Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandy
This has got nothing to do with being mean or breakups or religion for that matter. what this is people is HATE SPEECH. and in our bill of rights it states that freedom of expression/speech/religion is not prohibited as long as it doesnt amount to hate speech or incite violence, because that is in fact illegal and in fact can even amount to jail time.
|
I can't find any mention of "hate speech" in the Bill of Rights. Please tell me where it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mandy
you can protest, you can picket, you can march, you can demonstrate but do it for a cause that is meaningful.
|
Phelps and his bunch seem to find this cause meaningful.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
The overly dramatic sentiment expressed in the thread title notwithstanding, the opening post isn't telling me anything other than you disagree with the court finding. That doesn't really give me any indication of why you find it disagreeable (on what terms) or why you feel like the award of money is akin to the outright criminalization of protesting.
|
I find this court ruling apalling because of my concern for the individual right to protest that which one may find objectionable. And why I feel the ruling is a threat to the right to protest should be pretty obvious: How many people/organizations out there have millions of dollars they can afford to throw away due to bullshit lawsuits? If (or when) this lawsuit becomes a precedent for others, financial ruin will be used as a weapon to discourage protests.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
There's a huge difference between protesting something and intentionally trying to cause emotional distress by way of a public disturbance.
|
The whole point of protesting is to create a public disturbance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
Other things of importance, besides that of the right to protest, are the right to personal privacy, a basic level of respect, and the ability to live without persecution.
|
You don't have a right to privacy except when on private property. And if you turn on your TV, turn on your radio, open a magazine or go outside, you are doing so with the knowledge that you may see or hear things you find objectionable. We don't have a right to be shielded from things that may offend us.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
Phelps' organization is spreading his message of hate by protesting homosexuality under the dubious guise of religious freedom and freedom of speech. Their actions are disgusting both in intention and execution. They are using the high-profile and sensitive nature of the burial of fallen soldiers to gain the maximum amount of media attention by way of intentional outrage.
|
And, in a free country, Phelps and his followers would have the right to do just that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
And you know what? Even if we took a step back and thought the impossible- that their intentions are true and they're NOT just doing it this way because it will garner the best possible attention- the rights of one person to protest do not automatically trump the rights of another to peaceably observe over the proceedings of a private funeral, most especially when the protest exists solely to slander the party involved and cause a disruption to the proceedings, which themselves are frequently going to be religious observations.
|
I still haven't seen how the "victim's" rights were violated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
The bottom line is, rights do not trump or rule each other, they work with each other to attempt to guarantee the most liberty and freedom to each person without interfering with guaranteeing the same for anyone else.
|
I agree. But this only works if we have a rational definition of individual rights.