BF2S Forums Constitutional Amendment to Ban Funeral Protests

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

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.

So your solution is to physically assault offenders rather than change laws....

that what i would do if somebody tried something like that with me, yes. but what i really ment is that people should deal with this shit themselves and 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 supreme court that precedent is about to be set.
as i said, ammending the constitution because of trivial matters like the one in OP is competely out there, man.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.

I suppose I am more socially conservative than I used to be, but order has its uses.

I just believe certain freedoms aren't really a worthwhile freedom anymore than the right to not wear a seatbelt and put your head through a windshield.

You've been socially conservative the moment you chose to voice socialist ideas. Freedom and socialism are incompatible.

Turquoise wrote:

If something offends the majority of society overall, then we should take a closer look at whether or not it should be allowed.

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, 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).

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

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.

It's been said here before but I'm still wondering how in a country with 300million people, nobody has took wbc out yet.

Because contrary to popular opinion, we're not a violent nation.

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Considering I support several Libertarian stances on other topics, not really.

I'm socially moderate.  It depends on the issue as to whether I lean left or right.

Individual issues mean nothing. Democrats and Republicans are both ultra-socially conservative. They just want different rules in place. Libertarians want less rules, not more. They want a less ordered society. Socially, they are the opposite of both political parties.

Well, by your criteria, you're one of the few social liberals in society.  It must be lonely.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Tyranny of the majority at its finest.

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:

Most of us have better things to do than to produce pornography, but does that mean people shouldn't be able to make it?

Pornography isn't allowed in public.

Nitpick as you will.  I wasn't implying it needs to be in public, but merely that it be a freedom that is not exercised by many but still allowed for all.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

A freedom that isn't directly affecting someone else is fine by me.  A freedom that does directly affect someone else in a personal way is conditional.

Where is there a right to not be offended?  Or a right to not be impacted, positively or negatively, by those around you?

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's not about rights.  It's about conditions and whether or not something is a net positive or net negative to society.

The freedom of speech in most regards is a net positive.  This particular instance of it (funeral protests) is a net negative.  It really benefits society in no possible way to allow funeral protests.

That's why I support a ban.

It is about rights.  It's about you trading other people's rights so that you don't have to hear their message.  It's about you saying that the majority can and should silence the minority.  That is in direct oppoisition to the very idea behind the first amendment.  Without the freedom to say what you want to say (and the corollary that you must face the consequences of that speech), how can you have a free society?  Too much personal freedom is a far better choice than too little, though I suspect you disagree with that sentiment.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on what net effect of various actions have on society.  I think that for all the bad that comes with what these people do, outlawing it is far worse.

Turquoise wrote:

I admit that my logic is quite different from the Constitution.  I am a utilitarian, not a libertarian.  To me, everything is a weighing of situations and costs/benefits.

The degree to which a society is free is a spectrum, not an on/off switch.  We are freer than most societies, but erring on the side of freedom is not something I unconditionally support.

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

are there any laws against libel in america? seeing the cali senate/ governor race i doubt there are any

There are...  although political ads are somewhat exempt from them.