Funeral Protestors...:(

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

.
Funeral protesters make their case in and outside Supreme Court
– Wed Oct 6, 9:56 pm ET
By LAURA E. DAVIS
Yahoo! News

They showed up today with their signs — signs with messages like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates You." The controversial slogans were part of what brought the infamous Phelps family to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on the day the family appeared inside the courthouse, those signs were on display in front of the building's grand steps.

More than two hours before the proceedings began, about 10 members of the Westboro Baptist Church — followers and family members of Pastor Fred Phelps — lined the sidewalk along One First Street, demonstrating in front of the highest court in the land, much as they do regularly at military funerals and other public events. They say they are expressing their belief that soldiers' deaths are part of America's punishment for its immorality, including tolerance of abortion and homosexuality.

They're often met at those funerals by counterprotesters, and Wednesday morning was no exception.

With temperatures in the 50s, a young man stood wearing only black underwear, sneakers and sunglasses, his lips shivering in the fall chill, waving his own sign: "Fred Phelps wishes he were hot like me!"

"I think it's important to exercise my First Amendment right to stand out here in my underwear," explained Sam Garrett, 18, a freshman at George Washington University, who was there with his friend and boyfriend of one month.

Even with their attention-getting signs, the dueling picketers did not get out of control — no shouting, no chanting. Garrett posed for photos; demonstrators in both camps easily chatted with the press. But the outrageous activity on both sides was perhaps the perfect backdrop to a potentially groundbreaking legal decision about free speech.

Inside, the nine Supreme Court Justices heard the oral arguments for Snyder v. Phelps, a difficult and highly charged case stemming from a Phelps/Westboro protest at the March 2006 funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Md. Cpl. Snyder died in Iraq and was not gay, yet Phelps and some of his family members showed up to protest with their signs. They did not violate any local ordinances and stayed a certain distance away.

Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, sued the fundamentalist church for emotional distress, among other things, in the aftermath, raising the question of where to draw the line between free speech and harassment. A jury awarded Snyder $10.9 million in damages, which a judge later reduced to $5 million. But an appeals court overturned the verdict on First Amendment grounds, saying the Phelpses' speech was protected because it wasn't based in fact and was about issues of public concern.

A surprise spectator created a bit of a buzz before the argument began -- retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was spotted; she was there with some of the alumni from the law school named after her, perched quietly to the side of the bench where she used to sit -- but a sober atmosphere prevailed once the arguments began.


Even Margie Phelps, daughter of Fred and his lawyer in this case, was soft-spoken and tame before the justices. Behind sleek glasses with thick black rims, she spoke of a "little church" merely wanting to express its views on public issues. (She did sing a hymn with the church group outside afterward — inexplicably to the tune of Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train.")

All the justices save for Clarence Thomas, who hasn't asked a question at oral argument in more than four years, piped into the discussion, often presenting hypothetical situations to the lawyers on both sides, as they tried to derive an opinion about whether or not expressions like the Phelpses' should be allowed under the law.

Justice Samuel Alito offered a scenario where a grandmother raises a boy who becomes a soldier in Iraq and dies there. The grandmother goes alone to visit her grandson's grave, and on her way home she is waiting for a bus and is harassed by someone who says he is glad her grandson died and wished he were there to see it.


Should the First Amendment protect protests at military funerals?



"Now, is that protected by the First Amendment?" Alito asked.

Counselor Phelps tried to put that situation under a different legal umbrella, suggesting that the person harassing the grandmother could be considered to be inciting "fighting words." Alito steered her away with help from his colleague Justice Antonin Scalia.

"She's probably not in a position to punch this person in the nose," Alito clarified.

"And she's a Quaker, too," Scalia piped in, prompting laughter in the courtroom.

The lighthearted moment, though, was not reflective of how torn the justices seemed to be over this emotional case. They indicated they were concerned about how far a ruling could go in either direction, silencing too much speech on the one hand or allowing targeted harassment of private people on the other.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, questioned Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, about why his client didn't get an injunction to bar the picketers from his son's funeral, since he knew ahead of time that they planned to come, an action that could have prevented Snyder's emotional distress but not prevented the Phelpses overall from expressing their message.

When it was Margie Phelps' turn to speak to the justices, Ginsburg challenged her as well.

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family?"

After debates between the justices and both lawyers about content and context, Summers explained why he believes the Phelpses' speech falls out of the bounds of First Amendment protection.

"The private, targeted nature of the speech in our judgment is what makes it unprotected," he said in response to a question from Justice Stephen Breyer, who was concerned about the fact that the Phelpses' speech reached Snyder after the funeral in the form of television a broadcast, and a poem of sorts that the Phelpses later published online that named Matthew and said he was "raised for the devil."

Afterward, Albert Snyder greeted the press, wearing a button that with a picture of his son, Matthew, below the words "My Hero." He gave a quiet statement, and Summers took questions. When asked what the hardest legal part of this tricky First Amendment case is, he answered, "The toughest question is always drawing a line in the sand."

[DuckiesDarling]

This is a tough one, as much as I hate the crap that Phelps spews I have to say they have the Constitutional right to spew it. I don't envy the Supreme Court but I'm pretty sure they will have to rule it as protected :(

[Long Duck Dong]

as I understand it, the phelps were not doing anything wrong legally..... but morally and ethically, by god, they are lucky somebody didn't shoot them.....

the ruling of the appeal court has me a lil confused here..... how in fuck is * thank god for dead soldiers * and * god hates you * a issue of public concern..... and not based on fact......

if I read it right, they are saying that dead soldiers is a issue of public concern and I would agree with that...... but dead soldiers die for a number of reasons and it could be argued that the phelps are showing indirect support for the taliban and extremists and suicide bombers......... by their own words.....

sighs.... the right to free speech is a ass some times.....

[curious1also]

as a rider with the patriot guard riders, i'd really like to "send" then loosers of westboro church to "meet" the soldiers they are protesting, and meet their maker as well!...let them sort it out there. these families have suffered enuf

[Long Duck Dong]

been reading the SCOTUS oral arguments

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-751.pdf) ( its a pdf file )

according to the phelps, its the fathers fault for being picketed as he spoke about his son live on air and if he had not said anything, just buried his son and said nothing, they would have left the funeral alone.....

therefore that made the father a public fiqure and gave the church the right to picket a *public * funeral, as it would gain maximum exposure for the church...and as their signs were not * fighting words * and that would require them to be directly in the face of the person, the church broke no laws and inflicted no harm upon the father while picketing the funeral.....

personally, all I can see is the picketing of a funeral was a shock tactic designed to get media attention... more than harm the father..... so its gonna be interesting to see the outcome....

either way, regardless.... picketing a funeral ??? no, I would picket the white house or some other place....not a very personal and emotional charged group of people mourning the loss of a son, brother, grandson, friend etc etc

first amendment or not..... funerals should be sacred.....

[Kiowa_Pacer]

Greetings;

I had the misfortune of attending the funeral of a friend for his Grandson killed in Iraq, and this "Mess" of humanity protested the funeral, and they were Not quiet about it, nor were they observing "Peacful demonstration"
If fact, it became so bad that we were affrraid it was going to come to blows s the brothers and cousins of this young man almost bolted into the crowd when they entered the cemetary with their signs and banners, and horrible chants. I am not ashamed to admit that if a melee insued, that I would have been right in the thick of it with them.

This family had endured enough over losing a 22 year old son, let alone having to endure the tirades of a madman and his zealots. One young woman screamed at his Mother: "You should have killed him as he emerged from the womb rather than let him go get killed in a gay war!"

I was career military until I lost a limb, and I still feel that a Soldier should be given his rights to a respectful, honorable burial, and these people disrespected his last walk by stepping in front of those carrying the casket, and nearly made them drop it.
That is when the fight almost broke out; for the Mother collapsed into sobs and fell to the ground. Had the police not come along at that time, I fear it would have been bad.

I know, and agree, it is their right to peaceful assembly, but it was not, and it just cast salt into the already open wound of a grieving family.
I suppose some people are unfeeling---and are ignorant of other peoples' feelings. Sad.

KI

[Long Duck Dong]

This family had endured enough over losing a 22 year old son, let alone having to endure the tirades of a madman and his zealots. One young woman screamed at his Mother: "You should have killed him as he emerged from the womb rather than let him go get killed in a gay war!"


I would have let rip if I heard that....... no holds barred....... and cracked some skulls.....

sure, they have the right to free speech..... and the police have the right to arrest me and charge me ...... but I retain the right to lose my temper and all self control......

it would have been the total disrespect at a funeral, the uncalled for abuse, the avocation of murder of a child and the insinuation that its the mothers fault for her sons death, that would have set me off......

no I would not hit the female... but yes... she would have shut up very quickly

[Realist]

It is beyond my ability to comprehend why anyone would want to interfere with something as soul-wrenching and painful as a funeral!

As one who served in the military for 7 years and have lost more than one friend who went down as they were doing their duty, I can tell you that the death of a loved one in such terrible circumstances is worse, if possible, than someone dying at home, in bed.

Military funerals are particularly elaborate and beautiful, as well as difficult to watch without emotion. The respect for their fallen comrades and ceremony is very evident.

Your thoughts probably focus on deceased's last breath, in horrific situations of pain, fear, and trauma. That alone is one of the most sorrowful aspects of the funeral.....dying without your loved ones present.

Then, to have a bunch of contemptuous assholes, with some political agenda and who probably didn't even know the person being buried, try to disrupt that somber event....well that is absolutely unfathomable to me.

I'm not one to endure arbitrary knee-jerk laws, but this is an area where protests should not be allowed.

[tenni]

"I'm not one to endure arbitrary knee-jerk laws, but this is an area where protests should not be allowed."
Realist

I understand that the Supreme Court is left with a conflict over "freedom of speech" versus respect and privacy for a soldier's funeral. It was stated that the woman Phelps who is acting as her own lawyer (for her church and family) stated that funerals are public events and not private events.

This seems a bit shocking that a funeral is to be considered a public event.

I do wonder if what Realist has written may not be used or has not been used. Should a federal law not be drafted to somehow protect military families of those who have been killed in action? Perhaps that somehow prevents this "church" or any protest must remain say a thousand yards from the funeral? There must be a way to word the federal law to not be found in contravention of your first amendment.

