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.

 

Supreme Court rules church's protests at military funerals are protected by freedom of speech

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Does anyone have a large boat to donate so we could send them on a free vacation to Somalia?
I really despise these people more than any other group I can think of. To see their children wearing their hate T-shirts and holding hate signs is past pathetic. They should have their kids taken away from them for child abuse.




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
These people want exactly the same thing terrorists want.... attention.

They are non-violent; and while what they say and do is repugnant, completely insensitive, and devoid of compassion; they remain free to express themselves.

Their zealous passion for what they believe in defeats their own goals..... they have won the freedom to embarrass themselves in public. I suppose my emotional point of view is to get them out of the vicinity of of those in mourning; and I would not shed a tear for such a fate befalling them.... after all i suspect nothing pleases them more than the prospect of being affirmed in a manner they can claim martyrs them to their cause. (Which again is similar to some terrorists preferences.)

Intellectually, I know they have this right.

But I fail to see how the case was brought without the consideration of 'fighting utterances' and clear intent to provoke conflict. I have seen a few clips of these people 'at work' and in my opinion they clearly (and gleefully) projected their voices and words to be certain to offend and excite people who were legitimately engaged in an intensely personal and emotional event. If any were to reciprocate.... say picket in front of their church with exactly the same behavior... how would they tolerate it? Would they tolerate it? Or would the theoretical exercise in "ironic justice" be called an imposition on their rights?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
One of these days, some grieving family member is going to lose their mind and drive a truck through the crowd of them, or something along those lines.

The law is the law, and they absolutely have the legal right to do what they are doing, but human beings are animals. And you can only push animals so far before you get attacked. Im actually surprised no one has gone postal on them yet. Grief, (or other very strong emotions) can prime people to behave in ways they otherwise wouldnt.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
No problem. The funeral director can follow the Government's lead and set up a "free speech zone" twenty miles from the cemetary.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 



One of these days, some grieving family member is going to lose their mind and drive a truck through the crowd of them, or something along those lines.


And when they do, I hope the ACLU lawyers are just as quick to defend them as they are the protestors. Extreme emotional distress, temporary break with reality, and self-defense against a "hate" crime where the family was intentionally and methodically targeted due to their status as "veterans" which are a protected class. So, when a family member does this, I hope they get a nice 30 day vacation in minimum security facility where they can receive the proper help, and then go home! Surely the ACLU will agree with me, and provide FREE, top notch legal counsel, as their mission is to protect the civil liberties and freedoms of ALL people.
edit on 2-3-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The SCOTUS was doing exactly what they were suppossed to do, which is to make decisions not by their opinions, but by what the LAW says.

True that the first amendment does protect their vile behavior, I can guarantee that no justice was happy about this decision.

Odd because I thought that hate-speech wasn't constitutionally protected.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
One of these days, some grieving family member is going to lose their mind and drive a truck through the crowd of them, or something along those lines.


God I hope so.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ford Farmer
The SCOTUS was doing exactly what they were suppossed to do, which is to make decisions not by their opinions, but by what the LAW says.

True that the first amendment does protect their vile behavior, I can guarantee that no justice was happy about this decision.

Odd because I thought that hate-speech wasn't constitutionally protected.


I have also been wondering how they can get past the hate speech laws.. I guess they only protect people of african descent and Jews?
edit on 3-2-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The Hate Speech laws only apply to protected classes as defined by the government, but Veterans and family of Veterans are a protected class, so the laws should apply here. That is probably a different argument than whether or not they have the right to protest. I think it would come down to what they put on their signs. They have a right to be there, but what they say, do, and plaster on signs might need to be regulated by the Hate Speech laws.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The Hate Speech laws only apply to protected classes as defined by the government, but Veterans and family of Veterans are a protected class, so the laws should apply here. That is probably a different argument than whether or not they have the right to protest. I think it would come down to what they put on their signs. They have a right to be there, but what they say, do, and plaster on signs might need to be regulated by the Hate Speech laws.

I truely hope so. We had a bunch of these idiots protesting a funeral the same day as my uncles, and I have never wanted to commit mass murder so badly.
Their right to protest should be protected, but their signs should be censored because it is not protected by the first amendment.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Thanks for the great replys. Making me think as well as others I am sure.

Protected class status for Vets and Vet Families. I like that. I like it a lot.

Not as much as the truck plowing etc (kidding)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


No, there should not be a "protected class", sadly this would just be yet another thing that would be expanded and corrupted way beyond what it is initially intended for.
This is how we are baited, they prey on our emotions and fears.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Animatrix
 


I hear what you are saying and it is hard to argue...

except that the military is the ones who let the other protected classes exist. It would only be fair to take care of the ones who watched over you.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Animatrix
 


I think you guys missed the point. It is ALREADY a protected class. It has been since 1974. It is already illegal to target or discriminate against veterans or their families.

Wiki

Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:

*Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
*Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
*National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
*Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
*Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
*Gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
*Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans *with Disabilities Act of 1990
*Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
*Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I wonder how the term "harassment" got overlooked in the supreme court ruling...

Unless I'm totally off-base, this is classic harassment. I assume their lawyers argues that they were expressing their opinion (as free speech)... but if that speech is insulting, or causes injury of an emotional nature, it can be reasonably argued that they were harassing them. The fact that they specifically engage in this "free speech" specifically and routinely at the funerary services of veterans seem logically to fit the targeted harassment line.

I don't know if it is presumptuous to say, but it seems like those arguing for the veterans, tanked the case on purpose (or were utterly unmotivated to win.)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I was wondering the same thing. It is quite clearly harassment, with a defined target. The Court was probably only ruling on the right of them to protest the funerals, without delving deeper, but I think they are violating the laws.

I still like the family member in the truck idea personally. Let them dole out "natural consequences" and then let them sit in therapy for 30 days and go home. It would provide an outlet for all that frustration the family members are feeling, and it would be a deterrent for future protests.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Even though I cannot stand the WBC and all of their associates and groups I think that this is a great thing as the SCOTUS has stood up and protected the Consitution which they should be doing all along and should be commended for standing up for one of the principle policies of this nation, freedom of speech.

Logic and reality dictates that if you deny one group rights that all groups must be denied regardless of secular or political affiliation. That starts an even more dangerous slippery slope that eventually errodes and eliminates the Constitution and the 1st Amendment!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The contributions here are the usual excellence.....

For more excellent commentary you may wish to also visit Anti-Gay Funeral Protesters Win Case at U.S. Supreme Court

I will post a reciprocal link there.....

MM



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


How could they allow this! I was under the impression calling someone a "F@G" (sorry censors) was slander? Which is illegal? It's just awful that people are allowed to do this. I think we need to amend that, to exclude freedom of HATE speech... obviously, there are problems there as well, but I do believe our current "all words are welcome" approach is wrong...
Just my 2cents, but great post OP



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I understand the whole Freedom of Speech but what about Freedom of Silence?

What gives that butt head the right to violate someones private moments?

Sad and Sickening in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join