|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Mar 2, 2011 11:20:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 2, 2011 11:30:58 GMT -5
What right are they violating?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Mar 2, 2011 11:34:07 GMT -5
They're not infringing on the rights of anyone else though. They're peaceably assembling, not on private property, following police directions, maintaining proper legal distance, etc. As much as I hate to say it, if "hurt feelings" were ruled to count as an infringement onto the rights of others, the 1st amendment would be FUBAR'ed. And that's really what Westboro causes and what riles up their opposition - just how disrespectful and hurtful they try to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Mar 2, 2011 11:48:26 GMT -5
I agree with the decision 100%. As offensive as the speech is, you have a right to say offensive things. The ruling was 8-1, with Alito being the sole dissenter.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Mar 2, 2011 12:25:15 GMT -5
Then I rule gashed tires and broken windows are freedom of speech, since some dislikes cannot be put in words
|
|
|
|
Post by QWcanary on Mar 2, 2011 12:28:43 GMT -5
Yes the 1st does test our threshold at times for free speech. Unfortunately, with such a freedom, there will always be those with the freedom of douche-baggery. Of course, the rest of us are also free to make fun of them, refuse them services, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Mar 2, 2011 12:33:28 GMT -5
Then I rule gashed tires and broken windows are freedom of speech, since some dislikes cannot be put in words Someone already did the gashed tires bit. I won't feel sad at all if something worse happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Mar 2, 2011 12:36:33 GMT -5
If they actually gave a shit about the First Amendment, I'd agree with the ruling. I want to stress that part right now.
But the simple reason is, they don't. They view it as something to make money off of by actively inciting violence so they can sue and make money off grieving families.
Fuck them, fuck their religion, fuck their rights. Right now, I'm hoping the next loon with a gun who wants to make headlines opens up on these fuckers.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Mar 2, 2011 12:37:42 GMT -5
Yeah, they have the right to protest.
But it also wouldn't surprise me if they protested the wrong funeral eventually- and trigger one of the attendees with PTSD, or protest the funeral of a child whose mother has a concealed carry license, or accidentally protest a mob funeral, or even just have the flashy orange signs distract a driver who accidentally crashes into them.
Note: I'm not saying this SHOULD happen, just that eventually they might piss off the wrong funeral attendees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Mar 2, 2011 12:39:38 GMT -5
Lazy: Were you in the chat when I mentioned someone with PTSD potentially hurting someone from WBC? Eerie.
Maybe if all the 'rights' that allow people to spout their hatred were applied to those who only want to live in peace (e.g. gay people) then I'd agree fully with the decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by caseagainstfaith on Mar 2, 2011 12:53:22 GMT -5
See I would be the happiest if a side ruling was along the lines of yes you can say what you want and protest but you loose the right to sue someone should you deliberatly try to incite violent reactions because of it someone acts on it. This might be a bad example but if I mouth off to someone and egg him on in a way that he kicks my ass well I can't say I didn't have it coming since I was the aggressor.
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgreen on Mar 2, 2011 13:09:17 GMT -5
Fighting words exceptions were put in the first amendment for a reason but the qualifications have been raised to a point where it's hard to prove the bastards are using fighting words.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 2, 2011 13:37:52 GMT -5
I just heard about this and I couldn't be happier ^_^
Here is some of what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion:
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
""Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder's funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro's choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech."
Right on the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Mar 2, 2011 13:41:37 GMT -5
Actually it disrupted the funeral procession. But hey, whatever. caseagainstfaith: I'm not sure how often we agree, but in this I do agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by shiftyeyes on Mar 2, 2011 13:49:03 GMT -5
I agree with this ruling. People have the right to be offensive, hateful and wrong. They cannot direct specific acts of violence and they can't threaten anyone (those are fighting words). But if they're just pissing people off, people have to be obligated to control themselves. It's the price of a free society. Imagine if Christians claimed atheists protesting Prayer day at a capitol or something were hateful and that we should only have free speech if we can't sue them when they lose their temper and haul off and slug us.
Further, the slashing of their tires was wrong and an inappropriate way to counter them. Beyond that, the company that refused to sell them new ones likely violated the law. A business that serves the public (anything sufficiently large and not just one guy selling stuff to friends) cannot choose which members of the public to serve based on protected classes (race, ethnicity, religion and sometimes gender). If we cut down the forest to chase the devil more easily, we will have no protection when the wind blows on us.
But, speech and assembly can be restricted more easily when the speech is content neutral. It seems as though local governments might be able to get away with laws declaring areas within 1000ft of a funeral home or cemetery as not public forums. The downshot of this is that it would necessarily prohibit things like public vigils at their most obvious, natural places.
|
|