[mikey3000]

Free speech has been limited in the past, why not here? That is not free speech, that is harassment. Those people are dispicable and will pay for their words. They will suffer for sure. I doubt we follow the same God at all.

[jamieknyc]

The problem with this case (which may not be self-evident to our non-US posters) is that the First Amendment protects offensive speech. Phelps and his people may be assholes, as someone said above, but the First Amendment gives you the right to be an asshole.

[DuckiesDarling]

The problem with this case (which may not be self-evident to our non-US posters) is that the First Amendment protects offensive speech. Phelps and his people may be assholes, as someone said above, but the First Amendment gives you the right to be an asshole.

Thank you, Counselor Jamie.

[tenni]

The problem with this case (which may not be self-evident to our non-US posters) is that the First Amendment protects offensive speech. Phelps and his people may be assholes, as someone said above, but the First Amendment gives you the right to be an asshole.

I think that most of us understand your situation with your First Amendment. However, smart minds should be able to contextualize the difference between freedom of speech and harassment (as someone pointed out). Particularly since this involves killed soldiers being treated this way during their funeral. Perhaps, your Supreme Court may find a solution.

[goldenfinger]

Said it before and will say it again,,,only in america,,,you guys deserve it,until you rewrite and bring your constitution up to modern times, you will have to deal with this kind of shit. The rest of the world is laughing at you. You are doing such a good job of destroying yourself.

[12voltman59]

I don't know under what authority that such things have been done--but in recent years when we have had events like political conventions, public appearances of President Geo. W. Bush, meetings of the G8, the trade organizations that control "free trade," "NAFTA" and the rest----areas far from those events were set up as "free speech zones" where protesters were limited to being able to say their peace----while I do wonder how that was all technically legal here in the US considering our supposed reverence of First Amendment rights--I wish they would apply the same scheme to the Phelps crowd when they want to protest in a town where a funeral of a fallen soldier is taking place.

They can still make their off base and vile points----but not intrude on the sanctity of the ceremony of burying someone.

I do have to say---I am really damn surprised that some group of active duty or vets with special forces ops type of skills have not decided to do something about the Phelps crowd.

I think that if I were ever close to where the Phelps crowd is doing their thing---I would not get to close to them---and I would make sure I am not in the line of fire of some sniper hidden a few hundred yards away preparing to take his shot!!!:tongue:

[NotLostJustWandering]

.
Even Margie Phelps, daughter of Fred and his lawyer in this case, was soft-spoken and tame before the justices. Behind sleek glasses with thick black rims, she spoke of a "little church" merely wanting to express its views on public issues. (She did sing a hymn with the church group outside afterward — inexplicably to the tune of Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train.")

I think that, more than anything else, it's little absurdities like this that make worldly existence bearable.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Preface: I cannot stand Phelps and have ridden with the Freedom Riders twice to counter their ability to interfere.

This is what may annoy you, but is the truth, nonetheless: The Phelps crew have the right to do what they do.

Here is what is going to really fuck with your minds: Not only that, but it is a dishonor to those soldiers to create laws that infringe upon the First Amendment rights to free speech. It desecrates everything they fought and died for.

Here is another point you may not like: Once you leave your home, you have no expectation of privacy.

Does that suck? Yes. But it is the truth, and I expect that the SCotUS will say the same.

Feral

[Long Duck Dong]

Preface: I cannot stand Phelps and have ridden with the Freedom Riders twice to counter their ability to interfere.

This is what may annoy you, but is the truth, nonetheless: The Phelps crew have the right to do what they do.

Here is what is going to really fuck with your minds: Not only that, but it is a dishonor to those soldiers to create laws that infringe upon the First Amendment rights to free speech. It desecrates everything they fought and died for.

Here is another point you may not like: Once you leave your home, you have no expectation of privacy.

Does that suck? Yes. But it is the truth, and I expect that the SCotUS will say the same.

Feral

thats why I am interested in the ruling when it is made..... at what point is free speech not the expression of a opinion but a statement made with the intention of provocation into violence....

reading back thru the oral arguments ( I posted it earlier in the thread ) a reference was made to a ruling on fighting words and apparently it applies to actions and speech that is done in a way to provoke people into reacting with force..... DD said she knew about that ruling and law..... and it can apply to picketing and protests... and it is part of the phelps argument

[NotLostJustWandering]

Phelps and his followers are of a breed of person you can deal with in only way: you must beat the crap out of them. If we didn't all have our testicles legislated away, no one would get away with shit like this. They would all get their asses kicked at the funeral. Passers-by would join in on the ass kicking. And if any police happened to walk by, they would either look the other way or help kick ass.

But no. We look to government to sort everything out and police to protect us. We boast of being law-abiders and taxpayers. And so people like Phelps thrive on abusing our freedom. We all damn well know what they do is nothing but an abuse of our freedom, and we watch it happen. He takes his media circus all the way to the Supreme Court and get us all tied in knots about the fundamentals of our laws and rights.

Am thinking about how I witnessed a skinhead type beating up a self-proclaimed Messiah in the streets of Tel Aviv... a crowd of able-bodied men doing almost nothing to prevent the violence as we waited for the cops to come. He let men lead him away from the victim lying on the pavement, then suddenly turn, lunge and kick him again. We should have subdued the bastard ourselves, but everybody was being a good law abiding citizen, and the Messiah got kicked in the stomach and ribs over an over while the cops took their time. I picked up a stick -- the guy was twice my size -- and the law abiders stopped me.

Piss on all your laws and governments.

[DuckiesDarling]

Phelps and his followers are of a breed of person you can deal with in only way: you must beat the crap out of them. If we didn't all have our testicles legislated away, no one would get away with shit like this. They would all get their asses kicked at the funeral. Passers-by would join in on the ass kicking. And if any police happened to walk by, they would either look the other way or help kick ass.



Sorry, I completely disagree. The way to deal with Phelps and his followers is to deny them any reaction at all. To deny them the publicity they crave and to deny them the pain they intend to cause.

Your way would only lead to many, many cases of assault.

Like it or not our Constitution is what has guided us since our infancy as a nation and will guide us in many years to come. The freedoms that are part of the Constitution are at times abhorrent to me but I have to agree that the Phelps Church has the right to say what they want, the rest of us have the right to ignore them.

[tenni]

Sorry, I completely disagree. The way to deal with Phelps and his followers is to deny them any reaction at all. To deny them the publicity they crave and to deny them the pain they intend to cause.

Your way would only lead to many, many cases of assault.

Like it or not our Constitution is what has guided us since our infancy as a nation and will guide us in many years to come. The freedoms that are part of the Constitution are at times abhorrent to me but I have to agree that the Phelps Church has the right to say what they want, the rest of us have the right to ignore them.

Yet, there are many countries with more freedoms than the people of the USA.

Other countries have equality issues in their constitution that deals with hate crimes and freedom of speech. Here is the Canadian approach to freedoms. We have as part of our constitution an aspect missing in the US Constitution that may be at the root of many of your injustices including same sex marriage. Is it not long overdue to update the US constitution rather than thinking that it is infallible?

"Equality of Rights
Section 15 emphasizes that every individual is equal before and under the law; and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit without discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (That equality of rights does not, however, preclude any law, program or activity that aims to better the condition of disadvantaged individuals or groups.)

Despite the charter’s emphasis freedom of speech, though, sections 1 and 15 both leave room for laws that limit such freedom —including the hate provisions in sections 318 and 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code, and section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Other offences, such as obscenity and child pornography, could also challenge the limits of individual freedom of expression, as prescribed by section 163 of the Criminal Code.

Hate Propaganda vs. Free Speech
In a high-profile case in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed James Keegstra’s rights to free speech against the offence of wilfully promoting hatred under the Criminal Code. As a teacher, Keegstra made racist comments in the classroom.

The court ruled that under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a limitation of free expression is justified in a democratic society. The court stated that since hate propaganda harms us all, then stopping its spread helps people from different backgrounds to live together — and may even reduce violence in Canada. For these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the court said that that Keegstra had in fact broken the law."

[mikey3000]

Phelps and his followers are of a breed of person you can deal with in only way: you must beat the crap out of them. If we didn't all have our testicles legislated away, no one would get away with shit like this. They would all get their asses kicked at the funeral. Passers-by would join in on the ass kicking. And if any police happened to walk by, they would either look the other way or help kick ass.


I have to agree. In some situations, mob mentality rules. They all deserve an ass kicking they'll not soon forget, then burn down their fucking church. Divide and conquor!!!

And DD, you do not have freedom of speech. Can you run into a theatre and yell, "FIRE!" when there is none? No. Can you lie in a court of law? Nope. Can you spread false rumors about an individual? Uh uh. So you really don't have freedom of speech. You have LIMITED freedom of speech. If you can find in the bible that, "God Hates Fags and Dead Soldiers" (which I'm pretty sure you can't) then they might have a case, but otherwise it's illegal. That is harassment, unless hate crimes are legal in the U. S.

But here's the kicker. The media loves a society in turmoil. Makes for good copy and newspaper sales. They are much to blame as anyone else. If they didn't report, then the'd just fade away. But since that's not going to happen, those Westboro baptists need a good ol' ass kicking.

Remember folks, the media doesn't always report the news, they often create it.

[Long Duck Dong]

you want freedom, move to nz..... our bill of rights is ....ahh..... ahhhhh.... yeah

and this is copied directly from the nz bill of rights site

13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

*Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

14 Freedom of expression

*Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

15 Manifestation of religion and belief

*Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

16 Freedom of peaceful assembly

*Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

17 Freedom of association

*Everyone has the right to freedom of association.


the hilarious thing is we have numerous laws that contradict our bill of rights..... but if our laws was built around the bill of rights, we would be totally fucked....

btw our bill of rights was written in 1990 and passed as law....... and using the human rights stance........and people wonder why I am amused about human rights laws.... cos under our bill of rights you can do what ever you want......legal or illegal lol

[tenni]

Oh.
Section 1 of the Charter guarantees citizens’ rights and freedoms only within such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society.

Does a free and democratic society consider the actions of Phelps to be reasonable?

Factor in that all are to be treated equally regardless of their sex (which has been interpreted to include orientation), ethnicity, etc.

Is it considered reasonable for Phelps to call the dead soldiers soldiers of fags? Fighting a fag war? at their very own funeral?

