DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 The Supremes decided that WBC is shielded from civil liability by the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, no less. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests Not sure I agree with this...they have a right to free speech, yes, but I question the idea that the First Amendment is intended to shield them from civil reprercussions of their actions. Oh, and WBC's response: "Praise the Lord [...] and thank god for dead soldiers!" I hate those inbred hicks.
RkFast Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) If I get into an altercation with a homosexual and during the course of the fight I utter the word "fag" I will get prosecuted for a hate crime. But these !@#$s can get away with their bull ****. Makes perfect sense, that. Edited March 2, 2011 by RkFast
erynthered Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Almost 8300 comments already. I have not read them all but I liked this one the best: Will the Supreme Court uphold us beating the tar outta them as merely the "pursuit of happiness"?
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 I hate everything about this group and then some. Too bad there's no Hell for them to end up in. Free speech is kind of important though...
UConn James Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 The Supremes decided that WBC is shielded from civil liability by the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, no less. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests Not sure I agree with this...they have a right to free speech, yes, but I question the idea that the First Amendment is intended to shield them from civil reprercussions of their actions. Oh, and WBC's response: "Praise the Lord [...] and thank god for dead soldiers!" I hate those inbred hicks. As Roberts noted, the ruling was narrow. Is there anything on why the parents chose an "emotional distress" suit over, say, defamation of character for a private individual/s? The FA doesn't protect libel. As it stands, as much as everyone hates it, this was the right decision based on the scope of the case. WBC was on public property, had a permit to demonstrate and no one was physically injured. Can't sue somebody just because they say cruel, stupid things. Now, please, somebody blow up the WBC already.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 It would be nice if the media stopped giving these backward-ass Jesus freaks so much attention whenever they decide to stage some controversial protest.
DC Tom Posted March 2, 2011 Author Posted March 2, 2011 I hate everything about this group and then some. Too bad there's no Hell for them to end up in. Free speech is kind of important though... If the SC had ruled strictly on it as a criminal matter, I'd agree unreservedly. But they specifically ruled that if someone invades your privacy with the intent to offend, you have no civil recourse against them. That's quite a bit more gray...in my opinion, it's a short step away from shielding people from slander or libel allegations on free speech grounds. This ruling effectively allows me to stand in front of your house and call you a Jew-baiting Nazi who wants to finish what Hitler started, and gives you absolutely no recourse to stop me on the grounds that I'm exercising my free speech rights in expressing a political opinion.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 This ruling effectively allows me to stand in front of your house and call you a Jew-baiting Nazi who wants to finish what Hitler started, and gives you absolutely no recourse to stop me on the grounds that I'm exercising my free speech rights in expressing a political opinion. Isn't that how things work in this country?
Peace Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 If the SC had ruled strictly on it as a criminal matter, I'd agree unreservedly. But they specifically ruled that if someone invades your privacy with the intent to offend, you have no civil recourse against them. That's quite a bit more gray...in my opinion, it's a short step away from shielding people from slander or libel allegations on free speech grounds. This ruling effectively allows me to stand in front of your house and call you a Jew-baiting Nazi who wants to finish what Hitler started, and gives you absolutely no recourse to stop me on the grounds that I'm exercising my free speech rights in expressing a political opinion. Probably not true in your example. Your expectation of privacy in your home is heightened. Out on the streets, it's less. So when you're driving to the funeral Mass at 7th and Chestnut, you have less of an expectation of privacy and these !@#$s can be out there making your life hell.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 If the SC had ruled strictly on it as a criminal matter, I'd agree unreservedly. But they specifically ruled that if someone invades your privacy with the intent to offend, you have no civil recourse against them. That's quite a bit more gray...in my opinion, it's a short step away from shielding people from slander or libel allegations on free speech grounds. This ruling effectively allows me to stand in front of your house and call you a Jew-baiting Nazi who wants to finish what Hitler started, and gives you absolutely no recourse to stop me on the grounds that I'm exercising my free speech rights in expressing a political opinion. It's preferable to the way things are done in England, which illustrates the other extreme.
