It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Supreme Court: Will distress trump the First Amendment right to free speech?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


reply to post by JAM

Yup,,, I agree with you all on this


amen




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
They have free speech right up until the point at which they abuse it in order to trample upon the rights of the family to have a private funeral ceremony. At that point, its no longer about freedom of speech, but about disturbing the peace and harassment.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by ironfalcon
 



What un-American lib leftie Marxist military haters abusing the First Amendment to spew out their disrespectfully treasonous tirade.


Uh, as far as I can see, Westboro Baptist Church sits on the extreme, nutty, far-right of the political spectrum, residing in a little realm of like-minded theocratic nutjobs. I would be hard pressed to find any trace of Marxism in their ideology, or even that of liberalism.

I also fail to see how this is an 'abuse' of the First Amendment - they have every right to exercise free speech, regardless of whatever vile slime they spew forth. Them's the breaks when it comes to free speech, you even have to let the nutters have their say.


The cardboard posters should read 'Fag Liberal in Hell', 'Thank God for Slain Liberals' and 'Semper Fi Hard Core Homophobes'.


Case in point. This post, if I understand it right, is just as offensive and inflammatory as the picket signs of Westboro themselves. Yet you are still allowed to say it, no?


Ya, I was confused with this as well... I think the left/right thing translates a lot differently in the British colonial lands, who does and stands for what, etc.

But I agree the First is Golden, however, ass whooping's are not regulated until after the fact...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 


I haven't thought about that angle, Disturbing the peace. I would say if I was at a funeral and there were protesters I would loose it. lets say a 3500 lb vehicle right throught the middle of them. They encited violence and they would get it. I think a temporary insainity plea would be the defense for that action.

It seems nothing is sacred anymore.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
There are many issues here that are at hand that need to be answered.
Where as the freedom of speech is a core value in the United States of America, so the the right to Privacy and to peacefully assemble. And these 2 rights are coming into conflict with each other.
What the people of Westboro Baptist Church are doing is in bad tastes, that much is fact, to protest at the funeral of someone who has died, and in this case where it is mostly a private affair, leads to the question if they are doing it to provoke a emotional response, the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater, or to make a point. If they are 30 feet from the entrance and doing such, then I would say they are in the wrong for doing such, as it is like screaming fire in a crowded theater. If they were further away and not intending to target the mourners of the fallen, then I would say it is their right to protest and picket. I do not personally agree with what their message is, but at the same time, they should have the right to state such. Personally I think that they travel all over the country to make the demonstrations should weigh against them in the Courts, as there is no reason for them to be doing such.
If the Supreme Court does indeed issue a verdict in their favor, then I say perhaps we should wait until the Rev. Phelps dies and then have a large group of protestors show up at his funeral where his family is mourning and protest.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Amen to that brother!

I was about to post the same thing. I want to be up front in person at that D bags funeral.

Maybe one of you can answer this: Has anyone protested their religious assembles? That'd be pretty funny to see how they deal with a few signs that say: "Fred Phelps is a fag enabler"



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Amen to that brother!

I was about to post the same thing. I want to be up front in person at that D bags funeral.

Maybe one of you can answer this: Has anyone protested their religious assembles? That'd be pretty funny to see how they deal with a few signs that say: "Fred Phelps is a fag enabler"


Hell ya guys,

I'm there



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The constitution protects freedom of speech, but it does NOT protect where it can be practiced. The county/state/country could enact a law that forbids protesting within a mile of a funeral of they soo chose to do so and be fully within constitutional law.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


That's a very good point. There are many areas that have already put such laws into effect to prevent those attending funerals and burials from feeling harassed or otherwise intimidated.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 


Having spoken with people who have dealth with this group, you do not want to make a direct person attack on them, as they will sue and persue such means in a legal manor. However, if I was going to protest, I would suggest attacking what they believe directly, in a way that would cause them to throw the first punch. They are very careful about that, as Rev Phelps is no idiot and an ex-lawyer. By attacking the very foundation/belief of what they preach, and making it where it is not personal, they then would have no grounds legally to stand on or say anything about.
I thinks signs like, if you have gay people so much, how come you and your group show up at a lot of the pride festivals, are you hiding something? That way it is not a direct attack, but it is broad enough to make them take a step back. I also though of getting as many gay people together and having a pride festival right in their home town, to go right down infront of their church in as outlandish of costumes as possible, pushing the bar as it were, if anything it would be an interesting time there.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FiatLux
 


I understand and completely agree with you.

However,

The law must be fair and equal for it to work.

Just cause some people got offended or bothered doesn't mean anybody broke a law.

The fact that we've created laws that prevent people from "bothering" other people really shows have we've sacrificed personal freedoms for "security".

Or in other words, a shorter leech.

~Keeper



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Freedom of speech does not extend to the utterances of 'fighting words' which is to say, words with unmistakable intent to injure and incite people who hear them.

This has already been ruled in cases hailing as far back as the civil rights movement, as well as a number of cases brought by the ACLU and the ADL.

The fact that this case is going to the SCOTUS is a travesty of Juris Prudence.

The real issue however, is that you cannot condone or reject such utterances until they are made.

When the day comes that you feel the need to express yourself in protest, where others oppose your viewpoint, you will be glad the police were there to keep you safe. Don't blame them. Even if they were disgusted and offended by the protesters they can't simply abandon them to their folly. They must keep the peace, as best they can within the limits of the law.

The Pastor should simply cross-sue the protesters and render this case a civil matter. It would save the tax-payers a whole bunch of money and angst.