I don't know what the outcome would be if Phelps came into Canada and tried to act this way at a Canadian soldier's funeral. They threatened to try but were cowered and backed away from our border; returning to the US. There were threats made towards them if they dared to come close to the funeral of the soldier by Canadians. These Canadians did what has been done in the US to create a barrier of humans to prevent them getting close if they came here. We have not been threatened by Phelps with another attempt to enter the country. Could it be that they found that our constitution would not permit their hatred?

[DuckiesDarling]

Mikey and Tenni, if you want exact legalities talk to Jamie he's a lawyer. For my part yes we have Freedom of Speech but there are certain exceptions as ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the United States and that is the heart of this case. The plantiff is asking that the Westboro Baptist Church's sentiments be ruled as unprotected. The defendent is asking that the court uphold the Constitution by pointing out that the church has always acted within the limits set down by the Supreme Court.

Yes you have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, no you do not have the right to claim freedom of speech in an attempt to escape any repercussions for your actions. There is a difference, pity you can't see it.

[tenni]

Mikey and Tenni, if you want exact legalities talk to Jamie he's a lawyer. For my part yes we have Freedom of Speech but there are certain exceptions as ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the United States and that is the heart of this case. The plantiff is asking that the Westboro Baptist Church's sentiments be ruled as unprotected. The defendent is asking that the court uphold the Constitution by pointing out that the church has always acted within the limits set down by the Supreme Court.

Yes you have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, no you do not have the right to claim freedom of speech in an attempt to escape any repercussions for your actions. There is a difference, pity you can't see it.

Yes, as I understand the issue it is freedom of speech versus individual rights for privacy. If you had the two aspects in your constitution the argument would be slightly different.

Do US people as citizens of a free and democratic country really believe that Phelp's actions are reasonable? If not, fight to update your constitution. It is out of date when it comes to freedoms and rights.

Someone has posted that US people are not entitled to privacy (in this case to bury a loved one) once you leave your house. No privacy in a church or cemetary? You do not have the rights and freedom to bury your dead and mourn them without being exposed to hatred. That is reasonable to them?

[DuckiesDarling]

Tenni, it doesn't matter whether or not I think that Phelps comments are reasonable. They are legal. They are protected in much the same way Constance McMillen's right to wear a tux was protected and under the same amendment. So when is it okay to claim your first amendment right to freedom of speech and expression? When it's the poor lesbian but not when it's the hateful church? Talk about hypocrisy.

[falcondfw]

Very simple. Do they have the legal right to protest at a funeral of one of our fallen heroes? Probably. And the fallen hero would probably be the first to tell you that.
However, just because something is legal (if it is. I am not a lawyer.) to do, does not mean you SHOULD do it.
These idiots need a lesson in appreciation. They need to be plucked off the streets and flown to Afghanistan to protest at a funeral of one of their fallen. Let's see what happens then?

[tenni]

Tenni, it doesn't matter whether or not I think that Phelps comments are reasonable. They are legal. They are protected in much the same way Constance McMillen's right to wear a tux was protected and under the same amendment. So when is it okay to claim your first amendment right to freedom of speech and expression? When it's the poor lesbian but not when it's the hateful church? Talk about hypocrisy.

It would depend upon what the lesbian was stating and the purpose of what she was stating. We know what Phelp's church is stating and under what circumstance that that church is stating. You just don't seem to get that you need to change your constitution or stop stating that you are "free". Tone down your rhetoric about freedom. USA is not free if it permits such hate propaganda behaviour. Freedom does not mean that you get to abuse another citizen. You do not get to spew hatred at a funeral as that is not reasonable in a free and democratic society to think that you may use a funeral for hate propaganda.

[DuckiesDarling]

And maybe you need to understand, Tenni, that what a Canadian thinks of our Constitution doesn't mean jack shit to Americans. Our Constitution is what it is, and just because certain things are allowed under get under people's skins it doesn't make it wrong. You don't like that people have the right to spew there bigoted opinions, well tough. You want to argue for a change to something that will never ever affect you so please just get over it. As I said you want to argue legalities go talk to the lawyer, Jamie. But do not sit there and try to tell me that the fact they are allowed to spew their vile crap means we aren't free. It means just the opposite. We are free and that is the price we pay for that, a double edged sword if you will. And if they win the Supreme Court case, which I'm fairly certain they will, the Phelps church will be even worse.

[Plumhead2]

Hmmm, I always thought freedom of speech was limited by things by not being free to yell fire in a crowded theater. I understand that they have every right to say what they believe. What I don't understand is why they have the right to say it anywhere they want. If they want to write letters to the editor, if they want to be on talk shows, if they want want to write books, if they want to protest outside of sight and earshot at the funeral, all those things are available to them. It is not a matter of muzzling their right to speak. They still have the right to get their message out. A fair, commonsense ruling would say, however, that they don't have the right to do it at a funeral where their right of free speech conflicts with hurt that would be inflicted on the families.

[darkeyes]

For the most part, funerals are a time of sadness to be respected by all.. to be avoided unless we are personally affected by that sadness.. although I hate the military way of doing things, and what it involves, I could no more picket and spout vile abuse at a military funeral than I can fly free as a bird.. most such funerals are of human beings who died and died doing what they believe was their duty and believed it to be right and acted honourably doing that duty. I may take issue with the right of it, and its morality, yet can respect their belief and sacrifice however needless I believe it to be.

Yet I can envisage circumstances, extreme admittedly where I would feel compelled to make my view known and picket, not in a violent and hateful manner but peacefully silently and making quite clear my contempt for the person who has died or been killed.. should that individual be accorded an honourable funeral to which I did not believe he or she was entitled.. there are many such people, who, when alive we hold in the greatest contempt, yet upon death suddenly have become something they never were when in the days they plagued the earth.. a theoretical example would be the giving of a miltary funeral to one James Calley, who many still believe to be a hero.. others would be the paratroopers responsible for bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland.. there are those who consider their actions the actions of honourable men. On a political level, Margaret Thatcher who in my view, held all in contempt except herself, and who was responsible for the wanton destruction of my country's manufacturing base, who was xenophobic in the extreme and in my view a throughly unpleasant human being. Should she be given, as is oft mooted a state funeral, then I could no more stay away and avoid expressing my displeasure and opposition than I could were she Adolf Hitler reincarnate..

These are extreme examples.. I would not scream or wail, but would be a part of any mass and silent protest against the honouring of such people.. but for the most part.. when people die we should respect the grief of their loved ones and not compound it by acting hysterically and stupidly, and certainly never violently or harrassing the bereaved.. we have the freedom to protest at any event and it is quite right that this is so.. but with freedom becomes responsibility does it not?

[NotLostJustWandering]

Now is not the time for me to post everything this thread brings to mind. But I will toss out this morsel for thought:

Supposing Phelps & followers had chosen, rather than the funerals of servicemen, to show up at the funerals of policemen? What do you think Phelps would be? Having his day at the Supreme Court? I don't think so. I think he would lucky not to have had his own funeral. He would certainly be in need of hospitalization, and had he sued the police department or made a case of police brutality, I reckon it would have gone no further than 99% of the police brutality cases in the USA. Prosecuting lawyers would not want to touch it, judges would find any loophole to dismiss, and failing to find that, would give the cops a slap on the wrist.

I hope you people who think society is all about law and the Constitution get my point. If not, I guess I'll just have to come back and post more when I have the time.

[mikey3000]

Mikey and Tenni, if you want exact legalities talk to Jamie he's a lawyer. For my part yes we have Freedom of Speech but there are certain exceptions as ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the United States and that is the heart of this case. The plantiff is asking that the Westboro Baptist Church's sentiments be ruled as unprotected. The defendent is asking that the court uphold the Constitution by pointing out that the church has always acted within the limits set down by the Supreme Court.

Yes you have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, no you do not have the right to claim freedom of speech in an attempt to escape any repercussions for your actions. There is a difference, pity you can't see it.

Yelling fire in a theatre with no cause is called reckless endangerment. It is illegal and you will be charged. If anyone is killed in a stampede caused by said reckless endangerment, you can be charged with manslaughter. It is ilegal.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/

Your laws aren't that different than here, but I quoted your U. S. legal definitions.

I too am certified in Contract Law, Automotive Law and Ethics.

[Long Duck Dong]

Yelling fire in a theatre with no cause is called reckless endangerment. It is illegal and you will be charged. If anyone is killed in a stampede caused by said reckless endangerment, you can be charged with manslaughter. It is ilegal.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/

Your laws aren't that different than here, but I quoted your U. S. legal definitions.

I too am certified in Contract Law, Automotive Law and Ethics.

its not illegal to yell the word fire in a theatre... it is illegal to act in a manner that causes undue endangerment to life and limb.....
but the word * fire * is not illegal to yell in a theatre, otherwise if there was a fire in the theatre, you could be charged with yelling a illegal word

otherwise I could yell bomb and argue that the word bomb is legally allowed to be yelled in a theatre.....:tong::tong:

semantics, I know....... but I have 2 cups of coffee in me, and a good nights sleep behind me.... lol

[DuckiesDarling]

Yelling fire in a theatre with no cause is called reckless endangerment. It is illegal and you will be charged. If anyone is killed in a stampede caused by said reckless endangerment, you can be charged with manslaughter. It is ilegal.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/

Your laws aren't that different than here, but I quoted your U. S. legal definitions.

I too am certified in Contract Law, Automotive Law and Ethics.

Mikey you just proved my point, they can yell fire but they can't claim first amendment to hide from reckless endangerment. They have the freedom to do it, but they can not hide from the repercussions.

[xanderdavis]

All the nitpicking doesn't matter, it's up to the Supreme Court. Personally, I do not agree with these protestors but they have the right to protest. It sickens me but I fought for their right to do it and paid with my own blood so that Americans continue to enjoy their freedom. So excuse me, I'm gonna go attach my prosthetic leg and walk outside and view the beautiful countryside.

[Realist]

I had a wonderful friend who lost both legs in Vietnam.

I remarked one time that he paid a horrible price for his service. He said it wasn't nearly as much as some. He's gone, now, but he was a fine man.

