When free speech isnt free

[CptStern]

The Supreme Court struggled Wednesday to find a constitutional balance between free speech and privacy in a case involving provocative anti-homosexual protests by a small church at the funeral of a soldier who died in Iraq.

Members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church protested outside the court, while inside one of their members argued they have the right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars.

But the lawyer for the fallen Marine's father argued those protests are an invasion of privacy and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"[Justice] Brandeis said the right to be let alone was the most important, and so he must have been thinking there could be a tort [lawsuit] there for interference with privacy," said Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking for many of his colleagues. "And emotional injury, deliberately inflicted, could be one. ... But I see that in some instances that could be abused to prevent somebody from getting out a public message, and therefore, I'm looking for a line."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/washington.free.speech.trial/index.html?hpt=T1

the court is basically saying privacy laws should trump the right to freedom of speech however that could be used as a tool of censorship so they're trying to find a balance that will shut the crazies up but not infringe on their right to free speech


so what think you hl2.net menz?

should the right to privacy trump the freedom of speech in this case?

 

[No Limit]

Lol, really? They are going to argue the most important thing is the right to privacy after all the shit our government has pulled since 9/11?

I think these idiots have every right to protest and preach whatever message they want to on public property. If a funeral is on public property they have a right to protest it.

 

[Mr Stabby]

They should have the right to protest on public land.

I still hope every member of the westboro baptist church dies of AIDS.

 

[Krynn72]

Hard to say. I think our private lives are much too public here in the US, and that we should be able to live our lives without harassment (I think of celebrities and paparazzi) just because "hurrr free speech lol."

But I don't think privacy should trump free speech. I think there should be efforts made to keep the public out of people's private lives, but free speech should still be held higher than right to privacy in general. I would like to see a revisit on the subject of what things constitute people's actions being public or private. I don't think it works well at all the way it is written now. I don't like that anything done in a public area is considered a public event of sorts.

In this case with the Wesboro Church and the funeral, I think privacy should protect the family from harassment. I don't see much of an argument for the funeral being a public event, despite it being in a public place. Just like I don't see how celebrities out shopping is a public event, even if its in a public place. I don't think people should be allowed to harass them, shove microphones into their face, take photos and videos, and publish articles in magazines just because they wanted to buy a new jacket.

 

[CptStern]

they dont really have a right to free speech as they have to get permission to protest the funerals otherwise it's disturbing the peace


also free speech isnt free when it's incitement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v_ohio

 

[No Limit]

they dont really have a right to free speech as they have to get permission to protest the funerals otherwise it's disturbing the peace

I think that's dumb too. Free speech zones are one of the most absurd ideas in our democracy.

also free speech isnt free when it's incitement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v_ohio

But they aren't really inciting anything. They are simply saying "God hates fags". They aren't saying "grab your guns and kill some fags".

 

[CptStern]

I think that's dumb too. Free speech zones are one of the most absurd ideas in our democracy.

not the same thing. a group that plans to protest need to obtain a permit or else face disturbing the peace laws and loitering laws

But they aren't really inciting anything. They are simply saying "God hates fags". They aren't saying "grab your guns and kill some fags".

it doesnt have to be that clear cut

It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

so if someone at the protest later attacks a homosexual the protest, or what was said during the protest could be used against the organisers of the protest or the people uttering the inflammatory words

 

[Wanted Bob]

I really, really hate these protests, but I worry about redefining free speech as it will probably leave more loopholes for people to exploit.

Basically my answer is: I would like the right to privacy to trump the right to free speech in situations like this, but knowing how people would abuse this I dont think it would be the right move to change it.

 

[Robbo]

I would like the right to privacy to trump the right to free speech in situations like this, but knowing how people would abuse this I dont think it would be the right move to change it.

Surely common sense should prevail in a situation like this, it's a funeral why cant the police move these people away from it?
Just because you tell people to go protest somewhere more appropriate does not mean youre taking away their right to free speech, especially in this situation where they get their message across anyway. If abuse of power is the problem then create guidelines as to what situations should be protected from simpletons with protest signs..... ie. funerals!

