Yea, damn those people who are exercising their rights! If they are disorderly or disruptive, get them on that...but sequestering free speech into 'designated areas' is ridiculous!Turquoise wrote:
I support the existence of free speech zones. I know they can separate people from certain events, but in general, protesters do more harm than good most of the time.SenorToenails wrote:
It's not the speech that's being prevented by these laws. The act of protesting a funeral is allowed--but the manner in which it is conducted can still be regulated by local laws. I'm sure the supreme court will give some idea of just how regulated they can be.Turquoise wrote:
Well, like I said, it doesn't have to involve the Constitution. I like how some state governments have enacted bans of their own.
The fact that this has happened seems to suggest that it isn't unconstitutional to begin with.
How happy were you with the 'free speech zones' that came up a few years ago? This isn't all that different.
Why is modernising the constitution to incorporate laws against a new breed of utter cretins such a bad thing?Shahter wrote:
@Turq: i think you are overreacting here a little bit. ammending the fucking constitution because somebody took offence to a bunch of religious dumbfucks is just silly, imo. this whole "free speach" idea is so open to interpretation - and also vulnerable to abuse - that its would be impossible to put together a kind of ligislation that would regulate every aspect of this.
i say approach issues like that on case-by-case basis. also, as some of other posters said - i'm actially really surprised people didn't handle this by themselved. personally, i'd have no problem whatsoever if some of those religious cretins got their faces smashed.
Apparently, the courts disagree.SenorToenails wrote:
Yea, damn those people who are exercising their rights! If they are disorderly or disruptive, get them on that...but sequestering free speech into 'designated areas' is ridiculous!Turquoise wrote:
I support the existence of free speech zones. I know they can separate people from certain events, but in general, protesters do more harm than good most of the time.SenorToenails wrote:
It's not the speech that's being prevented by these laws. The act of protesting a funeral is allowed--but the manner in which it is conducted can still be regulated by local laws. I'm sure the supreme court will give some idea of just how regulated they can be.
How happy were you with the 'free speech zones' that came up a few years ago? This isn't all that different.
Yes, they do, and I disagree with them. 'Twas my opinion in that last post.Turquoise wrote:
Apparently, the courts disagree.SenorToenails wrote:
Yea, damn those people who are exercising their rights! If they are disorderly or disruptive, get them on that...but sequestering free speech into 'designated areas' is ridiculous!Turquoise wrote:
I support the existence of free speech zones. I know they can separate people from certain events, but in general, protesters do more harm than good most of the time.
Is not and yes the First Amendment isn't absolute; you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or allowed to make a drawing with child pornography and so on.jord wrote:
Why is modernising the constitution to incorporate laws against a new breed of utter cretins such a bad thing?Shahter wrote:
@Turq: i think you are overreacting here a little bit. ammending the fucking constitution because somebody took offence to a bunch of religious dumbfucks is just silly, imo. this whole "free speach" idea is so open to interpretation - and also vulnerable to abuse - that its would be impossible to put together a kind of ligislation that would regulate every aspect of this.
i say approach issues like that on case-by-case basis. also, as some of other posters said - i'm actially really surprised people didn't handle this by themselved. personally, i'd have no problem whatsoever if some of those religious cretins got their faces smashed.
But here all you really need is for the Police to define these protests as disorderly conducts or peace disturbing. In fact, in a court is not that difficult for a family to have a case against the WBC since verbally abusing a grieving person can probably be considered a form of assault.
It's been said here before but I'm still wondering how in a country with 300million people, nobody has took wbc out yet.Ticia wrote:
Is not and yes the First Amendment isn't absolute; you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or allowed to make a drawing with child pornography and so on.jord wrote:
Why is modernising the constitution to incorporate laws against a new breed of utter cretins such a bad thing?Shahter wrote:
@Turq: i think you are overreacting here a little bit. ammending the fucking constitution because somebody took offence to a bunch of religious dumbfucks is just silly, imo. this whole "free speach" idea is so open to interpretation - and also vulnerable to abuse - that its would be impossible to put together a kind of ligislation that would regulate every aspect of this.
i say approach issues like that on case-by-case basis. also, as some of other posters said - i'm actially really surprised people didn't handle this by themselved. personally, i'd have no problem whatsoever if some of those religious cretins got their faces smashed.
But here all you really need is for the Police to define these protests as disorderly conducts or peace disturbing. In fact, in a court is not that difficult for a family to have a case against the WBC since verbally abusing a grieving person can probably be considered a form of assault.
