Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

SCotUS: funeral protests are constitutionalFollow

QuoteReply
#1 Mar 02 2011 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
Not a big surprise, but too bad for the families who have to bury their kids while the WBC shouts how they're burning in hell in the background.
Quote:
A nearly unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech about public issues and upheld the right of a fringe church to protest near military funerals.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church's picketing "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible." But he said government "cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

"As a nation we have chosen a different course-to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Roberts said.

Justice Samuel A. Alito was the lone dissenter.

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030202548.html
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#2 Mar 02 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No surprise, I can't argue (even as I disagree that it's a "good" thing) and my immeidate reaction is to find it bizarre that Alito would dissent although I haven't read his actual full dissent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#3 Mar 02 2011 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe
View User Forum
+1
*******
50,767 posts
The only good thing WBC has going for it are the counter-protests.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#4 Mar 02 2011 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I'm not surprised either, and, for the most part agree with the ruling. It seems there would be other ways to control really obnoxious behavior like this without calling in the first amendment. (gathering permits, disturbing the peace, etc)

It's totally asinine that some can be so stupefied by their righteousness of cause that they can justify picketing a funeral.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#5 Mar 02 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49859742/WBC-SCOTUS-Opinion

Alito's dissent starts on page 23.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#6 Mar 02 2011 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Elinda wrote:
It seems there would be other ways to control really obnoxious behavior like this without calling in the first amendment. (gathering permits, disturbing the peace, etc)


I might argue that WBC violates the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" clause myself, but I guess that depends on whether you consider their hurtful demonstrations to be of a violent disposition or not. Have any of the WBC demonstrations ever resulted in any physical altercation?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#7 Mar 02 2011 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49859742/WBC-SCOTUS-Opinion

Alito's dissent starts on page 23.

I just read it. To me it comes down to a central idea that the parents had more of a right to bury the kid in peace than the protesters had to express an idea. Not being able to locate the right to bury a child in peace in any constitutions or law codes dating back a couple thousand years, I think he's probably a little off base.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#8 Mar 02 2011 at 11:30 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1613953020893
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm not surprised either, and, for the most part agree with the ruling. It seems there would be other ways to control really obnoxious behavior like this without calling in the first amendment. (gathering permits, disturbing the peace, etc)

It's totally asinine that some can be so stupefied by their righteousness of cause that they can justify picketing a funeral.


There may very well be ways to do that already in place.

Alito wrote:
“most if not all jurisdictions”permit recovery in tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (or IIED).
Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell , 485 U. S. 46, 53 (1988).This is a very narrow tort with requirements that “arerigorous, and difficult to satisfy... To recover, a plaintiff must show that the conduct at issue caused harm that was truly severe.
(“[R]ecovery will be meted outsparingly, its balm reserved for those wounds that are truly severe and incapable of healing themselves” ... (the distress must be“‘so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it’” ...
A plaintiff must also establish that the defendant’s conduct was “‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’”


Case numbers and such edited out, bolding mine.

I don't know anyone that considers WBC's conduct as within the bounds of decency. Hopefully lots of local prosecutors are paying attention and will use whatever powers are at their just disposal to shut theses fUckers up.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#9 Mar 02 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1662941810887
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I just read it. To me it comes down to a central idea that the parents had more of a right to bury the kid in peace than the protesters had to express an idea. Not being able to locate the right to bury a child in peace in any constitutions or law codes dating back a couple thousand years, I think he's probably a little off base.


My sentiments exactly.

I'm disappointed by the ruling. It's certainly justifiable constitutionally-- they simply made a decision about the impact on the practice of the overall welfare, and apparently decided that it was less than other restrictions on the first amendment that passed strict scrutiny. Personally I doubt that, and I wonder how seriously actual consequences of funeral protests were considered in the decision.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#10 Mar 02 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe
View User Forum
+1
*******
50,767 posts
Deathwysh wrote:
I don't know anyone that considers WBC's conduct as within the bounds of decency.
I really don't want to be the one to defend WBC, but they're really not outrageous, extreme, atrocious, or utterly intolerable. While it certainly isn't decent, they're just kind of ... stupid.

Now, if they start burning soldier effigies and hanging flamboyantly dressed mannequins, we'll talk. I just can't feel myself being offended by goofy slogans on rainbow colored signs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#11 Mar 02 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Default
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Deathwysh wrote:
I don't know anyone that considers WBC's conduct as within the bounds of decency.
I really don't want to be the one to defend WBC, but they're really not outrageous, extreme, atrocious, or utterly intolerable. While it certainly isn't decent, they're just kind of ... stupid.


This. I think the two main considerations are that a) they were in a public place, and b) they were not making specifically directed statements. "God Hates ****" is a broad statement. Even "Thank God for dead Soldiers" is a broad statement. Now, if they'd had a sign saying "Thank God Cpl SoandSo is dead" at Cpl SoandSo's service, that would presumably be an entirely different issue.

As several people have stated: not surprised at all by the ruling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#12 Mar 02 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Bijou
View User Forum
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,969 posts
I saw this on Fox whilst sitting in the doctorb's waiting room. FOX said they were "not allowed" to show the more offensive signs (ie. God hates ****).

Not allowed by whom? Not the FCC.


They sure zeroed in on the "Jesus is Love" and "For God so loved the world..." ones, though.




Damage mitigation for their friends?



____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#13 Mar 02 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
Not allowed by whom?

