of Citizens United, in future elections voters will be unable to tell where the money is coming from. The 2006 election cost about $1 billion; the cost of the 2010 election was over $3 billion. It turned blue states red. The cost of the 2012 presidential campaign will dwarf these numbers. Everyone is up for sale.
Eric Drum in Mother Jones (March/April 2011) writes that, "With unions declining, the Democratic Party turned to the only other source of money and influence available in large enough quantities to replace Big Labor: Big Business."
The question is, "Who will control the country?" 371 billionaires, or the other 307 million residents of this nation?
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5117-the-buying-of-america
The Buying of America
"In Arizona, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch set the template that is being followed in Wisconsin. They funded extremist groups and spread hate through lies and half-truths, allowing them to manipulate elections."
Twenty-five protesters were arrested in Rancho Mirage, California, where billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch and conservative political donors converged for a strategy session, 01/30/11. (photo: AP)
The Buying of America
By Rodolfo F. Acuna, Reader Supported News
01 March 11
Reader Supported News | Perspective
RSN Special Coverage: GOP's War on American Labor
reader responded to my article on the Arizona and Wisconsin connection that "... the Koch brothers are just the tip of the iceberg," - a statement with which I totally agree.
The Phoenix resident predicted that the corporate takeover of the state and federal governments had just begun. What would make this possible was "The Citizens United Supreme Court decision [that] will only make money laundering for public office worse, since there is no accountability measure to provide transparency about who is contributing to Tea Party or other candidates."
The US Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (2010) held that the First Amendment requires that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," and that a "prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech." According to the Court, "A PAC [political action committee] is a separate association from the corporation." Because speech is fundamental to democracy, the regulation on spending infringes on political speech.
In essence, Citizens United gives corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign ads - no matter how outrageous the ads are. The case struck down campaign reform, and a provision in the law that prohibited all corporations and unions from contributing as much money as they wanted to elections. The outcome is that the rich are protected by the First Amendment and have the right to buy elections.
President Obama criticized the decision, saying that it "Gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates."
Even more outrageous, the decision shields rich contributors by giving them anonymity. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they have a license to place an unlimited number of ads, and by forming "501(c) (4)s" nonprofits, the identity of the donors is hidden.
In Arizona, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch set the template that is being followed in Wisconsin. They funded extremist groups and spread hate through lies and half-truths, allowing them to manipulate elections.
Given these facts, it is hard not to recognize a conspiracy between the Koches and the five Supreme Court Justices that formed the majority in Citizens United.
For example, on January 30-31, 2011, the Koches held a secretive retreat for billionaires in Palm Springs, California. Featured speakers at past billionaire juntas were Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the five majority justices in Citizens United. Thomas' wife is the founder and president of Liberty Central, a conservative political advocacy group with ties to the Tea Party and the infamous Koches.
The corporate assault on democracy began as far back as 1868 with the passage of the "due process clause" in the 14th Amendment. Its intent was to protect the rights of African-Americans by protecting them from the southern states that wanted to keep them in a de facto state of slavery. Instead of enforcing the amendment and giving blacks equal protection, pro-business justices expanded the 14th amendment to shield corporations from state and federal regulation. They raised the legal fiction that corporations were persons and thus a protected class.
Since the 1980s, corporations, dominated by the billionaire class, have become more proactive in politics. Emboldened by William E. Simon's ghost-written "A Time for Truth" (1978), the right wing has founded a bevy of tax-free non-profits to fund right-wing causes.
As of 2007 there were 2.7 millionaires and 371 billionaires in the United States out of a population of 307 million Americans - less than one percent. The Koch brothers had only two votes, but had a combined wealth of $41 billion dollars.
The golden opportunity for the Koch cabal came in Gore v. Bush (2000) that resolved the presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 5-4 decision was a political decision with Thomas and Scalia heading the majority.
Gore v. Bush made the Citizens United case possible, as Bush became president, and he proceeded to stack the Supreme Court as well as the lower federal courts with right-wing ideologues. He nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Court - both judicial conservatives with deep right-wing ties.
These two justices joined Scalia and Thomas in the passage of Citizens United, which represented an extreme departure from previous case law.
In Arizona the billionaire club used the Tea Party, the Minutemen and the Nazis to spread fear, misinterpretation and gross stereotypes. Like Professor Rudy Rosales has pointed out, "This attack [is] on working class people, Mexicanos and Latinos all over, African-Americans, Native Americans, Asians, women, gays, homosexuals, [and it] is possible because they do it piece by piece - first immigrants, then gays, then women, then African-Americans."
Their goal is to destroy the liberal capitalist state.
Because of Citizens United, in future elections voters will be unable to tell where the money is coming from. The 2006 election cost about $1 billion; the cost of the 2010 election was over $3 billion. It turned blue states red. The cost of the 2012 presidential campaign will dwarf these numbers. Everyone is up for sale.
Eric Drum in Mother Jones (March/April 2011) writes that, "With unions declining, the Democratic Party turned to the only other source of money and influence available in large enough quantities to replace Big Labor: Big Business."
The question is, "Who will control the country?" 371 billionaires, or the other 307 million residents of this nation?
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5117-the-buying-of-america
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Whatever happen to Trumps proposal on legalizing suppressors without permit?
- Latest: red dirt shootist
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
