[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Supreme Court fail (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:13:12 AM EDT
|
Didn't see this posted, although I might have missed it...
"A small Kansas church that has gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members killed in overseas conflicts received a temporary victory. The [Supreme Court] justices rejected an appeal from Missouri officials over their efforts to keep members of the Wichita-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating at least 300 feet from memorial services and burials." 
What I'd like to do to that group would violate the CoC rules here. |
|
As much as the Westboro people are fucked in the head and need to STFU, the Supreme Court did the right thing. It's free speech whether or not we agree with it. It may be Westboro this time, but next time there's something you or I agree with, you might not want to be so quick on having the Supremes ban free speech. |
|
Quoted:
So I heard you want to limit people's 1st amendment's rights when you don't like what they say? They can protest whatever they want, but there is some common decency about lining right up at a funeral and doing it. They're nothing but absolute shit, and there's no reason whatsoever to deny families the right to not have the protesters sitting in their laps. If people did the same thing to them at their funerals, you can bet they'd have lawsuits going that same day. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I heard you want to limit people's 1st amendment's rights when you don't like what they say? They can protest whatever they want, but there is some common decency about lining right up at a funeral and doing it. They're nothing but absolute shit, and there's no reason whatsoever to deny families the right to not have the protesters sitting in their laps. If people did the same thing to them at their funerals, you can bet they'd have lawsuits going that same day. I agree, but to suggest the government has a role in what is common decency is wrong. |
| Though I hate the Westboro assholes, the Supreme Court did the right thing. You do not have the Right to not be offended, even at a funeral. The soldiers whose funerals they protest died to defend their freedom to do exactly that. This is supposedly a free country, and as despicable as the Westboro folks are, the Court made the right call on this one... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I heard you want to limit people's 1st amendment's rights when you don't like what they say? They can protest whatever they want, but there is some common decency about lining right up at a funeral and doing it. They're nothing but absolute shit, and there's no reason whatsoever to deny families the right to not have the protesters sitting in their laps. If people did the same thing to them at their funerals, you can bet they'd have lawsuits going that same day. You do NOT want SCOTUS making rulings based on what "decency" is. Decency and proper decorum are implemented and enforced by individuals, not by the rule of law. There should be a pretty significant gap between what the law says is prohibited (i.e., a pretty black and white line) and what society finds acceptable. We're in the mess we're in today with PC speech codes, anti-smoking zealotry, and reverse descrimination precisely because the law has drawn black-and-white boxes around stuff that's pretty gray and subjective. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: So I heard you want to limit people's 1st amendment's rights when you don't like what they say? They can protest whatever they want, but there is some common decency about lining right up at a funeral and doing it. They're nothing but absolute shit, and there's no reason whatsoever to deny families the right to not have the protesters sitting in their laps. There's a difference between practicing common decency and being subject to laws. I agree with you in the premise that they should act decent, but that's different from forcing them (or others) to do something. |
|
Quoted:
As much as the Westboro people are fucked in the head and need to STFU, the Supreme Court did the right thing. It's free speech whether or not we agree with it. It may be Westboro this time, but next time there's something you or I agree with, you might not want to be so quick on having the Supremes ban free speech. +1. I support the Supreme Court in this. Just like I'd support someone if they accidentally lost control of their vehicle and ran over the Westboro "protestors". |
|
Quoted: Quoted: So I heard you want to limit people's 1st amendment's rights when you don't like what they say? They can protest whatever they want, but there is some common decency about lining right up at a funeral and doing it. They're nothing but absolute shit, and there's no reason whatsoever to deny families the right to not have the protesters sitting in their laps. If people did the same thing to them at their funerals, you can bet they'd have lawsuits going that same day. I don't want the Supreme Court imposing their idea of common decency upon the rest of us via their liberally biased rulings.  |
| This really is a good thing. Let them get nice and close, so they could be easily surrounded by the mourners. Let the more radical members of the funeral party take care of buisness with these people, why the rest turn around and form a ring around these asshats. When they have to bring a scoop shovel to take care of these guys, there will be no worries to lawsuits, and I bet the wouldnt be a single witness... |
|
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. |
|
Quoted:
As much as the Westboro people are fucked in the head and need to STFU, the Supreme Court did the right thing. It's free speech whether or not we agree with it. It may be Westboro this time, but next time there's something you or I agree with, you might not want to be so quick on having the Supremes ban free speech. Completely 100% agree. However, the Founders wrote about the "Civic Virtue", which - separately from their God-given right to peaceably assemble and speak their minds - is what should drive them to have a sense of decorum and respect for those who made the ultimate sacrifice serving this nation. The troubling part is, this kind of disrespectful behavior is "okay", while elsewhere we cannot say certain words which may be "offensive" to certain groups. So this disrespectful behavior is protected as a First Amendment issue, while the expression of certain unpopular ideas, words, phrases, or sentences can land a person in prison or under Federal investigation. That lack of consistency is what gets me all tore up in this... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. Feel free to provide evidence of this fantasy. |