Mrs. Palin.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#14 Mar 02 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I saw this on Fox whilst sitting in the doctorb's waiting room. FOX said they were "not allowed" to show the more offensive signs (ie. God hates ****).


Which Fox News were you watching? They certainly had footage of the signs today. Some were blurred out, which I assume means that the specific words on those signs are prohibited by the FCC, but the bulk of them, including "God Hates ****" were quite visible.

Same thing with CNN btw.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#15 Mar 02 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1709511392366
Sage
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I saw this on Fox whilst sitting in the doctorb's waiting room. FOX said they were "not allowed" to show the more offensive signs (ie. God hates ****).


Which Fox News were you watching? They certainly had footage of the signs today. Some were blurred out, which I assume means that the specific words on those signs are prohibited by the FCC, but the bulk of them, including "God Hates ****" were quite visible.

Same thing with CNN btw.


Erm...Bijou is blind, as the OoT'ers are wont to say.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#16 Mar 02 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which Fox News were you watching? They certainly had footage of the signs today. Some were blurred out, which I assume means that the specific words on those signs are prohibited by the FCC

Unlikely.
FCC wrote:
Do the FCC's rules apply to cable and satellite programming?

In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.

"Obscene" programming refers to pornography.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#17 Mar 02 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which Fox News were you watching? They certainly had footage of the signs today. Some were blurred out, which I assume means that the specific words on those signs are prohibited by the FCC

Unlikely.
FCC wrote:
Do the FCC's rules apply to cable and satellite programming?

In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.

"Obscene" programming refers to pornography.


Ok. What's the point here though? I've seen CNN, Fox, and MSNBC blur out words on signs during their news segments. Where do you suppose they get many of their video feeds?


I'm just amused by the nearly Pavlovian need to attack Fox for something which everyone else does too. Like I said. I watched a brief segment *today* on the same topic, on Fox, in which they showed the signs. Only a couple signs were blurred out. Unless you can think of some other reason why 15 signs would be completely visible and readable and one would be blurred out, I'm going to go with "something on that one sign violated some broadcast rule and was blurred".


Obviously, I don't know what it was, because it was blurred out. But I saw nothing unusual about the video on Fox compared to that on other stations.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#18 Mar 02 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The point is that the FCC doesn't make them blur signs. I thought that was obvious. Whoever "won't allow" it, it's not the FCC.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#19 Mar 02 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Demea
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
If ***** can march on Skokie, ******** can protest military funerals.

Not necessarily a good thing, but at the same time, it totally is.

Blech.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#20 Mar 02 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Debalic
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
This is excellent news. Can we go mob a WBC member's funeral?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#21 Mar 02 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The point is that the FCC doesn't make them blur signs. I thought that was obvious. Whoever "won't allow" it, it's not the FCC.


Where do they get their feed from Joph? Think the whole process through...

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 4:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#22 Mar 02 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Where do they get their feed from Joph?

Huh? You don't think FOX has their own cameras and their own satellites?

Hehehehe... I love it when you try and argue television with me. Always good for a laugh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#23 Mar 02 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49859742/WBC-SCOTUS-Opinion

Alito's dissent starts on page 23.

I just read it. To me it comes down to a central idea that the parents had more of a right to bury the kid in peace than the protesters had to express an idea. Not being able to locate the right to bury a child in peace in any constitutions or law codes dating back a couple thousand years, I think he's probably a little off base.


Yeah. If we leave the door open to excluding unkind, stupid public statements we're going to have to rewrite a lot of case law.

I'm pretty sure Alito was mostly taking the opportunity to let the Phelpses know they're aSSholes.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#24 Mar 02 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1719792988486
View User Forum
Sage
****
5,599 posts
Samira wrote:
I'm pretty sure Alito was mostly taking the opportunity to let the Phelpses know they're aSSholes.


Pretty much the best use for a dissent I've ever seen.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#25 Mar 02 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Default
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Where do they get their feed from Joph?

Huh? You don't think FOX has their own cameras and their own satellites?


Then why were they blurred? Do you really leap to the absurd assumption rather than the obvious?

Obvious: The feed is blurred because it's going to be used on both cable and broadcast network news and it's easier to just blur the feed in one editing pass.


Absurd: The feed is blurred because... well... it's Fox News, so we don't really know, but we'll insist that there's some silly reason involving Sarah Palin involved!


Lol. Are you kidding? What part of "think the whole process through" just sailed right past you?

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 6:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#26 Mar 02 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Then why were they blurred?

Because Fox chose to blur them because they decided those signs were too over the top. I don't think there's even a question of that. I was saying that when Fix News says they're "not allowed", that's really just a call they made internally. It has nothing to do with the FCC.

Quote:
Obvious: The feed is blurred because it's going to be used on both cable and broadcast network news and it's easier to just blur the feed in one editing pass.

As I said, you shouldn't try and talk television. Well... Hrm. I was going to say that having two different recordings (you seem to misunderstand what a 'feed' is here) is trivial but then this is the same network that you have to keep saying "I bet it was a wacky intern mistake/prank!" at least once or twice a year when they "accidentally" throw a (D) instead of a (R) in the text. Maybe it really is easier for them given how incompetent they are.

Quote:
we'll insist that there's some silly reason involving Sarah Palin involved!

Holy fuck. You actually took that seriously. I'm speechless.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 436 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (436)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC