1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

[vvvvvvv]

I don't usually join in on these debates but I have strong feelings about this one. It sickens me to see some of the comments about this being a good decision by the Supreme Court. Nothing about this is right.
I've been on many Patriot Guard missions and a few have involved WBC. We talk about protecting free speech. I don't think what WBC is doing is what the founders of this country had in mind when they wrote the constitution and those who later passed the admendments. Nor do I feel they would condone it.
I wonder what would have happened if some protested in this manner at the burial of soldiers killed making this a free country in the early days.
Pityful that some want to protest at funerals of our brave who lost their lives. Even worse that we would protect them for any reason.
The father on CBS news this morning was right. If the government will not protect us from evil then civilians will protect themselves. That's when someone will get hurt and a well meaning citizen will go to jail for a long time.

My $.02

So the founding fathers would have condoned restriction of speech that could be considered remotely offensive?

How is a protest that is rather distasteful compared to societal norms "evil"?

And why do you think the government should "protect us" from such distasteful protests?

Should we be able to sue someone for burning a flag based on the reason that we find it distasteful and offensive?

Should Muslims be able to sue someone for using Muhammad's likeness (for example, in a cartoon) based on the reason that they find it distasteful and offensive?

 

[Dale00]

The ruling makes sense. Freedom of speech means people have the right to express painful ideas in offensive ways. But it's a two way street.

Why aren't these people social pariahs in their home town? Many of the WBC people are obviously ashamed and don't want to be recognized or they wouldn't wear the dark glasses. Social pressure. Shame.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Many of the WBC people are obviously ashamed and don't want to be recognized or they wouldn't wear the dark glasses.

Careful. Phelps might sue you for making false inflammatory and derogatory statements against the obviously handicapped.

 

[Tully]

Put it any way you choose. It is not right and any way you spin it will not change that.
Course, I'm just stating my opinion. You have every right to feel as you do towards the WBC and what they do.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Put it any way you choose. It is not right and any way you spin it will not change that.
Course, I'm just stating my opinion. You have every right to feel as you do towards the WBC and what they do.

If you read my posts, you'll see that I don't think what WBC does is right. In fact, I find their protests rather distasteful and offensive.

But I believe it's even more wrong to start down a slippery slope that further erodes the protections of the First Amendment.

I asked those questions to establish the foundation for your position (and anyone else's) apparently against the protections of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[donner]

Put it any way you choose. It is not right and any way you spin it will not change that.
Course, I'm just stating my opinion. You have every right to feel as you do towards the WBC and what they do.

And the same law the protects the WBC protest is the same law that protects your right to say what you want.

It's easy to protect speech we feel is 'right', the real test comes when we are asked to protect speech we find distasteful, evil or whatever you want to call it.

If we can protect that type of speech then maybe there is hope for us yet.

 

[Tully]

My morals and values do not allow me to say that people have the right to say anything they want regardless of how it affects others. At some point there is a line where their rights impinge the rights of the families. We're not talking about me liking the color blue and becoming offended if you say blue sucks. We're talking about celebrating the death of a US soldier.
Minimalizing the issue by referring to it as "rather distasteful" doesn't work for me.
And yes, I also believe it should be illegal to burn the US flag. To show you just how crazy I am, I also believe we should be profiling individuals at airport security checkpoints.

 

[Nraman]

I don't usually join in on these debates but I have strong feelings about this one. It sickens me to see some of the comments about this being a good decision by the Supreme Court. Nothing about this is right.

To show you just how crazy I am, I also believe we should be profiling individuals at airport security checkpoints.

You refuse to see what the a$$holes do for what it is. You only see it as disrespect and pain to the family, which it is. But it is more than that, it is also political speech. Those people did not protest against the soldier because they believed that the soldier had done something wrong, they used the opportunity to protest against government policies.
Should the entire nation, for ever lose the right to speak against the government unless such speech is consider "proper" by some?
I think that these people can be forced to find another way to do their thing without further diminishing the Bill of Rights.
BTW you talk about airports, how much of the Bill of Rights means anything at the airport? How many rights do you think you have when you return from overseas and you go through customs?
How many rights do you have when FEMA declares an emergency? What part of the Constitution gives the Government the right to suspend the Constitution when they want to. How much does the Constitution mean if it is conditional, depending on the mood of the government?
Perhaps we should be more concerned in strengthening our Constitutional rights instead of finding reasons to weaken them.

 

[HMFIC]

I think most people who disagree with the SCOTUS ruling can be lumped into two groups:

Those who don't know or understand the facts
Those who disregard the full picture

I'm unclear. In which one of the two ways above do you catagorize me?

I happen to think your opinion is wrong. It doesn't mean I'm going to call you ignorant or irrational.

Again, I believe in the WBC and everyone's right to free speech. I just believe that their specific targeting and calling out of individuals, calling them names, defaming them in public, using legally defined "hate speech" (whether you agree with that principle or not) against them and inciting violence is not free speech. It's very clear from case law and statute that defamation is NOT free speech and THAT is what I believe WBC engages is.

Perhaps within the context of this particular lawsuit, the SCOTUS did get it right, however I think that if the lawsuit was based on defamation rather than WBC's "right to protest", we'd be looking at different decisions from the courts.

 

[JB Books]

Hate speech? Guys on here using the term "hate speech?" You can't have it both ways. When some jackass draws a racist caricature of Obama at a Tea Party rally, many of you would say "that's not hate speech." You want hate speech brought under control, then it ALL needs to be brought under control, not just the speech you dislike.

And as is usual here on OSA, most of you seem to forget what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Double standard = hypocrisy.