I was in the military for 7 years, but ended up in Germany, instead other the other route...thankfully.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Thank you Drew. I dont know what Hetro posted, but I'm sure it was something shallow and it would have caused some Major sharpening of the claws..lol
Peck to your cheek.
Cat :}

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

First of all, Goldfinger, Bless yer lil heart. *Pats on the head*

The emendments Say that the Phelps bunch have the right to their own personal brand of free speech, and unfortunately that's true. So they go forth and protest at the death of a person's child. They spout hateful shit in the name of their zealot leader, and seek to Purposely cause hate and hurt, yet it isnt classified as a hate Crime. It Should be. These protests are Supposedly suppose to be 'peaceful assembly'...they never are.
Personally, if "I" were at the funeral of a soldier, or the family member of someone I knew well, someone had best have bail money for me, especially if one of them passed the pre-determined zone and came up to the family to spit on them like they did in Conn..
I'm sorry if someone will/might think that I am a violent person, but I Will not tolerate the family or friends of a newly deceased Soldier to be disrespected like that. And if that makes me look like a "Bad Guy/Gal" then OFW.
My 2 cents.
Cat

[mikey3000]

All the nitpicking doesn't matter, it's up to the Supreme Court. Personally, I do not agree with these protestors but they have the right to protest. It sickens me but I fought for their right to do it and paid with my own blood so that Americans continue to enjoy their freedom. So excuse me, I'm gonna go attach my prosthetic leg and walk outside and view the beautiful countryside.

But what are they protesting?

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Xander, pecks to your cheek Sweetie. I worked in an Amputee ward to get my Humanities for college, and know of the sacrifice Veterans make for this country and others. I know one in particular that is a member of our site here, too..:} That's why stuff like this angers me so much. The excretment for brains people Have the right to do and say what they do, and can get away with it under the laws of our land. Doesn't make it right, but its there.
Enough on this before it makes me any madder than it already is...
Cat

[Pasadenacpl2]

Yes, as I understand the issue it is freedom of speech versus individual rights for privacy. If you had the two aspects in your constitution the argument would be slightly different.

Do US people as citizens of a free and democratic country really believe that Phelp's actions are reasonable? If not, fight to update your constitution. It is out of date when it comes to freedoms and rights.

Someone has posted that US people are not entitled to privacy (in this case to bury a loved one) once you leave your house. No privacy in a church or cemetary? You do not have the rights and freedom to bury your dead and mourn them without being exposed to hatred. That is reasonable to them?

Do I find them reasonable? No.

Do I think my opinion that they are not reasonable is relevant? No.

I don't believe that my opinion about your thoughts/expressions should have any bearing upon your ability to have said thoughts/expressions. Freedom is only free when someone can say something that everyone else disagrees with and not have any legal repercussions.

The Canadian charter portion you posted limits this in a manner that I find abhorrent to a free society. Then again, you folks won't let people in the country whom you disagree with, so I don't find that particularly surprising.

Tenni, I know your intention was to show us a better way, but I'll take having a douchebag like Phelps as a price to pay for freedom over having a society where my thoughts are only allowed if they are popularly deemed 'reasonable.'

Pasa

[darkeyes]

Then again, you folks won't let people in the country whom you disagree with, so I don't find that particularly surprising.

Pasa
Neither does the USA Pasa.. so I think I'd keep quiet about that if I were you...;)

[tenni]

.

The Canadian charter portion you posted limits this in a manner that I find abhorrent to a free society. Then again, you folks won't let people in the country whom you disagree with, so I don't find that particularly surprising.


Pasa

Thanks for your opinion Pasa
I am only speculating on what sections of the Charter might deem Phelps as not freedom of speech but hate crimes. The main section that I think that might benefit your country is the section 15 about rights of minorities and insuring or protecting their right to equal access to benefits of freedoms. (ie sex orientation rights versus religious rights and freedoms might be the question for the Canadian Supreme Court rather than religious freedoms versus privacy as it seems that is the question for your Supreme Court)

The side bar comment about not letting people into our country who disagree with "us" is a little misinterpreted.
1/ The Canadian courts (not even the Supreme Court) determined that the government did not have the right to prevent the British MP George to enter into the country based upon the government's accusation that he was a terrorist. It was not because they disagreed with his rightful ability to practice free speech. (although I suspect that this neocon government really wanted to gag him from speaking though) George petitioned the Canadian courts and won over the government's attempt to stop him from entering the country on bogus security claims. He was let into the country and the government department in charge of this interviewed him for an hour. They had no grounds to prevent his visit. He did practise his right to freedom of speech and was vocal against the government. He has threatened legal action against the Canadian government and certain MP's in his speeches. (wish that he'd throw the PM into the lawsuit but ....lol)

So, the Canuck constitution does support freedom of speech as is reasonable for a free and democratic society. It is what is a free society where we differ. Our way seems to be that in a free society certain groups may not persecute others based on the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. The US constitution does not yet seem to provide these freedoms and equality of accessing freedoms has been a historical injustice within your country.(not that injustices do not or have not happened in other free societies but it is what is within a constitution that determines the ability to exercise your freedoms)

[dafydd]

if you have posters saying God Hates Fags, that's homophobic and that's a hate crime. Don't US laws consider that a homophobic hate crime? In UK freedom of speech is not a trump all card. If it causes harm to others then it is either incitement to hatred or a hate crime

[mikey3000]

The Canadian charter portion you posted limits this in a manner that I find abhorrent to a free society. Then again, you folks won't let people in the country whom you disagree with, so I don't find that particularly surprising.

Pasa

I wouldn't have it any other way. If keeping out said person perserves our Canadian harmony, hooray!!!

[darkeyes]

if you have posters saying God Hates Fags, that's homophobic and that's a hate crime. Don't US laws consider that a homophobic hate crime? In UK freedom of speech is not a trump all card. If it causes harm to others then it is either incitement to hatred or a hate crime

ooo daffy... that would be against their constitution and deprive them of a a precious liberty to say what they want when they want and how they want... They dont have that freedom of course when you start digging but a lot of them do like to tell us they are the most free nation on earth... and love to have a go at us for our much less free way of life..

.. what do you think of that then? Cuffs on, gags out, do u have permission to speak sir? Dunno bout u.. but in my little life I've had a ball, being pretty free with my gob (in one way or other), which has run away with itself on more than one occasion.. it doesnt of course express hatred toward anyone.. ideas maybe.. but it does let peeps know exactly where they stand with me and very often what I think of them.. funnily enough that includes governments and their institutions, people in high places and all kinds of odds and sods I dont have a lot of time for... I would never brag that our country is the most free on earth daffy.. and wouldnt like to say which is... but its pretty free..and contrary to what some in these forums like to think.. its a fucking lot of fun!!!

[tenni]

Mikey...lol
I'd hardly state that Canada is a harmonious country....lol Freedom of Speech, Quebecois perception of the Constitution and Quebec's role in the constitution and several other factors makes us a basically peaceful country with a hell of a lot of dissenting voices using their freedom of speech to express their views...lol

I do get your underlying thought though. We do not permit hate crimes but as has been written before it is frakn difficult to prosecute them. The wacko Ann Coulter was here stirring up concepts of freedom of speech. She came close to being over the line with her comments on Muslims but no where near as in violation of freedom of speech and our constitution charter as the Phelp's group.

[tenni]

"They dont have that freedom of course when you start digging but a lot of them do like to tell us they are the most free nation on earth... and love to have a go at us for our much less free way of life.."

I've wondered about that. They are always going on about "freedom" but are not anywhere near as free as they think..or we see them as. I do think that it does go to the root that Pasa mentions about what is a free society?

Is anarchy, intimidating and denying freedoms to part of your society make you a free society? I don't think so but some of em seem to. They believe with all sincerity that they are free and the most free. Yet they fall in line and seem to blindly obey when they are told that they are fighting for freedom. It is as if their society is really a Pavolian dog when they are told that it is for freedom. They permitted their dead soldiers hidden from them when the bodies are returned. They censored oh so quietly freedom of speech by the media journalists sent to Iraq and yet think themselves free. They permit this persecution of the poor families believing that is freedom rather than anarchistic and a lord of the flies existence.

[darkeyes]

"They dont have that freedom of course when you start digging but a lot of them do like to tell us they are the most free nation on earth... and love to have a go at us for our much less free way of life.."

I've wondered about that. They are always going on about "freedom" but are not anywhere near as free as they think..or we see them as. I do think that it does go to the root that Pasa mentions about what is a free society?

Is anarchy, intimidating and denying freedoms to part of your society make you a free society? I don't think so but some of em seem to. They believe with all sincerity that they are free and the most free. Yet they fall in line and seem to blindly obey when they are told that they are fighting for freedom. It is as if their society is really a Pavolian dog when they are told that it is for freedom. They permitted their dead soldiers hidden from them when the bodies are returned. They censored oh so quietly freedom of speech by the media journalists sent to Iraq and yet think themselves free. They permit this persecution of the poor families believing that is freedom rather than anarchistic and a lord of the flies existence.

The weilding of American power is for precisely the same purpose as all powerful nations have weilded their power and invaded and dominated any and all opposition.. in the same way as Persia, Rome, the Mongols, the Ottomans, Spain, the Inca and Aztec, the French and yes the British, it is about exporting and imposing the ways of the powerful on those weaker and (arguably) less fortunate, on those with whom they take issue, and for economic and miltary gain.. it is about turning those nations and peoples into little whatever wherever.. it is not about imposing peace, democracy or liberty.. it is about intimidating and cowing into submission.. and shaping the world as the powers that be of whatever nation happens to be top dog into whatever shape they decide.. the US is not the worst of such powerful nations.. yet it deludes itself into pursuing the cause of freedom for the world.. its freedom.. no one elses.. at least the freedom of its elite to loot and plunder and dominate humanity and the rest of the planet.. but its time is on the wane.. for another nation before long will arise and take its place.. it is already waiting in the wings, and every year becomes awesomely more powerful.. and for all America's hypocrisies and all of its deception of those who are not American and of its own people, that nation assuming the mantle of top dog causes me more concern than anything the US will do culturally, socially, economically or militarily..

[tenni]

"and for all America's hypocrisies and all of its deception of those who are not American and of its own people, that nation assuming the mantle of top dog causes me more concern than anything the US will do culturally, socially, economically or militarily."

Well, to discuss this direction we would probably wander too far from the thread theme. The use of freedom of speech and persecuting the families of dead soldiers killed in these international adventures under the name of fighting for our freedom is on topic. If we are both thinking of the same specific country that is waiting in the wings, then I agree with you. It may be that we feel this way because our cultures are closer to the US than this other country's values and culture. Although citizens in that country are obtaining more freedoms they are very alien to our values and expectations. There may be less hypocrisy though. Such things as human rights are not a "let's pretend that we have them." The country just doesn't care about such things.

