Supreme Court claims Protesting a soldier's Funeral is protected by 1st amendent
- Thread starter Jack of Spades
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The spirit of Voltaire is alive and well, it seems.
Freedom of expression should encompass not merely the right to state an opinion (content), but also the right to choose how to do so in an effective way (form), barring outright violence or incitement thereof. And the WBC certainly have found a - despicable but non-violent - effective way to come out with their reprehensible religious message.
Good for them, most unfortunate for the rest of us; but civil rights should not be curtailed without discernible harm, and freedom of expression exist to protect the unpopular voices, allow them to rise, then be crushed by reasoned responses.
Freedom of expression should encompass not merely the right to state an opinion (content), but also the right to choose how to do so in an effective way (form), barring outright violence or incitement thereof. And the WBC certainly have found a - despicable but non-violent - effective way to come out with their reprehensible religious message.
Good for them, most unfortunate for the rest of us; but civil rights should not be curtailed without discernible harm, and freedom of expression exist to protect the unpopular voices, allow them to rise, then be crushed by reasoned responses.
No ... it's not about rights though, as I said.Choppaduel said:
Rights < Responsibilities. As I said, the primary objective for a healthy society is the pursuit of human dignity first and foremost.
Even liberty must be sacrificed if it is in the defence of human dignity.
This is one thing I do not understand about American politics and culture. Everybody speaks of "rights" but they never once take a step back and add "... must be measured in accordance to their affect on the quintessential dignity of Man".
Many of your 'Rights' are created to help you maintain your dignity ... right to property, right to fair representation, right to free speech.
But, one must ask whether one has the right to inflict undue harm? Do they have the right to intrude upon your home? Does an individual or a group have the right to harass you. Does someone have the right to consider violence or threats of violence in order to pursue their measure of free speech?
Do I waltz into a bank, hold everybody hostage with a replica pistol and say "loljks ... political message about how guns are bad!"....?
Free Speech should not extend to causing grievous harm through the politicisation of victims. If, for instance, the ideology is a living one... then you picket those in power ... not traumatize it's victims.
What would you think of someone who went to a homeless shelter and picketted people from entering because they disagreed with public expenditure?
I'm sorry, but when rights protect an individual from performing callous assaults on the dignity of an individual and commit to needless harassment, a culture must step back and re-assess it's value system.
That's not how many Vietnam war veterans felt after returning back home... harassment of victims of politics (yes that include living soldiers as well) =/= political rebellion ...captainfluoxetine said:
It should be criminally stupid ... not merely stupid.
This was the right choice to make. That church needs to be burned down and those people need to learn that the world is not there platform of hate. But thats my opinion. and there opinion is equally valid. they deserve Free Speech as much as i do.
...i still hate them though.
...i still hate them though.
The people from Westboro fail to realize one thing: without soldiers, they don't get the right to free speech. Ever since 1776, America has had a constitution that defended the rights to free speech.
This group of people is protesting the very thing that gives them the right to protest... Kinda ironic when you think about it that way.
This group of people is protesting the very thing that gives them the right to protest... Kinda ironic when you think about it that way.
What part of "put that aside for a now" do you not understand? Your examples are absurd and I don't care what you think about this.PaulH said:
Your not sorry, don't say you are.
"to causing grievous harm through the politicization of victims." Well thats not what wbc are doing, no one could possibly be harmed their opinions which they have EVERY RIGHT TO EXPRESS, they aren't saying "I hate you" they are saying "God hates you" so unless you think they are profits you can't possible take them seriously. Apart from that, they call extra attention to the deaths of soldiers have made fighting for their country, so if anything they're promoting awareness that people are dieing, lest we forget.
You're being as ridiculous as wbc, with those examples. No one has ever picketed a homeless shelter, that would be ridiculous, the people who make the decisions are at city hall or some other government building, not at the shelter. Thus people who picket funerals are ridiculous and couldn't possibly taken seriously.
Why are people losing their shit and throwing their freedoms under the bus whenever one (or 30) person do something they don't like?
I get a distinct impression that the person who posted this thread has just NOW heard of the inbred retards of the Westboro Baptist Church. They've been doing this for years, and tragically, the 1st Amendment does protect their bullshit.
Anyway, to the poster of this thread, surf around a little more. The group has committed cyber suicide by waging war with Anonymous, and believe me, with people as fucking insane as Phelps, it's only a matter of time before they make a stupid mistake. You don't need to take action against them, they're juvenile bigots after attention, like most internet Nazis who actually don't know the first fucking thing about the real Nazis.
Anyway, to the poster of this thread, surf around a little more. The group has committed cyber suicide by waging war with Anonymous, and believe me, with people as fucking insane as Phelps, it's only a matter of time before they make a stupid mistake. You don't need to take action against them, they're juvenile bigots after attention, like most internet Nazis who actually don't know the first fucking thing about the real Nazis.
Right ... because someone picketting a soldier's funerals makes much more sense than picketting a government funded institutions on the basis of refusing government money being spent on additional social welfare systems.Choppaduel said:
I find your examples lacking and your inability to grasp that rights need equal or greater levels of social decency to operate ... worrisome.
