Funeral Protests Ruled OK By Supreme Court

bamf said:
They aren't at the funeral, nor are they protesting the funeral. They are on public land within their rights to assemble and are protesting the acceptance of gays in America claiming that it is what causes military deaths in general.
Click to expand...

No in their minds they are protesting the result of why the funeral is occurring. I'm just a little confused on where abouts they were protesting... not directly where funeral was being held obviously...but within earshot?
 
For all we know, they may be right, and the liberals wrong, and the non-believers will burn in eternal fiery hell after they die. By protesting, they are really just demanding something that is correct according to their moral standard. How does one refuse to give rights to that? Their moral standing does not align with ours, but that doesn't eliminate the very real possibility that our moral compass is entirely incorrect. So who gets to decide who is right?

I agree with the ruling on this. Right to freedom of expression needs to be preserved, as offensive as the opinions may be.
 
Arsal said:
For all we know, they may be right, and the liberals wrong, and the non-believers will burn in eternal fiery hell after they die. By protesting, they are really just demanding something that is correct according to their moral standard. How does one refuse to give rights to that? Their moral standing does not align with ours, but that doesn't eliminate the very real possibility that our moral compass is entirely incorrect. So who gets to decide who is right?

I agree with the ruling on this. Right to freedom of expression needs to be preserved, as offensive as the opinions may be.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't be able to express their opinions the issue is where they are expressing them.
 
THEY'RE NOT PROTESTING ANYTHING!

Jesus, will people stop calling them fucking protests. I guess even the supreme court needs lessons on basic English.

Anyway, I'll add this to the long list of reasons as to why I'm glad I don't live in the states.
 
Sali said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't be able to express their opinions the issue is where they are expressing them.
Click to expand...
If it cannot be quantified, the law can do nothing against it, and rightfully so.
 
Arsal said:
If it cannot be quantified, the law can do nothing against it, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

It can be quantified though.

"Don't spew your hateful bullshit outside of funeral services."

There, quantified.
 
88chaz88 said:
It can be quantified though.

"Don't spew your hateful bullshit outside of funeral services."

There, quantified.
Click to expand...

But that's a very subjective standard. How hateful is hateful enough? Can there be a limit up until which hatefulness is okay? Can there be degrees of hatefulness? Can there be different sentences for "mildly hateful", "moderately hateful" and "severely hateful"? Can the person spewing hateful bullshit say "Dude, I was totally being mildly hateful, but I guess he thought I was being severely hateful and stuff." Will the sentence be less severe in that case?

In a nutshell: how do you quantify "hatefulness"?
 
Arsal said:
But that's a very subjective standard. How hateful is hateful enough? Can there be a limit up until which hatefulness is okay? Can there be degrees of hatefulness? Can there be different sentences for "mildly hateful", "moderately hateful" and "severely hateful"? Can the person spewing hateful bullshit say "Dude, I was totally being mildly hateful, but I guess he thought I was being severely hateful and stuff." Will the sentence be less severe in that case?

In a nutshell: how do you quantify "hatefulness"?
Click to expand...

The law in Arizona and other states that stopped them previously called it protests. In fact the law stated no protesting within 300 yards during, an hour before, and an hour after a funeral service.

Does that really need quantifying any more?
 
88chaz88 said:
The law in Arizona and other states that stopped them previously called it protests. In fact the law stated no protesting within 300 yards during, an hour before, and an hour after a funeral service.

Does that really need quantifying any more?
Click to expand...

Eh, yeah. "300 yards", "hour before" "hour after" - who gets to decide?
 
Arsal said:
Eh, yeah. "300 yards", "hour before" "hour after" - who gets to decide?
Click to expand...

The laws of time and space?

Seriously, where's the ambiguity in that?
 
Ghostd said:
No in their minds they are protesting the result of why the funeral is occurring. I'm just a little confused on where abouts they were protesting... not directly where funeral was being held obviously...but within earshot?
Click to expand...
In the case of the father who sued for 5 million dollars in damages, he saw them on the way to the funeral but did not know any more about what was going on until after the funeral.
What's interesting is only the press coverage hurt people. According to the testimony of the family, they saw the protest as they were driving by. Only after they saw the press coverage did they realize how ugly the protests were.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/02/toobin.westboro.funerals.court/index.html
 
88chaz88 said:
The laws of time and space?

Seriously, where's the ambiguity in that?
Click to expand...
The ambiguity is in how those numbers and times were decided.
 
nil said:
The ambiguity is in how those numbers and times were decided.
Click to expand...

That's the worst argument I've heard all week.

The numbers and times were decided in the same way time periods of prison sentences are. Shall we consider them too ambiguous and make everything legal?
 
I support this decision, just like supported the burning of the qu'rans...it's a matter of letting people do things that they are legally allowed to do, no matter how distasteful it is. There is a counter group to this, and I don't think the counter group should be forced to stop either, the idea of them putting gay guys making out in front of this churchs' protests I find completely hilarious.
 
slant said:
I support this decision, just like supported the burning of the qu'rans...it's a matter of letting people do things that they are legally allowed to do, no matter how distasteful it is. There is a counter group to this, and I don't think the counter group should be forced to stop either, the idea of them putting gay guys making out in front of this churchs' protests I find completely hilarious.
Click to expand...

This is completely different than burning Qur'an's to me it seems more akin to walking into a islamic church and burning a Qur'an which I'm pretty sure is illegal. It's threatening and disturbing the peace.
 
I understand that they have the right to under Constitutional law under government rule as long as it's not threat, slander, or libel.

But, still, their are times when the rules are meant to be broken.

Our Founding Fathers would not have wanted this.
 
Unless I'm mistaken protests are not permitted on private property.


Privatise all the cemeteries. Most cemeteries have several entrances - they can't all be picketed.




Freedom of speech is fine - as long as no one is obliged to listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top