Once the federal government gets involved here, you know they will assume the power to dictate freedom of expression. They are simply not trustworthy, in my eyes, to create a precedent that could keep inconvenient speakers and unpleasant messages from disseminating. This cannot be their domain.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
Maybe one of you can answer this: Has anyone protested their religious assembles? That'd be pretty funny to see how they deal with a few signs that say: "Fred Phelps is a fag enabler"


I am not sure about protesters to their religious assemblies.

There was a motorcycle gang that traveled over the country following them. They would form a human shield between them and the ones at the funeral to help give the family more privacy.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Actually I'm surprisede this doesn't fall under hate speech. If you can be arrested for telling all black people to leave a Wal Mart because it's a hate crime, how can the same statutes not apply? Seems if you beat someone up for being gay it's a hate crime, why can this angle not be played?



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by FiatLux
 


I understand and completely agree with you.

However,

The law must be fair and equal for it to work.

Just cause some people got offended or bothered doesn't mean anybody broke a law.

The fact that we've created laws that prevent people from "bothering" other people really shows have we've sacrificed personal freedoms for "security".

Or in other words, a shorter leech.

~Keeper


Well, when people go out of their way to bother a specified group, such as the loved ones of dead military personnel at their funeral, then that equates to being harassment. That is targeting those members of that family. If I were a member of a family that happened to, I would do all I could to see them court. Using free speech in a harassing way such as that, is a disrespectful use of that freedom.



[edit on 4-4-2010 by FiatLux]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
I believe the "free speech" of the Westboro loons is protected from the infringement of the Government (which is, literally, what the First Amendment does).

I, also, believe Mr. Snyder and others who have been the victims of the verbal assaults of the nutjobs, would have been within their rights to distribute some "ass whoopin'", at the time. The First Amendment does not provide Phelps and his ignorant minions protection from that. At least that is how I would find, as juror in any assault trial.


You are spot on my friend and The SCOTUS agrees with you. Consider the Case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire where the Court upheld the fighting words doctrine in a unanimous decision by The Supreme Court.

Many lower courts have upheld a police officers right to actually punch someone who has used fighting words to incite such action. If the First Amendment doesn't protect people from government officials who are the brunt of such imprudent language, that First Amendment certainly is going to help unthinking offenders if a private citizen responds by opening up a can of whoop ass.

If the SCOTUS dismisses the First Amendment argument it will be to uphold the long held precedent of the fighting words doctrine. In other words, they will not be ruling against the First Amendment, they will be arguing for the right to punch a guy in the face for saying such horrible things, even though nobody punched that guy and instead sued him, that was the method in which Mr. Snyder has chosen to punch this guy, and it is the more civilized way to do so.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any laws abridging speech, it does not prevent the executive branch and judicial branch from acting upon words that are used for no other purpose than to incite violence. SCOTUS will most likely rule against Phelps, and this ruling in no way means they are contradicting any rulings that have upheld the First Amendment right to speech.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I am sure i will make most everyone angry with this post.

The US military has committed uncountable atrocities in Iraq.
The invasion was a betrayal of America.
And most of America's pretenders to patriotism who are really traitors ignore all their unAmerican & inhuman actions. Drop weapons, rapes, etc.

These Westborough religious freaks have entangled about the most disparate elements together to come up with this weird, incoherent protesting.

Maybe they both deserve one another?

It seems sad that a parent is burying a child, but considering what has gone on in Iraq & Afghanistan all my possible sorrow evaporates.

I should be glad to see one kind of dog fighting with another,
instead of them attacking the sane, intellectuals of the United States who argue against both of their particular brands of insanity.

Clearly humanity is an intellectually impoverished species.
All claims of intrinsic intelligence would be laughably absurd, if it weren't so tragically sad.

Luckily i am cold enough not to care too much.

Let one dog eat another.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by slank
 


This reply is not being written with anger, however, I do question the motive, behind your post.

Do you have knowledge that Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder had committed any "atrocities"? If not, your post was out of line. In my opinion.

This story is not about the war. It concerns the obnoxious behavior of the WBC publicity seeking, simpletons, at the funeral of a man's son. Their behavior was, equally, abhorrent at the funeral of Mathew Shepard, a gay man who was beaten to death, because of his sexual orientation. This is just one, among numerous civilian victims of the WBC loons.

So, do you feel the same apathy in these instances?



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
It was standard policy for troops in Iraq to carry spare weapons, 'DROP WEAPONS' so whenever they butchered innocent civilians they could claim they were insurgents.

He supported the Pentagon, which INTENTIONALLY dumped 9 billion dollars in cash in the Iraq desert just to support endless insurgency.
[Billions Over Baghdad; Vanity Fair magazine]

The US military is currently a treasonous organization.

Do you accept NAZI excuses that they were 'just following orders'?

Have you seen the macabre laughter in the recent Wikivideo release?

If that is acceptable to you then it demonstrates what a complete lack of honor, standards & law-&-order you have.

Let one dog [pack] eat another.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Do you think the terrorists this military guy & all his pentagon general buddies are creating are going to give me a special dispensation when they attack the US?

No way Jose'.

So you can play paddy cakes in your closet support for terrorism in all its forms,
but you, this guy, the Pentagon brass, CIA, NSA, FBI etc. are ALL the anti-American terrorists.

& I am adult enough to see it & say it straight to ALL your terrorist faces.

He didn't give me a break when he was creating terrorists, so he doesn't get a break from me & neither does his daddy.

Because i am a liberty loving American & not a power clenching police state terrorist.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by slank]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join