- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I'm wondering if the SCOTUS won't strike this down. They've already ruled in favor of WBC once on the premise of free speech. Then again, limiting the time and place of protest has been done on a case-by-case basis in other areas.
So awesome to see people piss on the Bill of Rights.
You either believe in freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, or you don't. Congress is explicitly forbidden from doing this in plain English in the document that justifies the existence of a Congress.
Free speech rights aren't there for popular speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.
Funny - I see your attitude to be the equivalent.
Your view enables people to be hurt and slandered
Exactly - so as I see it: you don't...
You see my attitude as pissing on the Bill of Rights? No you don't. That doesn't make sense.
Other people have a right to free speech. We do not have a right to not be offended by other people's speech. Other people have a right to peaceably assemble on public property.
There is no way in which this response of yours makes one damn lick of sense.
I'm wondering if the SCOTUS won't strike this down. They've already ruled in favor of WBC once on the premise of free speech. Then again, limiting the time and place of protest has been done on a case-by-case basis in other areas.
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church
Several thoughts about this.
1.)I can see where they are coming from on this and i dislike Westboro just as much as the next person
2.)But doesnt this block first amendment rights?
Does it make me a bad person for worrying about their rights?
Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
I have a feeling you wouldn't take it so lightly if it was directed at you.
Due to the safety of politicians, no person can protest 2 hours before or after a politician's speech or rally
Just like I'm sure if you're ability so speak on a subject was limited by the government to only being able occur at certain time and places that you'd not take it so lightly
Now personally, I'd like to know what the constitutional standard for something like this. For example, in a recent court case dealing with a state run entity using a church for a state activity, the court explained constitutional standard was to view each case as a unique individual entity ruling based tightly around those given facts. In that particular case, something like this being rule constitutional would not deem that the government has a carte blanche right to determine restrictions on time/place/distance but rather that in the very narrow circumstance of protests regarding military funerals the government has such ability. If the constitutional standard for judging this is that narrow, then I'd have less issue. But if it is broader and sets forth a precedence of allowing the government more power to limit speech based on time/place/distance in a broader way, I'd say it's a bad action.
Forget the nuance.
The Supreme Court will rule the limitations constitutional because free speech and protest is already limited because of the policy of "free speech zones" that was instituted during the GWB administration.
So if the federal government can limit protests to certain areas based on security then the federal government can also limit the timing of protests based on security as well.
I love the smell of incrementalization in the morning...
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church
Several thoughts about this.
1.)I can see where they are coming from on this and i dislike Westboro just as much as the next person
2.)But doesnt this block first amendment rights?
Does it make me a bad person for worrying about their rights?
Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
It does infringe on our free speech rights. But it's really nothing new from what's gone on in the past 12 years.
Does slander and libel infringe on our free speech rights? Just playing devil's advocate, a little.
They do substantial harm. That harm is actionable. As far as I know, there can be no prior restraint on libel or slander. You can say it, or publish it, and then you get sued for harming someone.
Hurting someone's feelings isn't considered substantial harm. Ruining someone's reputation is.
And this thought process explains how our country veered off track: favoring forms of harassment as a right over the right to not be harassed.
When did this shift? 1960's?
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church
Several thoughts about this.
1.)I can see where they are coming from on this and i dislike Westboro just as much as the next person
2.)But doesnt this block first amendment rights?
Does it make me a bad person for worrying about their rights?
Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
Also, is libel or slander actually against the law, or just something you can sue someone for since it causes you damage? As far as I know, the government doesn't indict people for libel or slander.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?