Surely it's possible to let these people protest but move them away from a grieving family without taking away their right to free speech.

 

[Stigmata]

Unfortunately common sense is neither common nor legislatable. I wish it were that easy.

 

[Tagaziel]

Lol, really? They are going to argue the most important thing is the right to privacy after all the shit our government has pulled since 9/11?

I think these idiots have every right to protest and preach whatever message they want to on public property. If a funeral is on public property they have a right to protest it.

They should have the right to protest on public land.

I still hope every member of the westboro baptist church dies of AIDS.

I assume you two wouldn't have a problem with nutjobs screaming and generally making a ruckus during the burial of someone from your family?

 

[Solaris]

They shouldn't be allowed to protest at small, non-political funerals.

Edit: Also, why haven't any of these people been shot yet?

 

[ríomhaire]

I think there should be a law that anyone who protests at a funeral should be sentenced to be punched in the face.

 

[No Limit]

not the same thing. a group that plans to protest need to obtain a permit or else face disturbing the peace laws and loitering laws

But then that's not really a protest, is it?

it doesnt have to be that clear cut

so if someone at the protest later attacks a homosexual the protest, or what was said during the protest could be used against the organisers of the protest or the people uttering the inflammatory words

If you get to limit speech because of something someone that hears that speech might do you are opening up quite the can of worms. If code pink goes to washington and calls Bush a killer you can certainly make the argument that someone might hear that and try to kill Bush. Should code pink not be able to make these statements then? How about when O'Reilly calls Tiller a baby killer. Someone did kill Tiller for that, should O'Reilly be help criminally liable for that?

There is a lot of speech in this country I don't like, and a lot of speech that probably does lead to violance even if it doesn't directly advocate it. But I don't think it can be regulated, because then the question becomes who gets to regulate it.

I assume you two wouldn't have a problem with nutjobs screaming and generally making a ruckus during the burial of someone from your family?

I would have a problem with that. And I would probably need bail for assult charges at that point. But I have a much bigger problem with government telling me what I can and can not say.

 

[CptStern]

But then that's not really a protest, is it?

protests are never spur of the moment events. that would be a riot ...they need time to paint their signs and

If you get to limit speech because of something someone that hears that speech might do you are opening up quite the can of worms. If code pink goes to washington and calls Bush a killer you can certainly make the argument that someone might hear that and try to kill Bush. Should code pink not be able to make these statements then? How about when O'Reilly calls Tiller a baby killer. Someone did kill Tiller for that, should O'Reilly be help criminally liable for that?

not sure who Tiller or code pink are. in any event it's already a limitation of free speech. we have something similiar in canada that's constitutionally (our charter of rights) except it adds in hate crime

There is a lot of speech in this country I don't like, and a lot of speech that probably does lead to violance even if it doesn't directly advocate it. But I don't think it can be regulated, because then the question becomes who gets to regulate it.

it already is, yelling fire in a theatre, incitement to violence etc. it's up to the courts to prove it doesnt infringe on free speech on a case by case basis



I would have a problem with that. And I would probably need bail for assult charges at that point. But I have a much bigger problem with government telling me what I can and can not say.[/QUOTE]

They shouldn't be allowed to protest at small, non-political funerals.

you straddle the line between quasi liberal and hardliner conservative with ease solaris. do you believe in a freedom of assembly? because that's a pretty big part of democracy

and they could argue a funeral of soldier KIA is a political funeral. also I dont see what size has to do with it


look what you made me do solaris; defend shitty religious lunatics

 

[No Limit]

protests are never spur of the moment events. that would be a riot

Yes, but asking the men for permission to protest isn't really a protest, I wouldn't think.

not sure who Tiller or code pink are. in any event it's already a limitation of free speech. we have something similiar in canada that's constitutionally (our charter of rights) except it adds in hate crime

I forgot his first name and didn't feel like looking it up earlier, it's George Tiller who did late term abortions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller

Bill O'Reilly constantly called him Tiller the baby killer and said he was running death mills for babies. Then someone went out and shot and killed him. Should O'Reilly be held liable for that? Who gets to decide?

