Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
I can't find any mention of "hate speech" in the Bill of Rights. Please tell me where it is.
|
Mandy lives in South Africa.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
Phelps and his bunch seem to find this cause meaningful.
|
What 'cause'? To intentionally inflict pain through verbal abuse?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
You need to go over the case again, then. What the WBC is doing is proclaiming some right to free speech. It's a defense, nothing more. Their 'cause', their reason for what they do is purely to harrass and disrupt the solemnity of military funerals.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
The whole point of protesting is to create a public disturbance.
|
No, it is not. The primary 'point' of protesting is to protest, be it governmental action or against another group. Those that cause a disturbance seek to do so.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
And, in a free country, Phelps and his followers would have the right to do just that.
I still haven't seen how the "victim's" rights were violated.
I agree. But this only works if we have a rational definition of individual rights.
|
This suit was not about being offended. It was about the emotional distress that resulted from the presence and abusive actions of these lowlifes.
The victim's right to properly mourn and bury his son were violated. I find it ironic and really stupid that the same group that would decry everything that the military defends, including the right of free speech, would turn around and use the same laws they turn their backs on to try and make a defense for themselves by claiming 'free speech'.
That's like using the 'right to bear arms' as a defense for shooting your neighbor in the ass for being unhappy.