[darkeyes]

"and for all America's hypocrisies and all of its deception of those who are not American and of its own people, that nation assuming the mantle of top dog causes me more concern than anything the US will do culturally, socially, economically or militarily."

Well, to discuss this direction we would probably wander too far from the thread theme. The use of freedom of speech and persecuting the families of dead soldiers killed in these international adventures under the name of fighting for our freedom is on topic. If we are both thinking of the same specific country that is waiting in the wings, then I agree with you. It may be that we feel this way because our cultures are closer to the US than this other country's values and culture. Although citizens in that country are obtaining more freedoms they are very alien to our values and expectations. There may be less hypocrisy though. Such things as human rights are not a "let's pretend that we have them." The country just doesn't care about such things.

Not so far off topic tenni, dear.. for we, along with America and the rest of the west may yet have to fight for our freedom and liberty against that, I agree, possibly much less hypocritical nation.. and that scares the hell out of me..whether that be a social, economic and cultural struggle time will tell, but I can live with that.. I am unsure if any of us will be able to live with the alternative kind..

[Pasadenacpl2]

Thanks for your opinion Pasa
I am only speculating on what sections of the Charter might deem Phelps as not freedom of speech but hate crimes. The main section that I think that might benefit your country is the section 15 about rights of minorities and insuring or protecting their right to equal access to benefits of freedoms. (ie sex orientation rights versus religious rights and freedoms might be the question for the Canadian Supreme Court rather than religious freedoms versus privacy as it seems that is the question for your Supreme Court)

The side bar comment about not letting people into our country who disagree with "us" is a little misinterpreted.
1/ The Canadian courts (not even the Supreme Court) determined that the government did not have the right to prevent the British MP George to enter into the country based upon the government's accusation that he was a terrorist. It was not because they disagreed with his rightful ability to practice free speech. (although I suspect that this neocon government really wanted to gag him from speaking though) George petitioned the Canadian courts and won over the government's attempt to stop him from entering the country on bogus security claims. He was let into the country and the government department in charge of this interviewed him for an hour. They had no grounds to prevent his visit. He did practise his right to freedom of speech and was vocal against the government. He has threatened legal action against the Canadian government and certain MP's in his speeches. (wish that he'd throw the PM into the lawsuit but ....lol)

So, the Canuck constitution does support freedom of speech as is reasonable for a free and democratic society. It is what is a free society where we differ. Our way seems to be that in a free society certain groups may not persecute others based on the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. The US constitution does not yet seem to provide these freedoms and equality of accessing freedoms has been a historical injustice within your country.(not that injustices do not or have not happened in other free societies but it is what is within a constitution that determines the ability to exercise your freedoms)

I was referring to not letting a certain American female in to your nation. I believe you supported not allowing Ann Coulter into your nation because you disagreed with her views (I do too, but I stood up to defend her right to say it...something you and I will ALWAYS have as a disparity).

Freedom of speech is not free if we only have those views we agree with allowed. That even applies to hateful speech. This is directed at both you and at Mikey.

As for your understanding of our Constitution, as always, it is flawed.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

if you have posters saying God Hates Fags, that's homophobic and that's a hate crime. Don't US laws consider that a homophobic hate crime? In UK freedom of speech is not a trump all card. If it causes harm to others then it is either incitement to hatred or a hate crime

Umm...no. We don't. Well, we do, but not for speech. Hate crimes are for actions (and are so poorly written as to be worse than the problem they are trying to solve).

Again...freedom of speech isn't free unless you have the right to say things others find offensive. Just because you (and I) find it offensive is no reason to disallow them from saying it.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

ooo daffy... that would be against their constitution and deprive them of a a precious liberty to say what they want when they want and how they want... They dont have that freedom of course when you start digging but a lot of them do like to tell us they are the most free nation on earth... and love to have a go at us for our much less free way of life..

.. what do you think of that then? Cuffs on, gags out, do u have permission to speak sir? Dunno bout u.. but in my little life I've had a ball, being pretty free with my gob (in one way or other), which has run away with itself on more than one occasion.. it doesnt of course express hatred toward anyone.. ideas maybe.. but it does let peeps know exactly where they stand with me and very often what I think of them.. funnily enough that includes governments and their institutions, people in high places and all kinds of odds and sods I dont have a lot of time for... I would never brag that our country is the most free on earth daffy.. and wouldnt like to say which is... but its pretty free..and contrary to what some in these forums like to think.. its a fucking lot of fun!!!


We are so free.... *how free are you?*
We are so free that idiots like Phelps can run their gob too, and can't be prosecuted for it.

Why should Phelps be denied the same freedom as you, Fran? Because you find what he says abhorent? Because you hate his ideas? Who the hell are you, or I, to legislate what others can think/say?

Freedom of speech isn't free if you aren't free to say things others find abhorrent. Censorship, especially government censorship, is anathema to a free society. (I'll keep on repeating this until one of you gets the message).

I hate the KKK. I hate the Black Panthers. I want both groups to DIAF. BUT, I wouldn't have it any other way than that they are protected in their speech (not their actions).

Pasa

* To head someone off at the pass...no, I don't care if it's hate speech. Canada doesn't have a happy country. It has a country with bigots who keep their gobs shut for fear of recrimination. I'd MUCH rather have them open their mouths so I know who they are.

[Pasadenacpl2]

"and for all America's hypocrisies and all of its deception of those who are not American and of its own people, that nation assuming the mantle of top dog causes me more concern than anything the US will do culturally, socially, economically or militarily."

Well, to discuss this direction we would probably wander too far from the thread theme. The use of freedom of speech and persecuting the families of dead soldiers killed in these international adventures under the name of fighting for our freedom is on topic. If we are both thinking of the same specific country that is waiting in the wings, then I agree with you. It may be that we feel this way because our cultures are closer to the US than this other country's values and culture. Although citizens in that country are obtaining more freedoms they are very alien to our values and expectations. There may be less hypocrisy though. Such things as human rights are not a "let's pretend that we have them." The country just doesn't care about such things.

That country doesn't give a damn about them.

The US has had a steady, unbroken line of progress for the past 150 years of protecting more and more civil rights, and doing so, for the most part, peacefully. Tenni, your assertion that we just pretend is insulting. I've done my best not to be insulting. I can end that practice if you wish, but I'd rather keep this polite.

Pasa

[mikey3000]

* To head someone off at the pass...no, I don't care if it's hate speech. Canada doesn't have a happy country. It has a country with bigots who keep their gobs shut for fear of recrimination. I'd MUCH rather have them open their mouths so I know who they are.

To what purpose? To spread their hate and bigotry? To surpress and bully minorities? To cause grief and strife? What good is knowing who they are if you can't stop them, or for that matter, choose not to stop them? Freedom to spread hatered? No thanks. Freedom of speech is a very relative term that may serve the majority, but harm the many minorities, and isn't that the basis for all the injustices done all throughout history? No it's not perfect, but I like my Canada the way it is. It still is very different than the U. S. and I'm thankful for that. I'm not saying it's better, just different. Viva la difference!!!

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Ok Ya'll. We're getting vastly off topic here. The topic Isnt how great one country or another is, the topic are intolerant, ignorant, disrespectful assholes protesting at the funerals of American Soldiers. THEY should be bearing the brunt of your disgust and anger, not each other! :rolleyes:
Get back on track here!
Cat

[darkeyes]

We are so free.... *how free are you?*
We are so free that idiots like Phelps can run their gob too, and can't be prosecuted for it.

Why should Phelps be denied the same freedom as you, Fran? Because you find what he says abhorent? Because you hate his ideas? Who the hell are you, or I, to legislate what others can think/say?

Freedom of speech isn't free if you aren't free to say things others find abhorrent. Censorship, especially government censorship, is anathema to a free society. (I'll keep on repeating this until one of you gets the message).

I hate the KKK. I hate the Black Panthers. I want both groups to DIAF. BUT, I wouldn't have it any other way than that they are protected in their speech (not their actions).

Pasa

* To head someone off at the pass...no, I don't care if it's hate speech. Canada doesn't have a happy country. It has a country with bigots who keep their gobs shut for fear of recrimination. I'd MUCH rather have them open their mouths so I know who they are.

Everyone should have the same right to freedom of speech and expression as me, Pasa dear.. I have never said otherwise..

...every country has its bigots.. Canada is no exception.. neither for that matter is yours... or mine.. your anti-Canada prejudice slip is showing sweetie.. pull it up will you?

[Bluebiyou]

Okay, some perspective.
"Military funeral".
My father had a Catholic funeral with military honors. A veteran from a little skirmish commonly called today "World War 2".
If Phelps had shown up, perhaps they could protest at the entrance of the church/graveyard (in our case it was 1/4 mile away at least), but to interrupt services, which were 'private' (grave diggers, members of the church, 30 or so family members, 3 active members of the military and 3 retired giving the arsenal 'salute') would exceed 1st amendment bounds by trespassing personal privacy.
Burial of a private citizen, not elected to public office, is by definition private.

[mikey3000]

Ok Ya'll. We're getting vastly off topic here. The topic Isnt how great one country or another is, the topic are intolerant, ignorant, disrespectful assholes protesting at the funerals of American Soldiers. THEY should be bearing the brunt of your disgust and anger, not each other! :rolleyes:
Get back on track here!
Cat
Hey, at least it hasn't been turned into an infidelity thread. Picky, picky, you naughty Cat.

Meow!

[tenni]

That country doesn't give a damn about them.

The US has had a steady, unbroken line of progress for the past 150 years of protecting more and more civil rights, and doing so, for the most part, peacefully. Tenni, your assertion that we just pretend is insulting. I've done my best not to be insulting. I can end that practice if you wish, but I'd rather keep this polite.

Pasa

I am not stating that the US has not progressed over 150 years but it has never been the "land of the free" for all of its citizens. It has made slow progress in comparison to other countries who do not get all caught up in the perception of freedom. It may have had steady progress over the past 150 years in your opinion but it has consistently lagged other countries sufficiently enough that it is unwise to call it the "land of the free" and other such rhetoric of probably self deception.