Code pink are these people:

Popular for showing up at events of Bush officials with blood on their hands. The argument could easily be made they incite violance by doing this.

it already is, yelling fire in a theatre, incitement to violence etc. it's up to the courts to prove it doesnt infringe on free speech on a case by case basis

Yes, but saying god hates fags is not the same asa yelling fire in a crowded theater or inciting violance. If you make the argument that it can incite violance then that can be used against virtually all political speech.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, but asking the men for permission to protest isn't really a protest, I wouldn't think.

but this is no different than Colbert getting a permit to hold a protest/rally ie restore sanity

I forgot his first name and didn't feel like looking it up earlier, it's George Tiller who did late term abortions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller

Bill O'Reilly constantly called him Tiller the baby killer and said he was running death mills for babies. Then someone went out and shot and killed him. Should O'Reilly be held liable for that? Who gets to decide?

the court does. and yes ..if it can be proved that o'reilly personally incited that person to violence. that's how it works in the US

Code pink are these people:

Popular for showing up at events of Bush officials with blood on their hands. The argument could easily be made they incite violance by doing this.

what you're suggesting is advocating violence (although the code pink people arent advocating violence) it has to be direct incitement for it to be unlawful. I gave an example of this in the case I posted earlier:

"In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government, holding that government cannot constitutionally prohibit advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

In particular, it overruled Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence."

Yes, but saying god hates fags is not the same asa yelling fire in a crowded theater or inciting violance. If you make the argument that it can incite violance then that can be used against virtually all political speech.

I didnt say they were inciting violence. in fact that's not the angle the court is taking in deciding whether or not their right to free speech trumps someone's right to privacy

 

[No Limit]

but this is no different than Colbert getting a permit to hold a protest/rally ie restore sanity

But I'm saying he shouldn't need to get that permit.

the court does. and yes ..if it can be proved that o'reilly personally incited that person to violence. that's how it works in the US

How do you prove that? He never said go kill George Tiller, he simply said he was a baby killer and was running death mills.

what you're suggesting is advocating violence (although the code pink people arent advocating violence) it has to be direct incitement for it to be unlawful. I gave an example of this in the case I posted earlier:

I'm not a lawyer and I have no interest in discussing court cases. Clearly the KKK can still preach their hate freely as they still do. Yes, I agree, Code Pink does not incite violance, neither did O'Reilly. And neither did the "God Hates Fags" idiots.

I didnt say they were inciting violence. in fact that's not the angle the court is taking in deciding whether or not their right to free speech trumps someone's right to privacy

But the argument that the right to privacy trumps free speech is absolutely absurd when you look at all the court rulings in this country allowing the government to spy on us.

If it is a matter of privacy does that now mean if Bush goes out for a walk in public places people don't have a right to gather and protest? Or when Rove speaks at a public event?

 

[CptStern]

But I'm saying he shouldn't need to get that permit.

that would lead to chaos every single time some group wanted to protest something. tie up traffic cause a disturbance of the peace etc. you cannot have a demonstration or an event in a public place at any time without a permit; it doesnt matter if that demonstration is actually a protest or a huge wedding party taking wedding pics in the middle of traffic

How do you prove that? He never said go kill George Tiller, he simply said he was a baby killer and was running death mills.

well that's not inciting violence then

I'm not a lawyer and I have no interest in discussing court cases. Clearly the KKK can still preach their hate freely as they still do. Yes, I agree, Code Pink does not incite violance, neither did O'Reilly. And neither did the "God Hates Fags" idiots.