....lybob Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 If the SC had ruled strictly on it as a criminal matter, I'd agree unreservedly. But they specifically ruled that if someone invades your privacy with the intent to offend, you have no civil recourse against them. That's quite a bit more gray...in my opinion, it's a short step away from shielding people from slander or libel allegations on free speech grounds. This ruling effectively allows me to stand in front of your house and call you a Jew-baiting Nazi who wants to finish what Hitler started, and gives you absolutely no recourse to stop me on the grounds that I'm exercising my free speech rights in expressing a political opinion. You don't have the right not to be offended by their douchebaggery - on the other hand they they don't have the right not to be surrounded by a huge gay pride make out session and Wicca worship service.
LeviF Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 You don't have the right not to be offended by their douchebaggery - on the other hand they they don't have the right not to be surrounded by a huge gay pride make out session and Wicca worship service. This reminds me... Some anti-gay, anti-catholic, anti-jewish guy (who is probably too tolerant for the WBC, to be honest) comes and holds up his sign on our college green once a year and screams bible verses from a megaphone. This year, a friend of mine got up in a white sheet, brown sash, and sandals like common portrayals of Jesus (he already looks the part a bit - long and straight brown hair, goatee; in fact, he looked a lot like this). He walked up to the dude in front of a large crowd, shook his hand, smiled a bit, and proceeded to call over another one of my male friends and heavily make out with him. I haven't laughed so much at someone's reaction in my life.
Bishop Hedd Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 The Supremes decided that WBC is shielded from civil liability by the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, no less. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests Not sure I agree with this...they have a right to free speech, yes, but I question the idea that the First Amendment is intended to shield them from civil reprercussions of their actions. Oh, and WBC's response: "Praise the Lord [...] and thank god for dead soldiers!" I hate those inbred hicks. As they should have. So obviously the right decision. I don't like them either but it's a free country.
whateverdude Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 You don't have the right not to be offended by their douchebaggery - on the other hand they they don't have the right not to be surrounded by a huge gay pride make out session and Wicca worship service. That would be assume and cosmically just
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Why can't people just ignore WBC? That is the one thing people are truly in control of?
meazza Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Why can't people just ignore WBC? That is the one thing people are truly in control of? Easy to say. How would you feel if you are at your loved ones funeral and a bunch of people are protesting. Very easy giving advice sitting in front of your laptop sipping a beer.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Easy to say. How would you feel if you are at your loved ones funeral and a bunch of people are protesting. Very easy giving advice sitting in front of your laptop sipping a beer. I figured somebody would comment with this exact reply. Easy. What would you want me to do? Get into a pissing contest? Of course not. Like I said... The only thing that one can control is the ability to ignore them. Why play into their hands with anything else. Of course that will take a lot of will power, but it is something that has to be done.
meazza Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I figured somebody would comment with this exact reply. Easy. What would you want me to do? Get into a pissing contest? Of course not. Like I said... The only thing that one can control is the ability to ignore them. Why play into their hands with anything else. Of course that will take a lot of will power, but it is something that has to be done. Which is something that isn`t exactly in full momentum when you`re at your childs funeral... Think man. I know that the best thing is to ignore them and be the bigger man. But there exists some level of human decency.
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I figured somebody would comment with this exact reply. Easy. What would you want me to do? Get into a pissing contest? Of course not. Like I said... The only thing that one can control is the ability to ignore them. Why play into their hands with anything else. Of course that will take a lot of will power, but it is something that has to be done. I wouldn't get into a pissing match but I sure as hell wouldn't ignore them. I'm the type to tell someone what I think of them.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I wouldn't get into a pissing match but I sure as hell wouldn't ignore them. I'm the type to tell someone what I think of them. I hope you do it with "respect and manners." ?? I sure would hate to see you contradict yourself.
Recommended Posts