|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: Free Speech versus Inevitable Violence started by: Leisher Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2010,06:22
I truly feel that if < this guy loses the case > when it goes to the Supreme Court, you can kiss that church goodbye. And yes, I think he loses. While what they're doing is disgusting, and assuredly endangering themselves, it's protected speech. He's absolutely right that something IS going to happen eventually. It might not be him, despite his seemingly veiled threats, but someone will step up and do it. These nutjobs cannot continue to protest at people's funerals and not expect repercussions. All it takes is a protest at a funeral where some parent or family member feels like they have nothing left to live for, and goodbye church members. You can only poke a bear with a stick for so long before it rips your head off. I just hope whoever does it, does so while yelling: "This is God's will!" And by the church's own logic, he/she would be right. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,07:09
Isn't there some law about "inciting violence?" Doesn't that imply that, according to law, violence can be provoked?I don't know hat I am trying to say. Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 13 2010,07:25
Free speech that is inciteful is not protected by the first amendment, is that what you're looking for?
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2010,07:28
QUOTE Isn't there some law about "inciting violence?" Doesn't that imply that, according to law, violence can be provoked? That's the guy's argument. Unfortunately, they aren't inciting violence. Sure, yelling things like "Your son deserved to die because he's gay" at that person's funeral might incite violence, but that's not their intent. We all know that is going to be the end result, but the law doesn't see it that way. (currently) He did win the first trial, but lost in appeal, so we'll see how the Supreme Court rules. Posted by unkbill on Apr. 13 2010,07:35
Margie Jean Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' daughters and an attorney, Figures. There is a legal mind behind it. I'm sure she advises her daddy on how to do things just inside the law. I think the whole bunch should be shot. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,07:42
(TheCatt @ Apr. 13 2010,10:25) QUOTE Free speech that is inciteful is not protected by the first amendment, is that what you're looking for? Yeah, pretty much. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,07:54
(Leisher @ Apr. 13 2010,09:28) QUOTE Unfortunately, they aren't inciting violence. Sure, yelling things like "Your son deserved to die because he's gay" at that person's funeral might incite violence, but that's not their intent. Wait a sec. Going out in public, in front of their relatives, & verbally condemning the deceased to an afterlife (which a couple billion people allegedly believe in) in a completely baseless & insulting way ISN'T asking for violence to happen? Even if you're just honestly stating your beliefs, unless you're also 100% ignorant of the culture in which you live, you're also inviting an ass kicking. Even Jesus finessed the Romans every now & again. He didn't go prance around in front of the dead dudes' families & tell them about how they're going to hell. Now, whether or not you can take away someone's right to invite an ass-beating ... probably not. Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 13 2010,08:00
Yeah, I'm with Malcolm, I could very easily see their speech as being inciteful regardless of what they claim to be their purpose.I mean, if I were walking down the street and yelled "NIGGER, NIGGER, NIGGER" cuz I like the sound of the word, it could still be inciteful. There's a grey area between directly inciteful speech ("Grab your gun, let's go kill Bob") and indirectly inciteful speech (outrageous, offensive). Sounds like the courts (1 win, 1 loss) have the same issue with the grey area. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,08:06
I don't know how this is even a question for the courts, unless they are legislating from the bench because they hate the military, too.
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 13 2010,08:09
(GORDON @ Apr. 13 2010,11:06) QUOTE I don't know how this is even a question for the courts, unless they are legislating from the bench because they hate the military, too. Wait, then for whom is it a question? I mean, these are the things courts decide, right? Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,08:53
I suppose. But what kind of asshole judge decides that insulting a man's son, at the son's funeral, is not inciting violence, and therefor protected speech?
