Originally posted by CM-Shazam
i agreewith you badabing. it seemed like adam poe was starting to grasp at straws and change the subject.
JIGGA-WHA? Legal whatnow?
Anyway, just because one doesn't agree with what someone is saying doesn't mean that someone doesn't have the right to say it.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Derp. Actually, Adam is right--gasp!--and is using legal precedence to support what he's saying.JIGGA-WHA? Legal whatnow?
Anyway, just because one doesn't agree with what someone is saying doesn't mean that someone doesn't have the right to say it.
In June of 1993 the United States Supreme court strongly endorsed the penalty enhancement approach and unanimously upheld Wisconsin's Hate Crime statute. This Supreme Court ruling was a milestone in the fight against hate crimes. It sends a clear and effective message warning those who would engage in criminal conduct motivated by bigotry (Hate Crimes, Paul A. Winters, 1996).
The Supreme Court has ruled that some forms of expression do not constitute free speech. These include "fighting words" obscenity, and liable. However, a majority of the Court held that even expression that is so offensive as to amount to "fighting words" cannot be prohibited if the prohibition is limited to only "fighting words" concerning certain topics.
Fighting words--are not protected under the First Amendment. Words which provoke a reasonable person to violence and by their very utterance inflict injury and breach of peace (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568,572(1942).
Originally posted by badabing
No rights are taken away, they are restricted in order to protect the rights of family and friends of fallen soldiers.
What about Freedom of Speech and Peaceable Assembly? No rights taken away, indeed.
Originally posted by badabing
Again, laws are set up to protect people from groups who would impede on the privacy, well being or quality of life for others.
One has no expectation of privacy in public.
Originally posted by badabing
Also, lawmakers are smart enough to realize that violence could easily break out on an emotional stage such as a funeral. The Government and Law Enforcement also have a duty to protect the peace and well being of American Citizens.
Clearly, black Americans should not have been allowed to protest segregation laws during the 1960s because "violence could easily break out."
Originally posted by badabing
As far as the 1967 ruling, I'm assuming the you are referring to the Loving vs Virginia ruling which overturned the ban on interracial marriage which was used as precedent for overturning the "Texas Homosexual Conduct" law in January of 2003. Are you really trying to bring moral equivalence between protesters who claim that U.S. military deaths in Iraq are a sign of divine punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuals and the choices Citizens make in their personal life?
No, I am illustrating that the Supreme Court routinely overturns laws that are unconstitutional despite popular opinion.
Originally posted by CM-Shazam
i found bada's evidence more convincing. here's more from the supreme court.In June of 1993 the United States Supreme court strongly endorsed the penalty enhancement approach and unanimously upheld Wisconsin's Hate Crime statute. This Supreme Court ruling was a milestone in the fight against hate crimes. It sends a clear and effective message warning those who would engage in criminal conduct motivated by bigotry (Hate Crimes, Paul A. Winters, 1996).
(Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568,572(1942). [/B]
The Supreme Court has ruled that some forms of expression do not constitute free speech. These include "fighting words" obscenity, and liable. However, a majority of the Court held that even expression that is so offensive as to amount to "fighting words" cannot be prohibited if the prohibition is limited to only "fighting words" concerning certain topics.
[B]Fighting words--are not protected under the First Amendment. Words which provoke a reasonable person to violence and by their very utterance inflict injury and breach of peace
Those who argue for speech codes contend that hate speech is akin to "fighting words," a category of expression that does not receive First Amendment protection.
However, a federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, "Since the elements of the UW Rule do not require that the regulated speech, by its very utterance, tend to incite violent reaction, the rule goes beyond the present scope of the fighting words doctrine."
In other words, hate speech does not qualify as fighting words as it does not incite an immediate violent response.
The court also rejected the rational of the defenders of the speech code that the code was necessary to stop discriminatory harassment:
"This commitment to free expression must be unwavering, because there exist many situations where, in the short run, it appears advantageous to limit speech to solve pressing social problems, such as discriminatory harassment. If a balancing approach is applied, these pressing and tangible short run concerns are likely to outweigh the more amorphous and long run benefits of free speech. However, the suppression of speech, even where the speech’s content appears to have little value and great costs, amounts to governmental thought control."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Those who argue for speech codes contend that hate speech is akin to "fighting words," a category of expression that does not receive First Amendment protection.However, a federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, "Since the elements of the UW Rule do not require that the regulated speech, by its very utterance, tend to incite violent reaction, the rule goes beyond the present scope of the fighting words doctrine."
In other words, hate speech does not qualify as fighting words as it does not incite an immediate violent response.
The court also rejected the rational of the defenders of the speech code that the code was necessary to stop discriminatory harassment:
"This commitment to free expression must be unwavering, because there exist many situations where, in the short run, it appears advantageous to limit speech to solve pressing social problems, such as discriminatory harassment. If a balancing approach is applied, these pressing and tangible short run concerns are likely to outweigh the more amorphous and long run benefits of free speech. However, the suppression of speech, even where the speech’s content appears to have little value and great costs, amounts to governmental thought control."
dude, the supreme court is above federal court. it's your opinion that the protesters aren't using fighting words. come back with a decision or precedent that's above the supreme court, oh wait, you can't. dude, you lost .