In this particular case, I have to wonder if it is more important to believe that you are free all the while persecuting some citizens in the name of freedom. To hold a belief that some of your citizens must suffer rather great indignation and accusations about the sexuality of the dead is sad. I do hope that your Supreme Court finds the wisdom to end this behaviour. It will be interesting what aspects of your laws and constitution exist to stop this degrading behaviour and victimizations of the families. As one poster above has posted the concept of "private" and "public" will be interesting as well.

"
* To head someone off at the pass...no, I don't care if it's hate speech. Canada doesn't have a happy country. It has a country with bigots who keep their gobs shut for fear of recrimination. I'd MUCH rather have them open their mouths so I know who they are."

Pasa
I do not understand this viewpoint that you are expressing about "bigots who keep their gobs shut for fear of recrimination". I can only connect this to a point of supporting hatred and hate speech but I don't believe that is what you want to say. If laws are there to protect the citizens and laws prevent someone from victimizing other citizens that is good imo. A main point about our hate crimes and perhaps your's as well is that it must be proven that the person is promoting violence towards a group. I do know that many in my country and perhaps your own do not fully understand that the so called "hate crimes" laws are extremely complicated and that we are not as protected from hate speech as some of us think that we are. This Phelps group seems to go far beyond "speech" and they have shown physical action to demonstrate their hatred towards the families and gays. I will try not to divert to a defensive position about your comments about Canada as they may lead to too much off topic discussion. You are entitled to your perspective.

Phelps has not it seems had sufficient consequences to stop his actions. Actions are bigger than words and therefore a larger issue than freedom of speech.

In your country a great deal of energy and speech seems to be used to comment on freedom of speech. We have exactly the same or very similar language in our constitution. Some energy is spent on discussion on freedom of speech but no where near as much zealous as from you and your citizens. Bigots do speak out here but I'm not sure if they get the same media attention as in your country. I doubt that you have more per capita bigots than us. It is the valuing of extreme support that you hold that brings confusion to some of us. Government support of concepts seem to bring public attitudes to the forefront recently in Canada. I do see more public statements from supposed average people that are posting more bigotted extremist comments. The attitude of our present government is not overtly supporting bigots but the government seems to be countering civil rights and offering a perspective that may encourage bigots to be more vocal?..not sure but something is going on. If Phelps continues his actions and words the progress towards freedoms for all of your citizens may slow down or even stop...perhaps? To place a greater value of freedom of speech at the huge costs for freedoms for all of a country's citizens (in particular more minority groups) is very dangerous imo.

[mikey3000]

But it's a loose loose situation Tenni. If they vote to disallow these protests, then another group of protesters will protest Westboro's loss of their first ammendment rights. Go figure.

[tenni]

Mikey
I doubt that they will vote to disallow protest but is there not a difference between what is going on with Phelp's crew and freedom of speech, religion and freedom of "peaceful" assembly? There are physical actions and private property questions as well from what I understand? We have the aspect of "reasonable" for a free and democratic society aspect where they do not. Should a free and democratic society permit harassment or possible other "illegal" actions to be imposed on its citizens? Hopefully, a Supreme Court will be reasonable in maintaining a free and democratic society for all of its citizens.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Wink and a peck to your cheek, Mikey-hon. ;)
Cat

[Pasadenacpl2]

To what purpose? To spread their hate and bigotry? To surpress and bully minorities? To cause grief and strife? What good is knowing who they are if you can't stop them, or for that matter, choose not to stop them? Freedom to spread hatered? No thanks. Freedom of speech is a very relative term that may serve the majority, but harm the many minorities, and isn't that the basis for all the injustices done all throughout history? No it's not perfect, but I like my Canada the way it is. It still is very different than the U. S. and I'm thankful for that. I'm not saying it's better, just different. Viva la difference!!!

So...you are against freedom of speech. Gotcha.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Burial of a private citizen, not elected to public office, is by definition private.

This is factually incorrect. There are only two places where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A cemetary is not one of them.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

I am not stating that the US has not progressed over 150 years but it has never been the "land of the free" for all of its citizens. It has made slow progress in comparison to other countries who do not get all caught up in the perception of freedom. It may have had steady progress over the past 150 years in your opinion but it has consistently lagged other countries sufficiently enough that it is unwise to call it the "land of the free" and other such rhetoric of probably self deception.

I'll damn well keep on calling us the land of the free. YOU certainly can't claim that mantle with your government led and citizen supported censorship of speech.


In this particular case, I have to wonder if it is more important to believe that you are free all the while persecuting some citizens in the name of freedom. To hold a belief that some of your citizens must suffer rather great indignation and accusations about the sexuality of the dead is sad.

Yes, we sometimes suffer personal indignations so that others can be vocal douchebags.

In a free society, one does not legislate politeness.



I do hope that your Supreme Court finds the wisdom to end this behaviour. It will be interesting what aspects of your laws and constitution exist to stop this degrading behaviour and victimizations of the families. As one poster above has posted the concept of "private" and "public" will be interesting as well.

They cannot address the issue of public/private. That is not the question being asked of them. Our Supreme Court only addresses the specific question asked of them.


"
* To head someone off at the pass...no, I don't care if it's hate speech. Canada doesn't have a happy country. It has a country with bigots who keep their gobs shut for fear of recrimination. I'd MUCH rather have them open their mouths so I know who they are."

Pasa
I do not understand this viewpoint that you are expressing about "bigots who keep their gobs shut for fear of recrimination". I can only connect this to a point of supporting hatred and hate speech but I don't believe that is what you want to say.

Yes, I do. I don't agree with 'hate speech' (I hate that term). I loath it, personally. But I will support your right to use it. I went so far as to say I would be willing to die for that right. I went so far as to personally place my life in harms way to do so.

If I was willing to die for free speech, why would I support the limitation of it?


If laws are there to protect the citizens and laws prevent someone from victimizing other citizens that is good imo. A main point about our hate crimes and perhaps your's as well is that it must be proven that the person is promoting violence towards a group.

Violence and speech are two different things, yes. Phelps has not promoted violence. They have been, actually, inordinately peaceful while being slimy and pathetic.


I do know that many in my country and perhaps your own do not fully understand that the so called "hate crimes" laws are extremely complicated and that we are not as protected from hate speech as some of us think that we are. This Phelps group seems to go far beyond "speech" and they have shown physical action to demonstrate their hatred towards the families and gays. I will try not to divert to a defensive position about your comments about Canada as they may lead to too much off topic discussion. You are entitled to your perspective.

Protesting and demonstrating are not violence. They are, in fact, 100% protected activities in our 1st Ammendment.

A free society does not restrict free assembly and protest of it's citizenry based upon their message.


Phelps has not it seems had sufficient consequences to stop his actions. Actions are bigger than words and therefore a larger issue than freedom of speech.

In your country a great deal of energy and speech seems to be used to comment on freedom of speech. We have exactly the same or very similar language in our constitution. Some energy is spent on discussion on freedom of speech but no where near as much zealous as from you and your citizens. Bigots do speak out here but I'm not sure if they get the same media attention as in your country. I doubt that you have more per capita bigots than us. It is the valuing of extreme support that you hold that brings confusion to some of us. Government support of concepts seem to bring public attitudes to the forefront recently in Canada. I do see more public statements from supposed average people that are posting more bigotted extremist comments. The attitude of our present government is not overtly supporting bigots but the government seems to be countering civil rights and offering a perspective that may encourage bigots to be more vocal?..not sure but something is going on. If Phelps continues his actions and words the progress towards freedoms for all of your citizens may slow down or even stop...perhaps? To place a greater value of freedom of speech at the huge costs for freedoms for all of a country's citizens (in particular more minority groups) is very dangerous imo.

Hrm...wall of text, with no real good segues from one random thought to another. I'll try to break this down...

We value ALL speech, even if we disagree with it. Yes, we have laws that cover incitement. But, unless it directly incites violence, ALL speech is valued, even that speech we personally loath.

Who are you, Tenni, to decide that my thoughts and speech are not 'reasonable'? Who decides what is reasonable? What metric is used? Can that metric be perverted by a government who wishes to take control of the citizenry?

We value speech because while we love our government, we distrust it wholly. We understand that governments who are 'here to help' most often aren't. We are founded upon the idea that a government needs to be shackled, and that it cannot be allowed even a toehold into our freedoms. We accept that this means we have to suffer some people who aren't being very nice, as a result. We'll take that, ANY DAY, over allowing our government to tell us what we can and cannot say.

And finally, if you think Phelps in any way will speed up or slow down civil rights in this nation you are seriously naive. No one really gives a shit about these douchebags. As far as the national consciousness is concerned, they are not even a blip on the radar. Honestly, of the 15 political forums I am members of, this is the only one where we are talking about this topic (one other had a thread, it went 6 posts and was essentially one guy saying 'douche' and the other five saying 'yup'). You are being alarmist in your dire predictions. Thanks though, we'll be fine, and you'll still have to be polite under threat of penalty by law.

Pasa

[mikey3000]

So...you are against freedom of speech. Gotcha.

Pasa

You got me? LOL! Where did I say I was for freedom of speech? I'll take my limited free speech thanks. I made that point quite clear. A society needs rules to live by. If everyone had total freedom, think of the anarchy, like a kindergarden class with a bunch of spoiled four year olds and no teacher.

"I want it, I Want it, I WANT IT!!!!!!!" WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

No thanks. With maturity comes give and take on everyone's part.

[darkeyes]

I'll damn well keep on calling us the land of the free. YOU certainly can't claim that mantle with your government led and citizen supported censorship of speech.



Pasa

No nation can claim to be the land of the free.. there is far far more to liberty than the ability to open your gob and let your belly rumble saying what you like.. in any case, no people on the planet has that right... there are restrictions on what Americans are able to say just as there are in every country on earth.. it may or may not have less restrictions than anywhere else but that is unimportant in the greater scheme of things..

What of the rights of citizens to be free of want? In the western world the US has one of the highest rates of poverty... its people entrapped into a system of health care which hardly frees people or gives the right to good health, even with Obamas new health care legislation.. the people of the US are not free of violence and crime, and has an immense problem which can hardly be described as leaving Americans free.. it has one of the worst narcotics problems on the planet, and indeed much of its southern neighbour's problems of crime exist because of the hunger among so many of the American population illegal for illegal drugs.. the US has one of the worst homeless problems in the western world, ans some of the worst social housing.. it remains rife with discrimination against many sectors of society including ourselves in a way which most western democracies have in one way or other resolved... it is not free of bigotry and prejudice either for ethnic or religious reasons and has an immensely inefficient and polarised system of "democracy" which strangles the growth or development of any but the two main political parties. It is a nation controlled by big business interests and by an elite whose very existence deprives the US of the right to call itself so arrogantly "the land of the free".

