DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**spravka.ua** · 02-03-2011, 07:43 PM

I think there should be consequences associated with freedom of speech. When someone purposely makes deadly, inflammatory comments or hate based demonstration or speech, there should be consequences.

Some words pronounced at some times (like hate words at the funeral of fallen soldiers, or hate words at the funeral of slain little girls) are as cruel and uncalled for as a physical assault on the parents of those victims, maybe even worse, as they never go away.

So, that sort of hateful, destructive speech should have the same consequences as (at least) a mild physical assault on the person.

There are consequences depending on the circumstances. The First Amendment's guarantee is not absolute and plenty types of speech related conduct are permitted to be banned and penalised.

There's no question these people are vile, disgusting cruel, hate filled shitbags. They've already announced that they will now 'quadruple' their picketing given the ruling, spewing their typical hatefulness in their statements of that intent.

Westboro Baptist Church to 'Quadruple' Military Funeral Protests After Supreme Court Ruling - ABC News

The SCOTUS pretty much nailed it in this summation:

. . . "Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder's funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro's choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case." (bolding added)

Snyder v. Phelps excerpt: Roberts's majority opinion in Westboro church case

This decision, however, doesn't mean that the Westboro people can do what they like regarding funerals. Governments can enact laws containing content-neutral 'time, place and manner' restrictions in generally applicable language that would regulate their activities and many have passed laws to do so. For example, such laws can keep picketers of funerals a reasonable distance away from a funeral so as to not disrupt it, set boundaries and requirements so that such picketers do not attempt to force its attendees to be a captive audience to their speech, etc. And again, we're talking public property here...nothing in this decision would give them any right to post their vile trash on a deceased person's online obituary on a privately owned website, etc.

02-03-2011, 07:43 PM	#34
spravka.ua Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 408 Senior Member	I think there should be consequences associated with freedom of speech. When someone purposely makes deadly, inflammatory comments or hate based demonstration or speech, there should be consequences. Some words pronounced at some times (like hate words at the funeral of fallen soldiers, or hate words at the funeral of slain little girls) are as cruel and uncalled for as a physical assault on the parents of those victims, maybe even worse, as they never go away. So, that sort of hateful, destructive speech should have the same consequences as (at least) a mild physical assault on the person. There are consequences depending on the circumstances. The First Amendment's guarantee is not absolute and plenty types of speech related conduct are permitted to be banned and penalised. There's no question these people are vile, disgusting cruel, hate filled shitbags. They've already announced that they will now 'quadruple' their picketing given the ruling, spewing their typical hatefulness in their statements of that intent. Westboro Baptist Church to 'Quadruple' Military Funeral Protests After Supreme Court Ruling - ABC News The SCOTUS pretty much nailed it in this summation: . . . "Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro's funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder's funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro's choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case." (bolding added) Snyder v. Phelps excerpt: Roberts's majority opinion in Westboro church case This decision, however, doesn't mean that the Westboro people can do what they like regarding funerals. Governments can enact laws containing content-neutral 'time, place and manner' restrictions in generally applicable language that would regulate their activities and many have passed laws to do so. For example, such laws can keep picketers of funerals a reasonable distance away from a funeral so as to not disrupt it, set boundaries and requirements so that such picketers do not attempt to force its attendees to be a captive audience to their speech, etc. And again, we're talking public property here...nothing in this decision would give them any right to post their vile trash on a deceased person's online obituary on a privately owned website, etc.
	Quote