FREE TAPATALK APP

Darat · 27th May 2006, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Zbu

You know, I don't like putting limits on the First Amendment at all, but protesting at a funeral shouldn't be made illegal. After all, the First Amendment is there to make sure you can voice your opinion, even if you're a stupid ass who wants attention so badly that you decide to do an incredibly stupid and selfish thing.

...snip...

Perhaps looking at it this way may indicate why sometimes one group's rights have to have precedent over another group with the same rights.

Both Group A & Group B have the right to use "The Area", yet as you can see they can't both fit into The Area at the same time. Therefore someone has to mediate and decide which of them can exercise their right to use The Area. A sensible solution is to say (which is pretty much what this law seems to do) "Book a time when you want to use The Area, when you are using The Area the other group can't use it."

So if Phelps's lot want to have a protest at the cemetery they should be allowed to do so, however not at the same time as the funeral group is using it, and of course vice-a-versa.

HeavyAaron · 27th May 2006, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Zbu

No, I like to think that I'm stating fact. When you mock people at a funeral, it may fall in line with your rights. But to think that one day someone won't beat the living hell out of you while in a highly emotional state is foolish to say the very least.

Not true. You stated a preference for it (a strong one.)

Originally Posted by Zbu

I would love to see this Church of Chimps violently beaten after instigating like this

You would love to see people beaten. That's your statement. It's more than just saying a jury wouldn't convict. You said you'd like that outcome. Now if you want to say you didn't mean it, wonderful! Welcome to civilization.

Aaron

wolfgirl · 30th May 2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by HeavyAaron

Not true. You stated a preference for it (a strong one.)

You would love to see people beaten. That's your statement. It's more than just saying a jury wouldn't convict. You said you'd like that outcome. Now if you want to say you didn't mean it, wonderful! Welcome to civilization.

Aaron

I consider myself a pretty civilized person, even pretty much of a peacenik. Yet, yes, I would love to see Phelps and his people beaten. I would enjoy it. I would pay to buy tickets to see it!

wolfgirl · 30th May 2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

So are you suggesting that the "right to assemble" is not actually a right?

It's technically the right to "peaceably" assemble, and I think you could make a case that holding up signs at a funeral telling people that their recently deceased loved one is burning in hell is not particularly "peaceable."

wolfgirl · 30th May 2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Yeah but that's exactly what Phelps is looking for - he wants someone to slug him so he can sue everybody under the sun.

I do think that a lot, if not all, of what he is doing is just about getting attention.

For years, he has been protesting at the funerals of gay people or people who died of AIDS. He has only recently started protesting at soldiers' funerals.

At first, I thought, "Huh? The soldiers aren't gay; what the...?" But then they "explained" that the soldiers are dying because of America's support for homosexuality. (Ahhh. That makes it completely clear.)

My next thought was, "That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?" But then it started being in the news every time it happened, and I realized that they had just found (made up) a reason to protest at soldiers' funerals to get media attention. There is no connection between the soldiers and homosexuality at all. They just knew it was a way to push America's buttons at a time when we are supporting our troops and very emotional about our troop losses.

They connect everything to homosexuality. I don't know what they un-natural obsession is with this one aspect of human behavior that they find so completely intolerable, but they do.

P.S. As an aside, I think it's disturbing that nobody seemed to really care about Phelps and his gang until they started protesting at soldiers' funerals. When it was "just gay people," nobody seemed to notice...

BPSCG · 30th May 2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by wolfgirl

It's technically the right to "peaceably" assemble, and I think you could make a case that holding up signs at a funeral telling people that their recently deceased loved one is burning in hell is not particularly "peaceable."

It is not peaceable. It is what the Supreme Court decided in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshireconstituted "fighting words," and is not protected speech

I frankly don't think thiswill stop Phelps or his little group, frankly. They are going to do this until they end up in jail, and perhaps even after they get out. I'm betting they're looking for a lawsuit payoff when someone punches their lights out.

shecky · 30th May 2006, 12:30 PM

The worst thing is that Phelps has a reasonable chance at being victorious in court over this issue. If so, it's because congress and the Prez handed him a victory.

Upchurch · 30th May 2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

It is not peaceable. It is what the Supreme Court decided in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshireconstituted "fighting words," and is not protected speech

Wow. Legal scholar that I am*, I hadn't heard of this one. It's a sort of real life "no trolling" judgement. Who woulda guessed?

* I watch lots of Law & Order.

BPSCG · 30th May 2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by shecky

The worst thing is that Phelps has a reasonable chance at being victorious in court over this issue. If so, it's because congress and the Prez handed him a victory.

Please explain how, given that the Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire* that the Constitution does not protect "fighting words."

* What's that, the fourth time I've cited Chaplinsky here? Does anyone read my cites?

Art Vandelay · 30th May 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

I doubt it. That would clearly be singular legislation (laws about a particular person, group, event or similar) (ETA: Much the same concept as what I see that art calls a bill of attainder), which is generally considered a breach of the seperation of powers. It would hardly be a stretch to rule such a law unconstitutional on either "due process" or "free excercise" grounds.

