Snyder v. Phelps Decided

[Formaldehyde]

It just goes to show that morality and legality are sometimes mutually exclusive.

And that many morality laws really have no place in a free and open secular society, especially when they are used to repress basic rights such as free speech.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Even when that speech is immoral by any standard of decency.

 

[illram]

Pretty easy decision if you ask me. Real snoozer.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Even when that speech is immoral by any standard of decency.

Since when is being rude immoral?

 

[SKILORD]

I forget where I saw the picture (wait... it was Rolling Stone...) of Kevin Smith with a picket sign that claimed Thor hates straights.

So.... counterprotest? Fake military funeral ambushes? What's stage 2 of shutting Westboro down?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Since when is being rude immoral?

It isn't. I see this as a lot more than rudeness. I guess some one who hasn't been poisoned by fanatical faith would not understand. I know how these people think better than most on this forum, because it used to be me for a relatively brief period of time. I might be unable to approach this subject objectively because the wound is still a bit fresh.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Pretty easy decision if you ask me. Real snoozer.

It is amazing how many people disagree with it.

It isn't. I see this as a lot more than rudeness. I guess some one who hasn't been poisoned by fanatical faith would not understand. I know how these people think better than most on this forum, because it used to be me for a relatively brief period of time. I might be unable to approach this subject objectively because the wound is still a bit fresh.

I am a staunch defender of the right of people in this country to engage in even hate speech. Freedom of speech doesn't really become an issue unless it is what others don't want to hear.

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky, (1992).


Related to my previous comments:

 

[NickyJ]

I am against the ruling. Like MobBoss said, there has to be a line in the sand that divides free speech from hate speech.

While I am against homosexuality, I do not support protests at funerals. Funerals are supposed to be solemn, not debating grounds.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

It is unfortunate that there isn't some sort of automatic impeachment mechanism that kicks in for Supremes when they dissent 8-1 on such obvious decisions.

Supreme Court Votes 8-1 AGAINST Illegal Stripsearch of teen. Guess who was the ‘ 1′?


Supreme Court strikes down animal cruelty law


Supreme Court rejects petition secrecy of anti-gay ballot initiative

Horrible idea. I would be far more likely to support a rule that caused unanimous decisions to result in mistrials, like in Jewish courts. Discouraging dissent only encourages group think, making it difficult for individuals to think independently, speak their mind and bring up valid points for consideration.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It isn't. I see this as a lot more than rudeness. I guess some one who hasn't been poisoned by fanatical faith would not understand. I know how these people think better than most on this forum, because it used to be me for a relatively brief period of time. I might be unable to approach this subject objectively because the wound is still a bit fresh.

They aren't inciting anyone to immoral or illegal actions, they are simply saying hateful words. When they start encouraging people to go out and kill gays or something like that, then their words move beyond mere rudeness or offense and become serious. That we are so taken aback by the audacity of their statements does not change that it is simply rudeness.

Personally, I like it when people say incredibly horrible things like this, rather than having their statements smothered out. It makes it a lot easier to discern whether a person or group of people are crazy or not, and to see just how crazy they are. These guys are "protesting at a soldier's funeral and saying God hates fags" crazy, which I'm sure has a hugely detrimental effect on their growth. Censor them, and it becomes harder to find out what they really are.

I am against the ruling. Like MobBoss said, there has to be a line in the sand that divides free speech from hate speech.

Why? Since when do people have the right not to be offended?

 

[SKILORD]

Since when is being rude immoral?

I oppose all the wars of foreign expansion that kill these troops, but still, you have to respect the sacrifice of those soldiers who give their lives. Now, immoral is a tough case to make, I would probably stick with hypocritical and unAmerican. And a word stronger than rude is really required to depict their actions. They are not farting loudly at the dinner table, they are protesting at the funerals of our Armed Servicemen with the intent of enraging and saddening their survivors. That sort of calloused, bigoted, manipulative behavior... to call it rude understates it a bit.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I oppose all the wars of foreign expansion that kill these troops, but still, you have to respect the sacrifice of those soldiers who give their lives. Now, immoral is a tough case to make, I would probably stick with hypocritical and unAmerican. And a word stronger than rude is really required to depict their actions. They are not farting loudly at the dinner table, they are protesting at the funerals of our Armed Servicemen with the intent of enraging and saddening their survivors. That sort of calloused, bigoted, manipulative behavior... to call it rude understates it a bit.

Mere degrees.

And I'm not going to even address the supposed "unAmericanness" of it. What's "unAmerican" is restricting their freedom because you're butthurt about something they said.

Sticks and stones. They haven't done anything.

 

[warpus]

Why? Since when do people have the right not to be offended?

It's not about the right to not be offended, it's about the right to have a respectful funeral for a deceased loved one.

Which I think *should* be a right. The right to not be offended - not so much.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It's not about the right to not be offended, it's about the right to have a respectful funeral for a deceased loved one.

Which I think *should* be a right. The right to not be offended - not so much.

