tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post1506021172438708106..comments2024-02-13T01:25:33.947-05:00Comments on The Gods Are Bored: Pesky First Amendment Issues, Alas!Anne Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15478513906953607043noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-82189302586720370112010-04-09T22:18:46.967-04:002010-04-09T22:18:46.967-04:00i hope you go see a dr about the shiplash..it can ...i hope you go see a dr about the shiplash..it can be peskier than you think...yellowdoggrannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14906624317290990109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-25764966714153316172010-04-09T12:16:06.889-04:002010-04-09T12:16:06.889-04:00Sott Eos -- Other countries, (I'm thinking of ...Sott Eos -- Other countries, (I'm thinking of Canada here) have different definitions of "Free Speech" than the US does, and they get along fine with their definition. They are not less free than we are, and it is possible to argue that they are more free because of using their definition of free speech. I might be inclined to agree with them that freedom to live trumps freedom to talk.kimchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14020798623317549440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-12013239340523265062010-04-09T10:26:13.243-04:002010-04-09T10:26:13.243-04:00Unfortunately I live in much closer proximity to t...Unfortunately I live in much closer proximity to the WBC than I care to. Their goal is not to convert people to their way of thinking (though Roeder of the women's clinic murder was a big fan of theirs and preaches their same bile for very different reasons). As a small fringe group their goal is to piss people off enough to be physically attacked and can therefore sue their "offender(s)" - Phelps and several of his spawn are/were attorneys. This is why they show up with their signs at those locations certain to cause the most emotional responses. It's not about "freedom of (hate) speech" - they are hoping that someone will attack them - or even better from their POV - one of the children holding their hate-filled signs. If someone does finally "lose it" their plan will succeed and they will cash in big. <br /><br />I truly cannot bear breathing the same air as these people. <br /><br />Thank you for not linking to their website and may I have peach a la mode?Pomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12294207351440999597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-83528103941993159922010-04-09T08:37:01.114-04:002010-04-09T08:37:01.114-04:00Sorry, but I disagree with any attempt to water-do...Sorry, but I disagree with any attempt to water-down our First Amendment rights. The fact that We the People have freedom, means that there will necessarily be instances where we are irritated by others exercising their freedoms, and we will likely, occasionally, irritate others as we exercise our freedoms (many Christians are 'irritated' that pagans get to exist at all). <br /><br />If you try to reduce the opportunities to irritate, or be irritated, you cannot help but reduce freedom. I know some corporations that would love to squelch the irritations of protesters. The RCC would probably love a law that protected churches and clergy from being irritated by embarrassing disclosures about child-rape.<br /><br />Nope, I'll side with freedom. And if Phelps wants to protest at my funeral, as much as that will suck for my loved ones, at least Phelps won't be doing something else, possibly something effective.sott'Eosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-31395916888793317122010-04-08T18:08:20.489-04:002010-04-08T18:08:20.489-04:00It won't necessarily fall in favor of WBC. The...It won't necessarily fall in favor of WBC. They first have to prove that their speech is "protected speech," like political speech. For instance, the First Amendment does not (this is a classic example) give you ther right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, if there is, in fact, no fire. Other non-protected speech is what is known as "fighting words," speech intended to provoke trouble. WBC's problem is that their actions can easily be interpreted to fall into this category, since the events they appear at are <b>not</b> public events, political events or even "religious" events. They are private services conducted for familes and friends. WBC's people are, arguably, uninvited guests who deliver "fighting words." This is not a legitimate means of protest, and the Supreme Court may well find this to be the case. I sincerely hope so. What the lower court was thinking is beyond me, because this looks like a no-brainer. By the way, if you've seen the WBC websites, like godhatesamerica.com, you may note that Fred Phelps (supposedly also an attorney) states that the Constitution is "Satanic." He is, in a word, a seditionist. I think this needs to get around more.Servitor Lucemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07792291004791974556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-26749375085049219392010-04-08T17:21:59.873-04:002010-04-08T17:21:59.873-04:00I have seen some of the counter-protest signs, and...I have seen some of the counter-protest signs, and they are classic.<br /><br />I know these WBC people won't read what I'm about to write, principally because they probably can't read at all. But Mr. Phelps, if you are reading this, I'll make it as simple as possible.<br /><br />Do not go to WV.Anne Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18083739996560380258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-26527654360668491032010-04-08T16:57:25.341-04:002010-04-08T16:57:25.341-04:00Sorry to hear about the whiplash. If the funeral p...Sorry to hear about the whiplash. If the funeral protest issue arose in Canada, I suspect our courts would handle it by recognizing the WBC's right to freedom of speech but balancing it by imposing a buffer zone of quite a few hundred feet or yards so that the WBC could not be so "in the face" of the mourners. A couple of decades ago, that's how they handled protesters at abortion clinics.Debra She Who Seekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01845703092794695023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-75768248974143713002010-04-08T16:04:37.546-04:002010-04-08T16:04:37.546-04:00I agree that the best use of Dada is in response t...I agree that the best use of Dada is in response to this kind of extreme hate. Ideally, there really is nothing more to say to them than, "No, God loves everyone. She told me so herself."<br /><br />But I fear that when they get to West Virginia to announce to everyone that the mine tragedy was caused by our acceptance of gay people, locals may have another reation.Yvonne Rathbonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04614194420076768577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-15837692839480539712010-04-08T15:50:26.785-04:002010-04-08T15:50:26.785-04:00Some of the anti-WBC protests are so beautiful (or...Some of the anti-WBC protests are so beautiful (or funny - google "anti-wbc protests" for some encouraging images) and that seems like the way to go about dealing with these people - with love or mockery. They have their free speech, but so do we and there are more of us then there are of them. I like my first amendment.<br /><br />That said, I'd have no problem with a "no unfriendly disruptions at religious observances" law as long as it was carefully worded and fairly enforced. A constitutional amendment seems a bit much. I wouldn't want to see restrictions on speech, but there's plenty of precedent for restrictions on behavior, and disrupting a funeral or a religous service is pretty terrible behavior, regardless of the message. <br /><br />Might be nice to throw "medical facilities" in there as well... but that would never fly, would it?nettlehttp://nettle.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12171673.post-74033282947803031792010-04-08T13:50:23.324-04:002010-04-08T13:50:23.324-04:00The really ironic thing is that soldiers are kille...The really ironic thing is that soldiers are killed in service to an authority (the US Gummint) who supports free speech, and thus in oen way "supporting" those who are protesting the funeral. I grant you they'd never accept that outlook and continue to trumpet their anti-gay messages, but still.<br /><br />I can't -immediately- think of a bad side to a Right to Decorum at funerals, but it doesn't ring 100% to me either, so I'd be wary of voting to provide such a thing Constitutionally. <br /><br />On a local level, however, Absolutely!! so the police can intervene in the same way yelling FIRE in a theater is disallowed. <br />Dissent can be allowed, but distraction and disruption shouldn't be. ...but then again there's that slippery slope of who defines that line in the sand?Maebiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15818255129828936381noreply@blogger.com