|
Quoted: As much as the Westboro people are fucked in the head and need to STFU, the Supreme Court did the right thing. Yup. I still want Fred Phelps to get his by lightning, along with any politician he's had over to his house for a fundraiser. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. Good for you. The majority opinion here supports the constitution. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. Feel free to provide evidence of this fantasy. With how things are, you honestly wouldn't think that's how things would go? With the power special interests groups have? No wonder the conservatives are losing so much steam in this country.....head in the sand and claim nothing bad can happen, I guess. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. Good for you. The majority opinion here supports the constitution. Supporting the Constitution doesn't really mean much when they're perfectly happy to sit around and watch it ripped to shreds and do nothing more but comment on how bad things are getting. You evidently missed where I said I didn't have an issue with them protesting, nor did you understand what I said was the root problem. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. Feel free to provide evidence of this fantasy. With how things are, you honestly wouldn't think that's how things would go? With the power special interests groups have? No wonder the conservatives are losing so much steam in this country.....head in the sand and claim nothing bad can happen, I guess. So, I guess that answers means you don't actually have any evidence of this. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. I'm going to assume that some of the funerals they protested were of muslim or black soldiers. But I'm not going to google it for you given that you're sticking to your tenet that SCOTUS should use judicial activism is such an unusual way. Apparently they've got a civil judgment against them that will hurt them once the appeals process is done. Financial hardship is just fine with me instead of opening a can of worms under a "decency" construct. ETA: Supporting the Constitution doesn't really mean much when they're perfectly happy to sit around and watch it ripped to shreds and do nothing more but comment on how bad things are getting. OK, you're being really thickheaded. You posted a thread with a theory that itself is ripping the 1st amendment to shreds (to use your hyperbole). You don't get to downshift and start throwing the forum as a whole under the bus because your thread isn't going your way. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. Feel free to provide evidence of this fantasy. With how things are, you honestly wouldn't think that's how things would go? With the power special interests groups have? No wonder the conservatives are losing so much steam in this country.....head in the sand and claim nothing bad can happen, I guess. So, I guess that answers means you don't actually have any evidence of this.
While sitting at work during lunch, without the time to really dig things up, no, I don't have hard evidence, but if you objectively consider the majority of rulings in the past 5 years regarding special-interests groups bringing things to court as "politically incorrect", to put it bluntly, and to look at the amount of rulings in their favor, it's not a huge leap to make a logical assumption of what would happen here. If you want to further the hypothetical debate, though, consider what would happen to an individual protester who showed up to a Muslim or black funeral with a sign containing racial slurs. Is WBC protected because it's a collective entity? If so, that's yet another problem with the underlying tenets the judgment was made on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. ...you're sticking to your tenet that SCOTUS should use judicial activism is such an unusual way. Apparently they've got a civil judgment against them that will hurt them once the appeals process is done. Financial hardship is just fine with me instead of opening a can of worms under a "decency" construct. ETA: Supporting the Constitution doesn't really mean much when they'reperfectly happy to sit around and watch it ripped to shreds and donothing more but comment on how bad things are getting.
OK, you're being really thickheaded. You posted a thread with a theory that itself is ripping the 1st amendment to shreds (to use your hyperbole). You don't get to downshift and start throwing the forum as a whole under the bus because your thread isn't going your way. Wrong, and wrong. While I think the judgment was flawed based on underlying tenets, I don't think it was an un-Constitutional judgment, nor do I think it should have been considered a "special case" or exception, nor do I think the ruling should have been different than what it was (regadring limiting free speech) - but likewise, I think the judgment should have been the same had it been a group, or individual, protesters at any other type of event held for any "protected" group, but I don't believe it would have - which is what I see as the problem. I do not see an issue with limits being set on the locality of the protesters to the site of what they're protesting - which is what the actual ruling was against, not against keeping the WBC from protesting at all. As far as being thickheaded, the reason the country is the way it is today is because the liberals are loud, and the conservatives refuse to rise to the same amount of activism. Sitting back and being quiet accomplishes nothing, especially when it's the very vociferous nature of the liberals that is winning so many converts to their cause. Another issue for another debate, though. "This never would have happened 30 years ago" being said is a direct result of that very problem. |
|
Quoted:
back in the day those protesters would have gotten a beat down west side story style to teach them a lesson. Now it would be illegal to do that. The SCOTUS did the right thing. And, c'mon... a beat down "West Side Story" style? What exactly is that, delivering some "menacing dance moves" at the perp??? Surely there is a better analogy for a beat down...maybe "Old Chicago Style", or an "Old Fashioned Woodsheed Lesson"...but a west side story beatdown? ROFL!! Nobody would take these clowns seriously: :) 
|
|
Quoted:
Didn't see this posted, although I might have missed it... "A small Kansas church that has gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members killed in overseas conflicts received a temporary victory. The [Supreme Court] justices rejected an appeal from Missouri officials over their efforts to keep members of the Wichita-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating at least 300 feet from memorial services and burials."