Once again, why? The only answer I'm seeing from anyone is sensitivity and sensibility.

They aren't defacing the grave, they aren't attacking the visitors, they're just being offensive and spewing hateful nonsense. Ignore them.

 

[MobBoss]

Once again, why? The only answer I'm seeing from anyone is sensitivity and sensibility.

They aren't defacing the grave, they aren't attacking the visitors, they're just being offensive and spewing hateful nonsense. Ignore them.

Unlike in CFC OT however, there is no ignore button feature to use in real life. Much easier said than done. In other words, it can be kind of hard to ignore whats going on....especially if the noise of it downs out a funeral or something similar.

Case in point....if I followed you around daily spouting rude invectives at you every chance I got while in public, how long would it be before you had me arrested for harassment? Would you be able to just ignore me? I dont think so.

Keeping the public peace is a moral goal. Being rude, purpsefully and hatefully co-opts that goal. Thats when it becomes immoral.

 

[SKILORD]

Sticks and stones. They haven't done anything.

There's a good Dave Chappell joke where he is talking about calling 911 and about how the operator will always ask you to calm down, but you did not call 911 because your situation warranted being calm about. He talks about some Klansmen coming into his front yard, and they just yell some words, sticks and stones, although it's possible that the sticks were arrayed in a cross and they were being burnt.

Somehow this sort of intimidation does not fall under the purview of protected speech. In any event, with Westboro they don't have a history of lynching the fags their God hates, granted, which is why I was more than happy to shift tacts from a legalistic one, since they do abide laws, to a more social and cultural confrontation through counter protests and fake funeral ambushes (the "deceased" hops out of the coffin and turns it into a pride parade or something)

I think that sort of tactic would probably be more effective, at the end of the day I don't care if their actions are legal or not, I consider them harmful to the national integrity and as a citizen I'd say that I have at least some responsibility to work to support the national integrity, especially when the hands of the state have been bound well enough to make the responsibility one of it's citizens alone.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I find it ironic that Phelps has been openly attacking gays for decades now in essentially the same manner. That it has only been relatively recent that he and WBC have started doing so during funerals of the victims of this war. Where was all the collective outrage to stifle this vile American before now?

It is also ironic that Phelps used to be a civil rights attorney who defended the rights of blacks in Kansas, and that he even sued the Ronald Reagan on separation of church and state grounds when Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.

 

[JollyRoger]

The church had notified the authorities in advance of its intent to picket at the time of the funeral, and the picket-ers complied with police instructions in staging their demonstration. The picketing took place within a 10- by25-foot plot of public land adjacent to a public street,behind a temporary fence. App. to Brief for Appellantsin No. 08–1026 (CA4), pp. 2282–2285 (hereinafter App.).That plot was approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held. Several buildings separated the picket site from the church. Id., at 3758. The West-boro picketers displayed their signs for about 30 minutes before the funeral began and sang hymns and recited Bible verses. None of the picketers entered church prop-erty or went to the cemetery. They did not yell or use profanity, and there was no violence associated with thepicketing. Id., at 2168, 2371, 2286, 2293.

Just pointing to the facts - it wasn't as in your face as some think. Anyway, if you want tort reform, you've gotta nip the right to proceed with a lawsuit in the bud. Outcome was no surprise at all.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Unlike in CFC OT however, there is no ignore button feature to use in real life. Much easier said than done. In other words, it can be kind of hard to ignore whats going on....especially if the noise of it downs out a funeral or something similar.

Case in point....if I followed you around daily spouting rude invectives at you every chance I got while in public, how long would it be before you had me arrested for harassment? Would you be able to just ignore me? I dont think so.

Keeping the public peace is a moral goal. Being rude, purpsefully and hatefully co-opts that goal. Thats when it becomes immoral

Harassment is an entirely different thing, which has nothing to do with protected speech whatsoever. If you can get them on harassment, then by all means, go for it! I'd love nothing more than to see these bastards taken down, but I'm not going to infringe upon their rights while doing so.

Also,anecdote time! There was a planned protest by them at a soldier's funeral here a few months ago. The community found out and organized against it: people drove in from the other side of the state to form an anti-protest protest and block Westboro from getting anywhere near the actual funeral. It was a fantastic success.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There's a good Dave Chappell joke where he is talking about calling 911 and about how the operator will always ask you to calm down, but you did not call 911 because your situation warranted being calm about. He talks about some Klansmen coming into his front yard, and they just yell some words, sticks and stones, although it's possible that the sticks were arrayed in a cross and they were being burnt.

Somehow this sort of intimidation does not fall under the purview of protected speech. In any event, with Westboro they don't have a history of lynching the fags their God hates, granted, which is why I was more than happy to shift tacts from a legalistic one, since they do abide laws, to a more social and cultural confrontation through counter protests and fake funeral ambushes (the "deceased" hops out of the coffin and turns it into a pride parade or something)

You know why its not the same thing? Because they aren't threatening violence, they aren't inciting anyone, they're just saying hateful words.