Obscenity, promoting imminent lawless action, fighting words, etc... are not protected speech. The limitations of the first amendment are rightfully small and specific.Ticia wrote:
Is not and yes the First Amendment isn't absolute; you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or allowed to make a drawing with child pornography and so on.jord wrote:
Why is modernising the constitution to incorporate laws against a new breed of utter cretins such a bad thing?Shahter wrote:
@Turq: i think you are overreacting here a little bit. ammending the fucking constitution because somebody took offence to a bunch of religious dumbfucks is just silly, imo. this whole "free speach" idea is so open to interpretation - and also vulnerable to abuse - that its would be impossible to put together a kind of ligislation that would regulate every aspect of this.
i say approach issues like that on case-by-case basis. also, as some of other posters said - i'm actially really surprised people didn't handle this by themselved. personally, i'd have no problem whatsoever if some of those religious cretins got their faces smashed.
But here all you really need is for the Police to define these protests as disorderly conducts or peace disturbing. In fact, in a court is not that difficult for a family to have a case against the WBC since verbally abusing a grieving person can probably be considered a form of assault.
What I don't understand is how the courts can say that a 'free speech zone' 1/3 mile or more away from the site of the event spurring the protest is not abridging free speech.Turquoise wrote:
Apparently, the courts disagree.SenorToenails wrote:
Yea, damn those people who are exercising their rights! If they are disorderly or disruptive, get them on that...but sequestering free speech into 'designated areas' is ridiculous!Turquoise wrote:
I support the existence of free speech zones. I know they can separate people from certain events, but in general, protesters do more harm than good most of the time.
Fighting words definition: which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peaceSenorToenails wrote:
Obscenity, promoting imminent lawless action, fighting words, etc... are not protected speech. The limitations of the first amendment are rightfully small and specific.Ticia wrote:
Is not and yes the First Amendment isn't absolute; you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or allowed to make a drawing with child pornography and so on.jord wrote:
Why is modernising the constitution to incorporate laws against a new breed of utter cretins such a bad thing?
But here all you really need is for the Police to define these protests as disorderly conducts or peace disturbing. In fact, in a court is not that difficult for a family to have a case against the WBC since verbally abusing a grieving person can probably be considered a form of assault.
I just figured I'd add this...SenorToenails wrote:
Yea, damn those people who are exercising their rights! If they are disorderly or disruptive, get them on that...but sequestering free speech into 'designated areas' is ridiculous!Turquoise wrote:
I support the existence of free speech zones. I know they can separate people from certain events, but in general, protesters do more harm than good most of the time.SenorToenails wrote:
It's not the speech that's being prevented by these laws. The act of protesting a funeral is allowed--but the manner in which it is conducted can still be regulated by local laws. I'm sure the supreme court will give some idea of just how regulated they can be.
How happy were you with the 'free speech zones' that came up a few years ago? This isn't all that different.
Part of why I don't put much stock in protests is because of 2 things
1) A significant portion of them involve astroturfing (protesters paid by special interests)
2) Most protesters don't have a clue about the cause they are protesting
So, while I still support the act of protesting, I'm not terribly concerned about it being limited by free speech zones.
Being offensive is not enough to be seen as 'fighting words'. What the WBC does is offensive, sure, but as jord pointed out--they haven't been wiped out yet, so clearly they aren't inciting immediate breaches of the peace.Ticia wrote:
Fighting words definition: which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peaceSenorToenails wrote:
Obscenity, promoting imminent lawless action, fighting words, etc... are not protected speech. The limitations of the first amendment are rightfully small and specific.Ticia wrote:
Is not and yes the First Amendment isn't absolute; you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or allowed to make a drawing with child pornography and so on.
But here all you really need is for the Police to define these protests as disorderly conducts or peace disturbing. In fact, in a court is not that difficult for a family to have a case against the WBC since verbally abusing a grieving person can probably be considered a form of assault.
They aren't being wiped out yet because the people they offend are more reasonable than that.SenorToenails wrote:
Being offensive is not enough to be seen as 'fighting words'. What the WBC does is offensive, sure, but as jord pointed out--they haven't been wiped out yet, so clearly they aren't inciting immediate breaches of the peace.Ticia wrote:
Fighting words definition: which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peaceSenorToenails wrote:
Obscenity, promoting imminent lawless action, fighting words, etc... are not protected speech. The limitations of the first amendment are rightfully small and specific.
If they were a group that burned Qurans all day, then they would be dead by now, because some of the people they would offend would be almost as unreasonable as they are.
So, I wouldn't say that their continued existence has any bearing on their actual breach of the peace.
It's safe erode all our freedoms because some people are paid and some people are clueless?Turquoise wrote:
I just figured I'd add this...
Part of why I don't put much stock in protests is because of 2 things
1) A significant portion of them involve astroturfing (protesters paid by special interests)
2) Most protesters don't have a clue about the cause they are protesting
So, while I still support the act of protesting, I'm not terribly concerned about it being limited by free speech zones.
Well you know, I can't possibly see how that logic could be abused.
You see it as an erosion of freedom. I see it as a convenient adaptation of freedom.SenorToenails wrote:
It's safe erode all our freedoms because some people are paid and some people are clueless?Turquoise wrote:
I just figured I'd add this...