It's even less a stretch than that. Article I, Section 9:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

27th May 2006, 07:32 AM	#81
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,986	Originally Posted by Zbu You know, I don't like putting limits on the First Amendment at all, but protesting at a funeral shouldn't be made illegal. After all, the First Amendment is there to make sure you can voice your opinion, even if you're a stupid ass who wants attention so badly that you decide to do an incredibly stupid and selfish thing. ...snip... Perhaps looking at it this way may indicate why sometimes one group's rights have to have precedent over another group with the same rights. Both Group A & Group B have the right to use "The Area", yet as you can see they can't both fit into The Area at the same time. Therefore someone has to mediate and decide which of them can exercise their right to use The Area. A sensible solution is to say (which is pretty much what this law seems to do) "Book a time when you want to use The Area, when you are using The Area the other group can't use it." So if Phelps's lot want to have a protest at the cemetery they should be allowed to do so, however not at the same time as the funeral group is using it, and of course vice-a-versa.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

30th May 2006, 11:48 AM	#83
wolfgirl Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kearney, MO Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by HeavyAaron Not true. You stated a preference for it (a strong one.) You would love to see people beaten. That's your statement. It's more than just saying a jury wouldn't convict. You said you'd like that outcome. Now if you want to say you didn't mean it, wonderful! Welcome to civilization. Aaron I consider myself a pretty civilized person, even pretty much of a peacenik. Yet, yes, I would love to see Phelps and his people beaten. I would enjoy it. I would pay to buy tickets to see it!
	__________________ My moral compass was within myself, not in the pages of a sacred book. - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

30th May 2006, 11:50 AM	#84
wolfgirl Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kearney, MO Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by pgwenthold So are you suggesting that the "right to assemble" is not actually a right? It's technically the right to "peaceably" assemble, and I think you could make a case that holding up signs at a funeral telling people that their recently deceased loved one is burning in hell is not particularly "peaceable."
	__________________ My moral compass was within myself, not in the pages of a sacred book. - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

30th May 2006, 11:57 AM	#85
wolfgirl Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kearney, MO Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by Polaris Yeah but that's exactly what Phelps is looking for - he wants someone to slug him so he can sue everybody under the sun. I do think that a lot, if not all, of what he is doing is just about getting attention. For years, he has been protesting at the funerals of gay people or people who died of AIDS. He has only recently started protesting at soldiers' funerals. At first, I thought, "Huh? The soldiers aren't gay; what the...?" But then they "explained" that the soldiers are dying because of America's support for homosexuality. (Ahhh. That makes it completely clear.) My next thought was, "That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?" But then it started being in the news every time it happened, and I realized that they had just found (made up) a reason to protest at soldiers' funerals to get media attention. There is no connection between the soldiers and homosexuality at all. They just knew it was a way to push America's buttons at a time when we are supporting our troops and very emotional about our troop losses. They connect everything to homosexuality. I don't know what they un-natural obsession is with this one aspect of human behavior that they find so completely intolerable, but they do. P.S. As an aside, I think it's disturbing that nobody seemed to really care about Phelps and his gang until they started protesting at soldiers' funerals. When it was "just gay people," nobody seemed to notice...
	__________________ My moral compass was within myself, not in the pages of a sacred book. - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

30th May 2006, 12:09 PM	#86
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by wolfgirl It's technically the right to "peaceably" assemble, and I think you could make a case that holding up signs at a funeral telling people that their recently deceased loved one is burning in hell is not particularly "peaceable." It is not peaceable. It is what the Supreme Court decided in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshireconstituted "fighting words," and is not protected speech I frankly don't think thiswill stop Phelps or his little group, frankly. They are going to do this until they end up in jail, and perhaps even after they get out. I'm betting they're looking for a lawsuit payoff when someone punches their lights out.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

27th May 2006, 07:53 AM	#82
HeavyAaron Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sonoran Desert Posts: 1,208	Originally Posted by Zbu No, I like to think that I'm stating fact. When you mock people at a funeral, it may fall in line with your rights. But to think that one day someone won't beat the living hell out of you while in a highly emotional state is foolish to say the very least. Not true. You stated a preference for it (a strong one.) Originally Posted by Zbu I would love to see this Church of Chimps violently beaten after instigating like this You would love to see people beaten. That's your statement. It's more than just saying a jury wouldn't convict. You said you'd like that outcome. Now if you want to say you didn't mean it, wonderful! Welcome to civilization. Aaron

30th May 2006, 12:30 PM	#87
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	The worst thing is that Phelps has a reasonable chance at being victorious in court over this issue. If so, it's because congress and the Prez handed him a victory.

30th May 2006, 12:35 PM	#88
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,473	Originally Posted by BPSCG It is not peaceable. It is what the Supreme Court decided in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshireconstituted "fighting words," and is not protected speech Wow. Legal scholar that I am, I hadn't heard of this one. It's a sort of real life "no trolling" judgement. Who woulda guessed? I watch lots of Law & Order.

30th May 2006, 02:01 PM	#89
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by shecky The worst thing is that Phelps has a reasonable chance at being victorious in court over this issue. If so, it's because congress and the Prez handed him a victory. Please explain how, given that the Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire* that the Constitution does not protect "fighting words." * What's that, the fourth time I've cited Chaplinsky here? Does anyone read my cites?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

30th May 2006, 04:28 PM	#90
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Kerberos I doubt it. That would clearly be singular legislation (laws about a particular person, group, event or similar) (ETA: Much the same concept as what I see that art calls a bill of attainder), which is generally considered a breach of the seperation of powers. It would hardly be a stretch to rule such a law unconstitutional on either "due process" or "free excercise" grounds. It's even less a stretch than that. Article I, Section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."