Other nations including my own suffer from many of the same ailments as the US.. yet few of us would have the gall to claim our country is the land of the free... for we are not free.. not entirely. We have but elements of freedom of action and expression as allowed by our laws and constitutions. The USA may like to think of itself as the land of the free.. but as long as it throws its weight about in its own interests and steamrollers over everything and everyone in its way it does not have the right to call itself the land of the free. As long as the US suffers from so many infrastructure, political and social problems, it has no right to call itself the land of the free. Freedom comes in many guises... freedom of speech and freedom of expression are but two.. there are many many more things which are involved in allowing peoples freedom.. it may be the richest and most powerful nation on earth with the most advanced technology... but the United States suffers from far too many problems and hangups, too many hypocrisies and deceits, too many contradictions to have the cheek to call itself "the land of the free". It is not, and it is time people like Pasa recognised that, stopped bellyaching about everywhere else and recognised that. It is time to stop the self delusion.. They won't of course.. for they suffer the arrogance of superiority and blindness which many in all nations suffer when deluding themselves of their country's infallibility and God given superiority... and in rich and very powerful nations that is a very dangerous thing indeed.

[tenni]

Pasa[/QUOTE]

"Our Supreme Court only addresses the specific question asked of them."
Ok...I may be missing a major point. Please clarify what it is that you think that the question is that your Supreme Court has been asked?

Who are you, Tenni, to decide that my thoughts and speech are not 'reasonable'? Who decides what is reasonable? What metric is used? Can that metric be perverted by a government who wishes to take control of the citizenry?
I think that you raise some very good points about who decides whether something is reasonable for a free and democratic society. I wondered about that myself. The best that I can come up with is the Supreme Courts. It took Supreme Court decisions, province by province, in Canada to build up a consensus that same sex marriage was reasonable. As each province's Supreme Court (province by province) to continued to interpret section 15 of our Charter as applying to same sex marriage is equal to opposite sex marriage, the society began to shift its view. However, there are forces that do not accept this. What I do not see in their position is any real reasonableness to the question. Just to state that God is against it is not reasonable in a free and democratic society. Clearly, the "metric" is the societies constitution. If a society has a constitution that states that it is not reasonable for X but other free and democractic societies have reached a conclusion via their Supreme Courts that X is reasonable. Who is out of step in determining what is reasonable for a free and democratic society? I would write the constitution of the country that is found to lag in reasonable decisions that other free and democratic societies have deem so.

I am not clear on your question about a government perverting to take control. However, I would think that again it is your Supreme Justices who are experienced and knowledgeable about constitutional matters. Many governments have had laws stricken by Supreme Courts because the law has been found not to be constitutional. However, who places the wise Justices and is it possible to create a Supreme Court Justices who have a bias is a valid concern. I read about it mostly in your country when a Justice is being brought in. We, Canucks, do not have such a process. Some have argued for it. Some have stated by "politicizing" as to who is left or right is not the best way. It is better to look at the record of the potential Justice and determine how they have made a decision based upon the constitution and other legal factors.

"We value speech because while we love our government, we distrust it wholly. "

Who are the members of this "we"? Where is it written in your constitution to distrust your government? If it is not in your constitution then are you referring to fear of some US individuals? If so, I don't think that is a very wise way for any society to function out of fear.

"We value ALL speech, even if we disagree with it. Yes, we have laws that cover incitement. But, unless it directly incites violence, ALL speech is valued, even that speech we personally loath."
Do you believe that other free and democratic societies do not also value all speech even if they disagree with it? I hope not.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Ok. Let me put a twist on this topic.

Hypothetically: Let's say You were at the funeral of a service person that you knew, or it was the child of a friend, or it was a member of Your Own Family. Phelps' bunch showed up protesting it and violating their so called "Rights to free and peaceful assembly" by coming right up close, causing hate and discontent, yelling, throwing religious pamphlets, or spitting on the family members of that person killed defending their country, And themselves, what would YOU do? How would You personally handle it? How would you Feel about it?
Let's leave the pissing contest with other countries out of this for the moment, even tho I would like to hear their views on this if it happened to someone from Their country too. You already know My views on what would happen if I personally were at a funeral, a place where a person should be respected and taken to their final rest, and this BS occured and they got too close.. Now tell me Your views......
Cat

[Long Duck Dong]

lol cat, I would respect their rights to protest as much as I hate what they were saying.... but the moment they cross the line between * respect * ( respect being shutting up during the funeral ) and got in our faces, then it would be a different matter.....

I would not give a rats ass if it was a taliban members funeral they were protesting.... and I have no time for the taliban..... there are some things that are protected under nz law, and citizens, regardless of race or religion, are one of them..... and while free speech is protected, the right to throw punches is not......

to me, funerals are sacred.... hands off.... a time for family and friends and loved ones...... we can have the protesting and abuse and bs, later on..... just not at funerals..... and I do not care whose funeral it is...... if a person can not show respect for the dead and their families..... then they get no respect from me

[mikey3000]

This is how we handled them when they tried to enter Canada to protest the funeral of an innocent young man wo was brutally murdered by a psycho on a bus, claiming it was God's punishment for our abortion laws.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20080731/Manitoba_bus_080731/


"Church members enter Canada, aiming to picket bus victim's funeral
Last Updated: Friday, August 8, 2008 | 2:57 PM CT Comments970Recommend860CBC News
Members of a fundamentalist American church group planning to stage a protest at the funeral for a Winnipeg man brutally killed on a Greyhound bus have managed to enter Canada, a spokeswoman told CBC News on Friday.

Canadian border guards are under orders to prevent members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a controversial Kansas-based sect, from entering the country.

The group intends to picket the funeral of 22-year-old Tim McLean to tell Canadians his slaying on July 30 was God's response to Canadian policies enabling abortion, homosexuality and divorce and remarriage.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church wave protest signs outside funeral services for a soldier in Iowa in 2006. (Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press)Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's office sent an alert to border patrol to "look out" for people with signs and pamphlets consistent with the messages that the church promotes and to keep them out of the country.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, said a group of church members was turned away from a border crossing at Niagara Falls, but a small group did manage to get into Manitoba overnight.

"They were looking for picket signs and they were looking for leaflets. Well, we don't do leaflets, and the picket signs, you know, Fed Ex ships them overnight," she said.

However, Phelps-Roper said the reaction the group has raised from some police and public officials has her questioning whether the planned protest will go ahead.

"The question to my mind [is] whether or not we ought to get them the heck out of that country, because that's some crazy stuff when you've got your officials talking like they are in a back-alley brawl and not government officials who took an oath to obey the law and so forth."

Phelps-Roper said she would advise church members not to go ahead with the protest if there is a concern they might be arrested or harmed.

Counter-protest planned
A counter-protest against the church's picket plans was launched on the social networking site Facebook on Thursday.

More than 700 people have since joined the group; postings indicate they plan to form a "human wall" around the family to shield them from the church protest, if it takes place.

Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin said the group should be "sent packing," and should not try to show up in Winnipeg "for their own safety."

"We're not going to allow these people to compound the tragedy of the McLean family loss, and Canadians simply won't tolerate these lunatics disrupting what should be a respectful service," he told CBC News on Friday.

"Your freedom to swing your arm in the air ends when it touches the end of my nose," he added. "What these people were going to do was hurtful, harmful and disruptive to the peace, order and good government that we guarantee to our citizens, so they have no place in this country."

Family in shock, requests privacy
Meanwhile, Tim McLean's mother released a short public statement Friday morning, saying the family is in "complete shock at the horrifying loss of our loved one."

Carol deDelley expressed frustration that some media outlets have not identified McLean's family members properly; the statement identifies Tim's parents and step-parents and the six siblings in his blended families.

DeDelley asked for privacy during the family's time of mourning


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/08/08/westboro-protest.html#ixzz124F5sj4p"

And God help them if they did get in and protest. We were ready to beat the fucking snot out of them. Enter our country and protest an innocent man's death? There would have been nothing left of them. Go and practice your first ammendment rights in your country, not ours. Fucking bastards!!!!! My family is all out west, from where the bus incident happened, and many were prepared for a massive rumble. Thousands were actually. That's why they turned tail and ran. Bastards.

[Iowason]

I haven't read all of the posts on here about this thread but here goes my opinion. I don't agree with war but the soldiers don't get to choose where they go.

I feel bad enough for families of soldiers who have died fighting for our country. But then to have to come home to a funeral with protertors... that is really messed up. Free speech is one thing but chanting during a family members funeral, I would probably drive my car into the crowd and take out as many of the assholes as possible.

To make my opinion even stronger, my step daughter is in California right now training to be deployed next month. I hate to think what I would do if something happened to her and then I had to go to a funeral and face people like that. I am not normally ever violent in nature, nor have I ever been to jail but I probably would go that day....

[tenni]

Just to add some clarification regarding Mikey's post and Tim MacLean. Tim was not a soldier. He was a completely innocent victim of a horrible, horrible crime. He was murdered by an insane man just because he was sitting next to him on a Grey Hound bus. God told the insane man to kill MacLean according to the murderer. His body was then violated. His head was removed and shown to the other passengers who had fled the bus in the middle of the night and in the remote countryside. The murderer ate parts of his body, ate his eyes (so that MacLean would stop looking at him) and more before he was captured from the bus.

How a sect connects this brutal murder to god's revenge is extremely sick and perverted. This US sect is a group of mentally ill people that are as insane as the murderer of Tim MacLean. Why not arrest this Phelp's woman and her father to have them undergo a psychiatric competency test? Or is the US going to wait until one of the sect kills someone because god told him to? I'll argue against myself that they probably would pass as not being a danger to themselves or others though..sigh.

[mikey3000]

What if these protesters decided to protest the funerals of women who died of breast cancer because they decided to work outside the home?

What if these protesters decided to protest the funerals of infants because they were born to single mothers?

Both scenarios are against God's will, aren't they? Would their first ammendment rights still apply? Would you still say they have a right to protest? How can protesting a soldier's funeral be any different?