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,09:08
You could easily make a case that lots of talk "incites violence." On one hand, he can say whatever he believes. On the other, someone may elect to shut him the fuck up one day. If the reverend or any of his flock ever get physically assaulted & hurt, someone ought to take into account their history of doing this type of thing repeatedly.Some protesters should stand outside their church with a 100-foot graphic banner of Jesus & the apostles ass-fucking each other in a gay orgy. We'll see how long it takes before god's army throws the first punch. Posted by unkbill on Apr. 13 2010,10:47
Maybe that is the problem. Nobody has hit one of them that. I would think if enough people smacked them around maybe they would be said to be inciting violence. Sign me up and everyone start whacking the pitiful fucks.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,10:50
(unkbill @ Apr. 13 2010,13:47) QUOTE Maybe that is the problem. Nobody has hit one of them that. I would think if enough people smacked them around maybe they would be said to be inciting violence. Sign me up and everyone start whacking the pitiful fucks. We know they have a lawyer, I'm also guessing they video tape everything waiting for someone to beat them up. Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2010,11:04
QUOTE Even if you're just honestly stating your beliefs, unless you're also 100% ignorant of the culture in which you live, you're also inviting an ass kicking. Yes, you are, but not in the eyes of the courts. And don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of the folks who want them to shut up. If I woke up tomorrow to find that someone trapped their whole congregation in their church and burnt the thing down, my first thought would be: "What did they think was going to happen? They brought this upon themselves." I'd proceed to feel bad for their kids because they're the innocent victims, but wouldn't feel a microsecond of remorse for the adults. And that's the gray area everyone is talking about and why this case is going to the Supreme Court. Think about it this way, if this is inciting violence, then < this is too. > It's going to be a very interesting decision. P.S. Did everyone read the article? I didn't know this church was essentially one family... Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,11:10
The court's ruling might protect them from a government-sponsored beatdown, but that's it.
Posted by Leisher on Apr. 13 2010,11:31
QUOTE The court's ruling might protect them from a government-sponsored beatdown, but that's it. But that's the point I'm trying to make. Everybody with an IQ above 2 knows that this is going to end with violence, but does the law see it that way? Let's be honest, this group doesn't want to get mowed down by a vet with an M-16. They want attention sure, but not that kind of attention. They probably want someone to take a swing at them. However, none of that has happened yet. Doesn't that prove the law as correct in ruling that their speech is NOT inciting violence? Again, even if they all die at the hands of someone they pissed off, they don't WANT TO, thus they don't have intent. (And yes, I get that they might want someone to punch them...that's what makes this an interesting decision.) Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,11:35
If they don't want to die, they shouldn't unnecessarily put themselves in situations where their lives are in jeopardy. Chronic stupidity is just a death wish by a different label.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,12:25
I guess the most damning evidence in favor of the church is that so far, they HAVEN'T incited violence. Just legal action. Posted by DoctorChaos on Apr. 13 2010,17:20
At the risk of being banned, first let me say what they are doing is morally reprehensible and disgusting. That said, I think they have the right to say it. We should not be legislating good taste. You and I know doing that is in poor taste and disrespectful, but we start with a slippery slope. Where do we say what is ok and not ok to say? As the old saying goes, God protects fools and small children. This is definitely the case here. The protesters were on public land and had a permit, right or wrong.
Posted by Vince on Apr. 13 2010,17:37
I've never understood why they couldn't force them to protest somewhere else like they do at the national conventions at election time. Here's where you get to express your freedom of speech.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 13 2010,20:16
(Vince @ Apr. 13 2010,20:37) QUOTE I've never understood why they couldn't force them to protest somewhere else like they do at the national conventions at election time. Here's where you get to express your freedom of speech. I've only seen "Free Speech Zones" behind the barbed wire at the Democratic Nat'l Convention. Are they doing it at the RNC, too? And the reason they don't have it at the funerals is because politicians are more important than regular people. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 13 2010,20:18