Part of why I don't put much stock in protests is because of 2 things
1) A significant portion of them involve astroturfing (protesters paid by special interests)
2) Most protesters don't have a clue about the cause they are protesting
So, while I still support the act of protesting, I'm not terribly concerned about it being limited by free speech zones.
Well you know, I can't possibly see how that logic could be abused.
You're right. Let's limit all our freedom based on what an extremist group might do.Turquoise wrote:
They aren't being wiped out yet because the people they offend are more reasonable than that.SenorToenails wrote:
Being offensive is not enough to be seen as 'fighting words'. What the WBC does is offensive, sure, but as jord pointed out--they haven't been wiped out yet, so clearly they aren't inciting immediate breaches of the peace.Ticia wrote:
Fighting words definition: which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace
If they were a group that burned Qurans all day, then they would be dead by now, because some of the people they would offend would be almost as unreasonable as they are.
So, I wouldn't say that their continued existence has any bearing on their actual breach of the peace.
If they aren't getting beat to hell everytime they protest, it means that reasonable people do not find it offensive enough to immediately incite retaliatory violence.
Narrowing the first amendment isn't an erosion but only a convenient adaptation? How can you justify that?Turquoise wrote:
You see it as an erosion of freedom. I see it as a convenient adaptation of freedom.SenorToenails wrote:
It's safe erode all our freedoms because some people are paid and some people are clueless?Turquoise wrote:
I just figured I'd add this...
Part of why I don't put much stock in protests is because of 2 things
1) A significant portion of them involve astroturfing (protesters paid by special interests)
2) Most protesters don't have a clue about the cause they are protesting
So, while I still support the act of protesting, I'm not terribly concerned about it being limited by free speech zones.
Well you know, I can't possibly see how that logic could be abused.
I think you meant to say that the erosion of freedom is convenient to you.
I'm advocating the opposite of that, actually.SenorToenails wrote:
You're right. Let's limit all our freedom based on what an extremist group might do.Turquoise wrote:
They aren't being wiped out yet because the people they offend are more reasonable than that.SenorToenails wrote:
Being offensive is not enough to be seen as 'fighting words'. What the WBC does is offensive, sure, but as jord pointed out--they haven't been wiped out yet, so clearly they aren't inciting immediate breaches of the peace.
If they were a group that burned Qurans all day, then they would be dead by now, because some of the people they would offend would be almost as unreasonable as they are.
So, I wouldn't say that their continued existence has any bearing on their actual breach of the peace.
If they aren't getting beat to hell everytime they protest, it means that reasonable people do not find it offensive enough to immediately incite retaliatory violence.
I support Quran burnings and I believe people who threaten violence over that should be imprisoned.
I do not support the WBC's protesting of funerals, because that offends more than just one religious group, and the people being offended are too reasonable to make death threats.
It's the reasonable disagreement with something that has more support from me for banning something.
It's convenient to more than just me. It's convenient to society overall.SenorToenails wrote:
Narrowing the first amendment isn't an erosion but only a convenient adaptation? How can you justify that?Turquoise wrote:
You see it as an erosion of freedom. I see it as a convenient adaptation of freedom.SenorToenails wrote:
It's safe erode all our freedoms because some people are paid and some people are clueless?
Well you know, I can't possibly see how that logic could be abused.
I think you meant to say that the erosion of freedom is convenient to you.
Most of us have better things to do than protest funerals. Local governments should have the power to designate free speech zones. Aren't you in favor of more states and local rights?
Sigh. You missed the point.Turquoise wrote:
I'm advocating the opposite of that, actually.SenorToenails wrote:
You're right. Let's limit all our freedom based on what an extremist group might do.Turquoise wrote:
They aren't being wiped out yet because the people they offend are more reasonable than that.
If they were a group that burned Qurans all day, then they would be dead by now, because some of the people they would offend would be almost as unreasonable as they are.
So, I wouldn't say that their continued existence has any bearing on their actual breach of the peace.
If they aren't getting beat to hell everytime they protest, it means that reasonable people do not find it offensive enough to immediately incite retaliatory violence.
I support Quran burnings and I believe people who threaten violence over that should be imprisoned.
I do not support the WBC's protesting of funerals, because that offends more than just one religious group, and the people being offended are too reasonable to make death threats.
It's the reasonable disagreement with something that has more support from me for banning something.
If a reasonable person does not find it offensive enough to incite violence, should it be considered fighting words? I would say no, but I'm not a legal scholar. Abridging speech that people generally find offensive, but not so much so that it causes disruptions, is a definite erosion of freedom. And what does it matter how many religious groups it offends?
Tyranny of the majority at its finest.Turquoise wrote:
It's convenient to more than just me. It's convenient to society overall.