I know. they're not arguing that. they're arguing that they disturbed the peace. The judges are contemplating whether an exception to freedom of speech can be made in this case. also freedom of speech doesnt allow people to say whatever they want

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

But the argument that the right to privacy trumps free speech is absolutely absurd when you look at all the court rulings in this country allowing the government to spy on us.

that's not related. the right to privacy in this case is in the public sphere or in other words just how much is enough privacy in a open area with people shouting obscentities from across the street

If it is a matter of privacy does that now mean if Bush goes out for a walk in public places people don't have a right to gather and protest? Or when Rove speaks at a public event?

I'm sure Rove would need a permit

and no people dont have a right to gather around bush as he's walking down the street. I mean they could try but they also run the risk of being arrested for loitering, disturbance of the peace, GWBush's right to privacy etc

 

[No Limit]

what? come on man that would lead to chaos every single time some group wanted to protest something. tie up traffic cause a disturbance of the peace etc. you cannot have a demonstration or an event in a public place at any time without a permit; it doesnt matter if that demonstration is actually a protest or a huge wedding party taking wedding pics in the middle of traffic

I understand that and there has to be some balance. I'm not totally sure how you make it work. But if you are protesting against the government, and it is the government that gets to decide wether you can have that protest or not, well that makes no sense. Blocking traffic you should need a permit for, but holding protest signs on a public side walk? Absolutely not.

well that's not inciting violence then


I know. they're not arguing that. they're arguing that they disturbed the peace

Ok, I think we agree on this part.

that's not related. the right to privacy in this case is in the public sphere or in other words just how much is enough privacy in a open area with people shouting obscentities from across the street


I'm sure Rove would need a permit

and no people dont have a right to gather around bush as he's walking down the street. I mean they could try but they also run the risk of being arrested for loitering, disturbance of the peace, GWBush's right to privacy etc

So if I see Bush walking down the street I don't have the right to yell "You suck balls you mother****er!"? Why not? If Rove speaks at a public event I don't have a right to protest that? Do the paparazzi not have a legal right to do what they do?

And I think the fact the courts allow government to spy on us has everything to do with this. They are saying that your right to privacy (which isn't specifically spelled out in the constitution) trumps your right to free speech (which is spelled out in the constitution). Since they don't have a very high regard for your right to privacy already then clearly that means freedom of speech isn't worth jack shit either.

 

[CptStern]

I understand that and there has to be some balance. I'm not totally sure how you make it work. But if you are protesting against the government, and it is the government that gets to decide wether you can have that protest or not, well that makes no sense. Blocking traffic you should need a permit for, but holding protest signs on a public side walk? Absolutely not.

but the people using that sidewalk have a right to peace. if I hang out on the sidewalk and yell I run the risk of beign arrested for disturbing the peace

So if I see Bush walking down the street I don't have the right to yell "You suck balls you mother****er!"? Why not?

sure you do. as long as it doesnt fall under the term obcentity (see Miller test)

If Rove speaks at a public event I don't have a right to protest that? Do the paparazzi not have a legal right to do what they do?

yes and no. the paparazzi can be arrested for loitering or disturbing the peace. and you also can be arrested for disturbing the peace/loitering if you protest Rove's event. It's usually up to the police officers at the scene whether they want to press charges or not

And I think the fact the courts allow government to spy on us has everything to do with this. They are saying that your right to privacy (which isn't specifically spelled out in the constitution) trumps your right to free speech (which is spelled out in the constitution). Since they don't have a very high regard for your right to privacy already then clearly that means freedom of speech isn't worth jack shit either.

they're not saying it trumps free speech because the judge is pretty clear that that could lead to censorship. what they're saying is that they're struggling to find a justification that will allow them to bar the phelps clan from these sort of events

 

[TwwIX]

The only reason why these bigots are still around is because they end up getting their asses kicked by the people they are "protesting" and winning the cases. Instead of attacking them, do this instead
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dl5ol/i_hope_this_may_help_some_of_you_since_i_see_it/