QUOTE Where do we say what is ok and not ok to say? Which "we?" We, the governing body of this nation (supposedly), or we, the citizenry of this nation? The proper response from the government is to defend their right to their rally if it fulfills the legal definition of a legit protest. I'll grant them that. What I'm arguing is that the government shouldn't go out of its way to protect people who either : (i) have inherently provocative beliefs & try to force them on others or (ii) try to pick a fight by making blatantly inflammatory remarks. If I stood on the steps of Congress tomorrow and shouted to the skies that they're all baby-eating zombie cannibals who rape puppies and have kittens drawn & quartered for their own personal amusement, I'd be hauled away to jail, period, no questions, no reprieve, no nothing, fuck the correct protest forms. A satisfactory situation would be one if the reverend, or one of his followers, just says the wrong shit to the wrong mourner (in plain sight of couple dozen witnesses, preferably on tape or video, too) & sets him off. After god's servant has a couple of his limbs broken in a heated scuffle, the church brings a charge against the mourner, who walks away with a mandatory misdemeanor (perhaps a small fine plus community service or something) in light of the extenuating circumstances. QUOTE God protects fools and small children Fortunately, he's explicitly cut out from the government's thought process. And there's plenty of places in the Bible where god kicks the ever-loving shit out of fools or sends someone to do it in his place. It's a violation of logic to do stupid shit intentionally & not expect negative consequences. The government probably shouldn't stop the dumb-asses from protesting, but there comes a point where they might want to let society sort itself out. Posted by Leisher on Apr. 14 2010,06:18
QUOTE I've only seen "Free Speech Zones" behind the barbed wire at the Democratic Nat'l Convention. These were quite popular at all the leftie protests and rallies during the Bush years. They claimed they were there for everyone's safety. Apparently, the left is very violent. QUOTE What I'm arguing is that the government shouldn't go out of its way to protect people who either : (i) have inherently provocative beliefs & try to force them on others or (ii) try to pick a fight by making blatantly inflammatory remarks. Malcolm, I couldn't agree with you more, however there's a problem with that thinking. Someone is still making the call as to what is provocative and/or picking a fight. That someone is going to be the party in power at that moment. So if you say this church's speech isn't protected under the first amendment, what's to stop Obama from saying the tea party protests aren't protected speech or Bush from ending the aforementioned left wing protests? Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 14 2010,07:10
I would really hate to see free speech curtailed to limit this sort of behavior. As much as I hate this church, I firmly believe there should not be a law (or solid court precedent) against what they are doing.On the other hand, I also hate that there is a law against beating the crap out of them for it. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 14 2010,08:20
(Leisher @ Apr. 14 2010,08:18) QUOTE So if you say this church's speech isn't protected under the first amendment, what's to stop Obama from saying the tea party protests aren't protected speech or Bush from ending the aforementioned left wing protests? Their speech is protected, as in the gov't can't do anything to stop them from saying it. They can protest all they want. If Potter Stewart said of pornography, "I know it when I see it," then why can't you apply that logic to words? I probably couldn't come up with a definitive list of "things to yell at a funeral that could result in serious physical injury," but I sure as hell can tell you whether or not what you just said was one of them. QUOTE On the other hand, I also hate that there is a law against beating the crap out of them for it. As do I. When France decided to ban the wearing traditional Muslim garb, didn't someone make the claim that a society can make laws against, reject, & ostracize those groups they don't approve of? Funeral processions on highways & streets already get to ignore traffic ordinances. The laws imply there is something about burying someone that we consider special. There's also laws restricting your "free speech" if you cross a line somehow. You can't just walk into a public park, set up some speakers, amps, & have an impromptu concert at full volume at three in the morning. You can't make specific threats against someone's life. Fuck, there's states that think flame wars (cyber-bullying) are need to be legally regulated now. QUOTE Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I see nowhere that it says, "Congress shall completely protect, isolate, and insulate the people from the consequences of their actions." Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 14 2010,10:49
Maybe there's the solution: anti-noise ordinances. Make it illegal to shout near a cemetery during a funeral because that would be too loud.That way it's not about what they are saying, but how and when they are saying it, and laws against that aren't as insidious. IMO. Posted by DoctorChaos on Apr. 14 2010,19:41
(Malcolm @ Apr. 14 2010,11:20) QUOTE Funeral processions on highways & streets already get to ignore traffic ordinances. The laws imply there is something about burying someone that we consider special. I hadn't even considered it in that right. Still, I don't have a good feeling about someone else determining who can say what, where, and when. The difference is, if I mouth off and get punched in said mouth, I probably had it coming and will say as much after I spit out some teef. I wouldn't pursue litigation. These assholes seem to be up to their necks in lawyers so... I am a firm believer in the expression 'I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' Posted by GORDON on Apr. 14 2010,19:46
I'm a firm believer that the world would be a better place if peeps were free to deliver much-needed ass kickings without fear of litigation.An ass-kicking can be a very educational experience. It can change a life for the better. |