Most of us have better things to do than to produce pornography, but does that mean people shouldn't be able to make it?Turquoise wrote:
Most of us have better things to do than protest funerals.
I emphatically disagree.Turquoise wrote:
Local governments should have the power to designate free speech zones.
Yes, but not when they limit my existing freedoms. I am in favor of more states and local rights when it removes that function from the federal government.Turquoise wrote:
Aren't you in favor of more states and local rights?
If something offends the majority of society overall, then we should take a closer look at whether or not it should be allowed.SenorToenails wrote:
Sigh. You missed the point.Turquoise wrote:
I'm advocating the opposite of that, actually.SenorToenails wrote:
You're right. Let's limit all our freedom based on what an extremist group might do.
If they aren't getting beat to hell everytime they protest, it means that reasonable people do not find it offensive enough to immediately incite retaliatory violence.
I support Quran burnings and I believe people who threaten violence over that should be imprisoned.
I do not support the WBC's protesting of funerals, because that offends more than just one religious group, and the people being offended are too reasonable to make death threats.
It's the reasonable disagreement with something that has more support from me for banning something.
If a reasonable person does not find it offensive enough to incite violence, should it be considered fighting words? I would say no, but I'm not a legal scholar. Abridging speech that people generally find offensive, but not so much so that it causes disruptions, is a definite erosion of freedom. And what does it matter how many religious groups it offends?
Banning flag burnings was seriously discussed at one point because of how much of the population it offended. Ultimately, it was not banned, and I agree that it should be allowed. Desecrating a symbol is a minor offense that shouldn't involve government intrusion.
However, protesting a funeral is much more personal. To me, it's like breaking into someone's home and pissing on the carpet.
Therefore, I support bans against it. If the majority of society agrees with me, then they should support the ban.
I support majority rule most of the time, although I realize there are limitations to that (like civil rights).
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-10-07 08:58:17)
Because contrary to popular opinion, we're not a violent nation.jord wrote:
It's been said here before but I'm still wondering how in a country with 300million people, nobody has took wbc out yet.Ticia wrote:
Is not and yes the First Amendment isn't absolute; you're not allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater or allowed to make a drawing with child pornography and so on.jord wrote:
Why is modernising the constitution to incorporate laws against a new breed of utter cretins such a bad thing?
But here all you really need is for the Police to define these protests as disorderly conducts or peace disturbing. In fact, in a court is not that difficult for a family to have a case against the WBC since verbally abusing a grieving person can probably be considered a form of assault.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
A lot of the time, I'd rather err on the side of tyrannies of the majority. I believe we currently cater too much to special interests.SenorToenails wrote:
Tyranny of the majority at its finest.Turquoise wrote:
It's convenient to more than just me. It's convenient to society overall.
Pornography isn't allowed in public.SenorToenails wrote:
Most of us have better things to do than to produce pornography, but does that mean people shouldn't be able to make it?
Why are you arguing with Turquoise on this? He wants Democratic Socialism, the ultimate form of majority rule. He wants a nice ordered society where everything is in its place and those that step out of line are swiftly met by police batons and/or social ostracism. Think Leave It To Beaver. It's what he wants. He dislikes freedom and prefers order.SenorToenails wrote:
Tyranny of the majority at its finest.Turquoise wrote:
It's convenient to more than just me. It's convenient to society overall.Most of us have better things to do than to produce pornography, but does that mean people shouldn't be able to make it?Turquoise wrote:
Most of us have better things to do than protest funerals.I emphatically disagree.Turquoise wrote:
Local governments should have the power to designate free speech zones.Yes, but not when they limit my existing freedoms. I am in favor of more states and local rights when it removes that function from the federal government.Turquoise wrote:
Aren't you in favor of more states and local rights?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
that what i would do if somebody tried something like that with me, yes. but what i really ment to say was that people should deal with this shit themselves the way they see fit, if somebody wishes to bring the matter before the court of justice - more power to them. all you need is to establish a precedent of this being ruled in favor of those offended by the "protesters" and if there's a shred of common sence left in your courts that precedent is about to be set.Turquoise wrote:
So your solution is to physically assault offenders rather than change laws....Shahter wrote:
@Turq: i think you are overreacting here a little bit. ammending the fucking constitution because somebody took offence to a bunch of religious dumbfucks is just silly, imo. this whole "free speach" idea is so open to interpretation - and also vulnerable to abuse - that its would be impossible to put together a kind of ligislation that would regulate every aspect of this.
i say approach issues like that on case-by-case basis. also, as some of other posters said - i'm actially really surprised people didn't handle this by themselved. personally, i'd have no problem whatsoever if some of those religious cretins got their faces smashed.
as i said, ammending the constitution because of trivial matters like the one in OP is competely out there, man.
Last edited by Shahter (2010-10-07 09:03:55)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.