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What about Freedom of Speech and Peaceable Assembly? No rights taken away, indeed.
They are able to protest, just not during the funeral or within 300 feet. The fact that these protesters are saying that the "American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people" puts these protests in the hate speech category.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One has no expectation of privacy in public.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Clearly, black Americans should not have been allowed to protest segregation laws during the 1960s because "violence could easily break out."
Again, there is no moral equivalence between those protests and protesting Military Funerals. The funeral protesters are saying military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people. This is hate speech of a minority group and not minority group protesting their rights. No correlation.
In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment exception for "fighting words", which it described as "those which by their very utterance [1] inflict injury or [2] tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." In the decades since this 1940 decision, the Court has limited its effects to the most challenging and confrontational of words spoken in a face to face encounter and likely to lead to immediate fighting.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, I am illustrating that the Supreme Court routinely overturns laws that are unconstitutional despite popular opinion.
Really, this has been the law of the land for a while. The Supreme Court has already ruled on hate speech and fighting words. The fact that these protesters are saying that the "American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people" puts these protests in the hate speech category. You can bloviate and opine but it's the law of the land.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What about Freedom of Speech and Peaceable Assembly? No rights taken away, indeed.One has no expectation of privacy in public.
Clearly, black Americans should not have been allowed to protest segregation laws during the 1960s because "violence could easily break out."
No, I am illustrating that the Supreme Court routinely overturns laws that are unconstitutional despite popular opinion.
dude, "peaceable asembly"???? the smashed the window of the family's car and promote death as a god's punishment for sinners. how is this in any way peceable??? and as mentioned between 30 and 40 times already on this thread, words that evoke violent actions are not protected by the constitution. Finally, i have to ask how you can possibly justify your tasteless and irrelevent comparison between these sadists and oppressed peaceful african americans. yeah martin luther king really promoted the same values she does. totally the same situation
liable
Pronunciation: (lî'u-bul), [key]
—adj.
1. legally responsible: You are liable for the damage caused by your action.
2. subject or susceptible: to be liable to heart disease.
3. likely or apt: He's liable to get angry.
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/liable
libel [ lÇ|b'l ]
noun (plural li¡Pbels)
Definition:
1. defamation: a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody's reputation. Libel can include pictures and any other representations that have public or permanent form.
2. attacking of somebody's reputation: the making of false and damaging statements about somebody
3. written statement: the plaintiff's written statement in a case under admiralty law or in an ecclesiastical court
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/libel.html
I report, you decide.
Originally posted by badabing
They are able to protest, just not during the funeral or within 300 feet. The fact that these protesters are saying that the "American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people" puts these protests in the hate speech category.
Very much so. And not to mention that Protesting on Funeral Grounds is a major Violation of Privacy, and Instigation. To protest with hateful propaganda right in front of the family whose relative died, is just asking for a brawl.
When Speech can cause social endangerment, it is also unconstitutional. Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and some extemist liberals/and extremist conservatives on this forum don't seem to get that.
Originally posted by badabing
The Federal Government has the right to protect the sanctity of all 122 of its national cemeteries as shrines and to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion.
Yes 👆 Protests should be taken elsewhere. It's fine to protest against having funerals, but NOT on funeral property. Anyway, it's futile. Everyone has the right to thier own funeral, even Soldiers, and to deny them a funeral is Un-American, not to mention inhumane.
Originally posted by badabing
Again, there is no moral equivalence between those protests and protesting Military Funerals. The funeral protesters are saying military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people. This is hate speech of a minority group and not minority group protesting their rights. No correlation.
This is definately Hate Speech. Freedom of Speech does not protect hate speech or speech that causes endangerment to a large # of people.
Originally posted by badabing
In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment exception for "fighting words", which it described as "those which by their very utterance [1] inflict injury or [2] tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." In the decades since this 1940 decision, the Court has limited its effects to the most challenging and confrontational of words spoken in a face to face encounter and likely to lead to immediate fighting.
Not only are anti-gay sentiments likely to cause immediate fighting, but to protest right at funerals, right in front of loved ones of the lately deceased is going to far.
There are other ways to protest, and doing it this way is unconstitutional and dangerous, not to mention cruel.
Originally posted by badabing
Really, this has been the law of the land for a while. The Supreme Court has already ruled on hate speech and fighting words. The fact that these protesters are saying that the "American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people" puts these protests in the hate speech category. You can bloviate and opine but it's the law of the land.
Some people on thos forum will never get it though. There are some idiots on this thread who think that Freedom of Speech is Absolute, and think in Anarchy-type ways. Others who defend thier unconstitutional protests, feel it is thier obligation to uphold religious doctrine, even to that extreme, and that's absurd.