What I'd like to do to that group would violate the CoC rules here. So then you only agree with free speech and the right to peaceably assemble when you like the message that you're hearing from the group? The first amendment doesn't protect free speech that we like, it protect speech that we DON'T like. I think the Phelps' are a bunch of ghouls and what they are doing is disgusting. I don't want the government trying to stop them though. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. Feel free to provide evidence of this fantasy. With how things are, you honestly wouldn't think that's how things would go? With the power special interests groups have? No wonder the conservatives are losing so much steam in this country.....head in the sand and claim nothing bad can happen, I guess. So, I guess that answers means you don't actually have any evidence of this.
While sitting at work during lunch, without the time to really dig things up, no, I don't have hard evidence, but if you objectively consider the majority of rulings in the past 5 years regarding special-interests groups bringing things to court as "politically incorrect", to put it bluntly, and to look at the amount of rulings in their favor, it's not a huge leap to make a logical assumption of what would happen here. If you want to further the hypothetical debate, though, consider what would happen to an individual protester who showed up to a Muslim or black funeral with a sign containing racial slurs. Is WBC protected because it's a collective entity? If so, that's yet another problem with the underlying tenets the judgment was made on. No hurry. I'll wait until you're off work and you can provide evidence of all these SCOTUS cases where the Justices ignored the Constitution in order to favor the "special" interest groups you are talking about. The only "underlying tenets" the ruling was based on was the 1st Amendment of Bill of Rights. Until you provide some EVIDENCE of the "special" groups you are talking about getting different treatment by the SCOTUS, then your argument is nothing by fantasy and paranoia.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Didn't see this posted, although I might have missed it... "A small Kansas church that has gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members killed in overseas conflicts received a temporary victory. The [Supreme Court] justices rejected an appeal from Missouri officials over their efforts to keep members of the Wichita-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating at least 300 feet from memorial services and burials."
What I'd like to do to that group would violate the CoC rules here. So then you only agree with free speech and the right to peaceably assemble when you like the message that you're hearing from the group? The first amendment doesn't protect free speech that we like, it protect speech that we DON'T like. I think the Phelps' are a bunch of ghouls and what they are doing is disgusting. I don't want the government trying to stop them though. Reading the rest of the thread is essential before posting. The actual issue at hand - the distance a protest group has to stay from an event they are protesting - is what was voted on, not the ability of a group to protest. No, I have no issue with a group protesting; yes, I think the ruling was wrong in refusing to allow the creation of a "safe zone" for funerals. I know someone will likely take that and run with the "slippery slope" argument, but that in turn would lead me to point at another problem - the condition of the judges in court who would allow unreasonable distances to be ruled into law. |
|
Quoted: If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. WBC did this sort of thing at gay funerals for a decade before they started in on GI funerals. |
|
There are such things as "fighting words" as well as slander and disorderly conduct. Shouting into a bullhorn that your child is a fag going to hell and deserved to die - at your child's private funeral ceremony - is all of those and more, but not "free speech". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. If these guys were showing up at Muslim funerals, or only at funerals for blacks, or for any of the "protected groups" around now, the judgment would have been instant, and against WBC. Since it's against a group that's not, however, it went the other way. That's what I see as the root problem here. We've already seen the partiality the courts have for special interests groups, but I guess some are less "special" than others, and most people seem more interested to try and uphold some theoretical, idealistic norm than to face reality. Feel free to provide evidence of this fantasy. With how things are, you honestly wouldn't think that's how things would go? With the power special interests groups have? No wonder the conservatives are losing so much steam in this country.....head in the sand and claim nothing bad can happen, I guess. So, I guess that answers means you don't actually have any evidence of this.