Originally posted by CM-Shazam
In June of 1993 the United States Supreme court strongly endorsed the penalty enhancement approach and unanimously upheld Wisconsin's Hate Crime statute. This Supreme Court ruling was a milestone in the fight against hate crimes. It sends a clear and effective message warning those who would engage in criminal conduct motivated by bigotry (Hate Crimes, Paul A. Winters, 1996).
The Supreme Court has ruled that some forms of expression do not constitute free speech. These include "fighting words" obscenity, and liable. However, a majority of the Court held that even expression that is so offensive as to amount to "fighting words" cannot be prohibited if the prohibition is limited to only "fighting words" concerning certain topics.
Fighting words--are not protected under the First Amendment. Words which provoke a reasonable person to violence and by their very utterance inflict injury and breach of peace.dude, the supreme court is above federal court. it's your opinion that the protesters aren't using fighting words. come back with a decision or precedent that's above the supreme court, oh wait, you can't. dude, you lost .
Dude, a federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
Originally posted by badabing
They are able to protest, just not during the funeral or within 300 feet. The fact that these protesters are saying that the "American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people" puts these protests in the hate speech category.
A federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
Originally posted by badabing
The Federal Government has the right to protect the sanctity of all 122 of its national cemeteries as shrines and to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion.
When did the "sanctity" of the cemetaries of this nation become paramount to the principles it is founded on?
Originally posted by badabing
Again, there is no moral equivalence between those protests and protesting Military Funerals. The funeral protesters are saying military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people. This is hate speech of a minority group and not minority group protesting their rights. No correlation.
I did not state that the instances are morally equivocal. I am simply illustrating that the First Amendment rights of a group of people should not be restricted because of the possibility that the exercise thereof may result in violence.
Moreover, it is becoming increasingly evident that you simply wish to silence a group who you do not like, whose message you do not like, and whose means you find distasteful.
Originally posted by badabing
In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment exception for "fighting words", which it described as "those which by their very utterance [1] inflict injury or [2] tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." In the decades since this 1940 decision, the Court has limited its effects to the most challenging and confrontational of words spoken in a face to face encounter and likely to lead to immediate fighting.
A federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words as it does not incite an immediate violent response.
Originally posted by badabing
Really, this has been the law of the land for a while. The Supreme Court has already ruled on hate speech and fighting words. The fact that these protesters are saying that the "American military deaths are God's retribution for tolerance of gay people" puts these protests in the hate speech category. You can bloviate and opine but it's the law of the land.
A federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin that hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
Originally posted by Rapscallion
dude, "peaceable asembly"???? the smashed the window of the family's car and promote death as a god's punishment for sinners. how is this in any way peceable???
Who vandalized a car?
Originally posted by Rapscallion
and as mentioned between 30 and 40 times already on this thread, words that evoke violent actions are not protected by the constitution.
As has been mentioned several times in this thread, hate speech does not qualify as fighting words.
Originally posted by Rapscallion
Finally, i have to ask how you can possibly justify your tasteless and irrelevent comparison between these sadists and oppressed peaceful african americans. yeah martin luther king really promoted the same values she does. totally the same situation
How can you justify restricting the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of group of Americans simply because you do not like them? That makes you no different than the people Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. protested against.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Very much so. And not to mention that Protesting on Funeral Grounds is a major Violation of Privacy, and Instigation. To protest with hateful propaganda right in front of the family whose relative died, is just asking for a brawl.When Speech can cause social endangerment, it is also unconstitutional. Freedom of Speech is not absolute, and some extemist liberals/and extremist conservatives on this forum don't seem to get that.
Yes 👆 Protests should be taken elsewhere. It's fine to protest against having funerals, but NOT on funeral property. Anyway, it's futile. Everyone has the right to thier own funeral, even Soldiers, and to deny them a funeral is Un-American, not to mention inhumane.
This group is not protesting on the grounds of a private cemetary, they are protesting on public property directly in front of it.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This is definately Hate Speech. Freedom of Speech does not protect hate speech or speech that causes endangerment to a large # of people.
The First Amendment certainly does protect hate speech.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not only are anti-gay sentiments likely to cause immediate fighting, but to protest right at funerals, right in front of loved ones of the lately deceased is going to far.There are other ways to protest, and doing it this way is unconstitutional and dangerous, not to mention cruel.
A federal court ruled in the case of UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin that hate speech does not incite an immediate violent response.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Some people on thos forum will never get it though. There are some idiots on this thread who think that Freedom of Speech is Absolute, and think in Anarchy-type ways. Others who defend thier unconstitutional protests, feel it is thier obligation to uphold religious doctrine, even to that extreme, and that's absurd.
There are some idiots in this thread that believe it is acceptable to restrict the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of a group of people whom they do not like. It may be a group you do not like today, but what happens when it is a group you belong to tomorrow?