While sitting at work during lunch, without the time to really dig things up, no, I don't have hard evidence, but if you objectively consider the majority of rulings in the past 5 years regarding special-interests groups bringing things to court as "politically incorrect", to put it bluntly, and to look at the amount of rulings in their favor, it's not a huge leap to make a logical assumption of what would happen here. If you want to further the hypothetical debate, though, consider what would happen to an individual protester who showed up to a Muslim or black funeral with a sign containing racial slurs. Is WBC protected because it's a collective entity? If so, that's yet another problem with the underlying tenets the judgment was made on. No hurry. I'll wait until you're off work and you can provide evidence of all these SCOTUS cases where the Justices ignored the Constitution in order to favor the "special" interest groups you are talking about. The only "underlying tenets" the ruling was based on was the 1st Amendment of Bill of Rights. Related, but not completely connected - the fact that the "Hate Crimes" bill doesn't cover crimes done to whites as being applicable hate crimes. Is it judicial? Not yet, but it's a pretty good indication of the general trend of things. It's a favoritism of one group over another, and that's what I see as the issue. The only aspect of free speech that's in question here is who is protected by it, and who is not. Is it a problem right this very second? *shrug* You can decide that for yourself. Is it likely to be a problem in the next 5-10 years, with the growing power of special-interests groups? I would invariably say yes, it will be. I should have clarified further in my first post, as I'm sure all the armchair commandos here will try and say I'm backpedaling on my initial argument, but I'm not too worried about that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. Good for you. The majority opinion here supports the constitution. Supporting the Constitution doesn't really mean much when they're perfectly happy to sit around and watch it ripped to shreds and do nothing more but comment on how bad things are getting. You evidently missed where I said I didn't have an issue with them protesting, nor did you understand what I said was the root problem. I didn't miss it. And your analysis of the root problem is wrong. Courts have upheld the rights of groups from across the spectrum to protest, including groups like the KKK. |
|
Quoted:
Didn't see this posted, although I might have missed it... "A small Kansas church that has gained nationwide attention for protesting loudly at funerals of U.S. service members killed in overseas conflicts received a temporary victory. The [Supreme Court] justices rejected an appeal from Missouri officials over their efforts to keep members of the Wichita-based Westboro Baptist Church from demonstrating at least 300 feet from memorial services and burials."
What I'd like to do to that group would violate the CoC rules here. you and me both, those uber douchebags need to be sacrificed to the gods asap!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread will not go the way you expected it to, OP. Oh, no, I know exactly how it'll go. I'm not terrified to express my opinions, even when they're contrary to the majority opinion here. Good for you. The majority opinion here supports the constitution. Supporting the Constitution doesn't really mean much when they're perfectly happy to sit around and watch it ripped to shreds and do nothing more but comment on how bad things are getting. You evidently missed where I said I didn't have an issue with them protesting, nor did you understand what I said was the root problem. I didn't miss it. And your analysis of the root problem is wrong. Courts have upheld the rights of groups from across the spectrum to protest, including groups like the KKK. How long do you think that'll last? It's the argument of being proactive vs reactive. Liberals are proactive, conservatives are reactive. Who wins, invariably? The proactive group. Who has been historically winning since the 1900s? Liberals. |
|
As much as I despise that group, SCOTUS got it right.
That said, at some point in the future some bereaved family member is going to walk through the WBC assembly with a home-made flame thrower. On that day, I'm going to throw a party in his honor, complete with a weinie roast, and start the fund for his legal defense. |
|
Quoted: This.Quoted: Quoted: So I heard you want to limit people's 1st amendment's rights when you don't like what they say? They can protest whatever they want, but there is some common decency about lining right up at a funeral and doing it. They're nothing but absolute shit, and there's no reason whatsoever to deny families the right to not have the protesters sitting in their laps. If people did the same thing to them at their funerals, you can bet they'd have lawsuits going that same day. I don't want the Supreme Court imposing their idea of common decency upon the rest of us via their liberally biased rulings. Besides anyone would be well within their rights under this ruling to protest the church goers on their way to church and to play loud music outside during their service(s) and religious study. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
One day they will show up at the wrong funeral. Agreed! My best friend is a funeral director; he told me about 6 months ago or so they were burying a soldier that killed in the sandbox (full military honors, the works), and there had been some talk of those protester fucktards making a noise; was not a problem, though. Apparently there are a group of bikers ("real" bikers) that have a bunch of Vets as members, and they kind of provide "security" at these functions, no charge, no problem. Apparently they believe in the first amendment right to return protester harassment with fistfulls of replies... my buddy said they were all a bunch of nice guys (the "security" detail)... the protesters decided not to show up.. LOL |