[Pasadenacpl2]

"Our Supreme Court only addresses the specific question asked of them."
Ok...I may be missing a major point. Please clarify what it is that you think that the question is that your Supreme Court has been asked?

Who are you, Tenni, to decide that my thoughts and speech are not 'reasonable'? Who decides what is reasonable? What metric is used? Can that metric be perverted by a government who wishes to take control of the citizenry?
I think that you raise some very good points about who decides whether something is reasonable for a free and democratic society. I wondered about that myself. The best that I can come up with is the Supreme Courts. It took Supreme Court decisions, province by province, in Canada to build up a consensus that same sex marriage was reasonable. As each province's Supreme Court (province by province) to continued to interpret section 15 of our Charter as applying to same sex marriage is equal to opposite sex marriage, the society began to shift its view. However, there are forces that do not accept this. What I do not see in their position is any real reasonableness to the question. Just to state that God is against it is not reasonable in a free and democratic society. Clearly, the "metric" is the societies constitution. If a society has a constitution that states that it is not reasonable for X but other free and democractic societies have reached a conclusion via their Supreme Courts that X is reasonable. Who is out of step in determining what is reasonable for a free and democratic society? I would write the constitution of the country that is found to lag in reasonable decisions that other free and democratic societies have deem so.

So, nine men in black robes will determine what thoughts and words are reasonable.

BTW, it is PERFECTLY reasonable for someone to say "God Hates Fags." It's a religious expression.

Who the fuck do you think you are to tell someone what they can or cannot believe? Do you think donning a black robe makes one somehow more capable of doing so?

The only correct answer for this is that NO ONE is capable of saying what is reasonable, and that to attempt to do so is to pervert the concept of freedom of speech.


I am not clear on your question about a government perverting to take control. However, I would think that again it is your Supreme Justices who are experienced and knowledgeable about constitutional matters. Many governments have had laws stricken by Supreme Courts because the law has been found not to be constitutional. However, who places the wise Justices and is it possible to create a Supreme Court Justices who have a bias is a valid concern. I read about it mostly in your country when a Justice is being brought in. We, Canucks, do not have such a process. Some have argued for it. Some have stated by "politicizing" as to who is left or right is not the best way. It is better to look at the record of the potential Justice and determine how they have made a decision based upon the constitution and other legal factors.

I'll try to be more clear: Once the government has decided that one form of speech is not reasonable, what is to stop it from doing so with other speech? What is to stop it from regulating any speech it chooses? The answer is that once you open the door, once you open pandora's box, you cannot close it again.


"We value speech because while we love our government, we distrust it wholly. "

Who are the members of this "we"? Where is it written in your constitution to distrust your government? If it is not in your constitution then are you referring to fear of some US individuals? If so, I don't think that is a very wise way for any society to function out of fear.

I will direct you to history, and to our Constitution. The entire purpose of the first 10 amendments (our Bill of Rights) was a limitation upon the government. The first amendment is as much a statement of our personal rights as it is a restriction on what the government can do. If you truly understood Americans (which you don't), you'd get this about us.

I'm glad you don't think it's wise. Your society has still been stepping and fetching for the Queen since it's inception. We were born out of the idea that we would not allow England, or even our own nation, to restrict us again. We don't think of it as fear. We think it is enlightened self-interest. It goes against our interests to allow a government, any government, to flex it's muscles upon us too much.

EVERY election here is about that. It's about limiting our government to the barest bones necessary to get the job done. There are some who see expanding the government as our salvation. Those people are deluded. Government is not the solution. LESS government is the solution to most issues.


"We value ALL speech, even if we disagree with it. Yes, we have laws that cover incitement. But, unless it directly incites violence, ALL speech is valued, even that speech we personally loath."
Do you believe that other free and democratic societies do not also value all speech even if they disagree with it? I hope not.

Canada does not value all speech. You have said so, yourself. Mikey has said so quite clearly, that he values the muzzle and the gag over free speech.

Pasa

[Cowboy51]

There are a lot of underlying issues that could also be argued, but I don't feel this is the thread to do that. There is more to this than just freedom of speech, respect/disrespect, which country has more freedoms, etc. I am going to just stay on the topic that Cat has proposed. I find myself in an internal struggle. As a veteran, I am appaled at these protests. (Even if I were not a veteran, I would still be appaled.) As a parent I am trying to teach my daughters tolerance (I am not sure if that is the correct word to use) for others' believes, thoughts/opinions, sexuality, etc. So I find myself in a hypocritical situation. One where my teachings for tolerance is out weighed for my disgust of said events and more than likely would find me in a violent encounter with the protestors. Which is the exact opposite of what I try to teach my daughters, but as "good" as I try to be, I tend to be a violent person. So to sum it up, I would turn a "peaceful" demonstration into a violent one, although it would make me a hypocrite for opposing my teachings to my daughters and for bringing more unwanted grief/attention to a grieving family.

[Pasadenacpl2]

What if these protesters decided to protest the funerals of women who died of breast cancer because they decided to work outside the home?

What if these protesters decided to protest the funerals of infants because they were born to single mothers?

Both scenarios are against God's will, aren't they? Would their first ammendment rights still apply? Would you still say they have a right to protest? How can protesting a soldier's funeral be any different?

What if? They'd be nuts, but so what? Nothing says "only sane people get to demonstrate." Nothing says "only people we find 'reasonable' get to demonstrate. Yes, they'd have the right to demonstrate.

What part of this do you not understand: 100% of the people get to demonstrate for ANY reason, and cannot be shut down due to the message (no matter what that message is).

The only exceptions to this are direct incitement to violence. That's it. That's as far as the exceptions go.

Now, had someone attacked Phelps the first time, we'd be at a point where we could say "You should have known this would incite violence." But, since Phelps has had literally hundreds of funerals go without any violence at all, he has pretty good standing to say that any violence committed was unforeseeable.

As an aside, Canada's way of dealing with it is fucked up. Denying someone entrance because you don't like their message is not what a free society does. Ergo: Canada is not a free society.

Pasa

[bisexual Bill]

Okay, some perspective.
"Military funeral".
My father had a Catholic funeral with military honors. A veteran from a little skirmish commonly called today "World War 2".
If Phelps had shown up, perhaps they could protest at the entrance of the church/graveyard (in our case it was 1/4 mile away at least), but to interrupt services, which were 'private' (grave diggers, members of the church, 30 or so family members, 3 active members of the military and 3 retired giving the arsenal 'salute') would exceed 1st amendment bounds by trespassing personal privacy.
Burial of a private citizen, not elected to public office, is by definition private.

I agree with what you are saying about freedom of speech, protesting, and Phelps at private funerals.

It is rather tasteless and hateful for Phelps and his "church" to protest at schools, funerals, and anywhere just for attention without any regard for someone else's personal privacy or the privacy of the family of the soldiers who have died and are in mourning and torn up enough as it is with the death of one of their children in a war.

[locotom]

bastards!!!! bastards!!!!bastards!!!! as a brit who sees our fallen service men and women being shipped backed to be paraded through brize norton and to see the respect shown by the villagers and visitors and then to hear that the extremist muslim factions in london were going to travel there and protest and spew their shit really made me lose it i actually booked a train to go and cause some mayhem but the muppets cancelled it worse luck cos i would have loved to get in the middle of that riot and be arrested yet again for speaking my mind i;e physically?.. sorry for the rant but i feel deeply about this issue whichever side of the pond the servicemen/women are from they should have the right to have a dignified family funeral without these fanatics hanging round and upsetting everybody just to get media attention

[mikey3000]

What if? They'd be nuts, but so what? Nothing says "only sane people get to demonstrate." Nothing says "only people we find 'reasonable' get to demonstrate. Yes, they'd have the right to demonstrate.

What part of this do you not understand: 100% of the people get to demonstrate for ANY reason, and cannot be shut down due to the message (no matter what that message is).

The only exceptions to this are direct incitement to violence. That's it. That's as far as the exceptions go.

Now, had someone attacked Phelps the first time, we'd be at a point where we could say "You should have known this would incite violence." But, since Phelps has had literally hundreds of funerals go without any violence at all, he has pretty good standing to say that any violence committed was unforeseeable.

As an aside, Canada's way of dealing with it is fucked up. Denying someone entrance because you don't like their message is not what a free society does. Ergo: Canada is not a free society.

Pasa

So really what you're saying is that it is the American people's fault for letting him get as far as he did, so let's let him continue? Dude, now that mentality is fucked up. We stopped them right at square one, and you say we are a repressed society? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Obviously your first ammendment needs a little ammending again.

As for Canada being fucked up, dude, you clearly are delusional. You just don't get it. The U. S. is not the same country it was when the constitution was written. Why can't you see that? Oh, cause your blinders are on. Man do I feel sorry for you.

Over and out. It's hard to have a battle of witts with an unarmed opponent.

[tenni]

Pasa
All that I will write is that your perspective is your perspective. If you can not understand the connection of what is reasonable between a question/issue and the text of a free and democratic society's constitution , that is your issue. I suspect that is what your Supreme Court does when deciding a question/issue. They base their decision on the text of your constitution and decide the answer as being reasonable.

[Doggiestyle]

As much as I hate to say it,,, but I honestly think that the so called Reverend Phelps (not very "reverent" person HUH?) does indeed have the constitutional right to do what he is doing. :mad: To me he is a preacher of hate and intolerance of "what he thinks" and not necessary what the bible really says. Me really thinks he is a :devil: in sheep's clothing.

Anyway the thing that really matters is that if you start to limit the "free speech" right in one instance, then where will it end? This limitation will start a faucet dripping that will eventually turn into a faucet that is running. I mean the freedom of speech needs to be all or nothing. It can never be and / or. In other words, if you start to make exceptions, then there will be more exceptions and the next thing you know there will be no freedom of speech.

Now all that being said, the reality is that there is plenty that can be done, without messing with the constitution, or making any amendments to it.

The various local veteran groups should show up wherever they show up. Next the same groups should also form up and camp out in front of their "home base" church (in Kansas???), and make as much noise as legally possible! After all it has to be his congregation that is financially supporting his operation. So the constitution says that they are also "free game too".

The Patriot Riders could help with this also!

After all, they are only a few people. I mean that when they show up at these events, they aren't that many of them there (about a dozen or so?). They cannot make that much noise, can they?

Does everybody remember back when he and his following (which is mostly his kids and in laws) used to show up at the various gay / pride events? The gay folks told their sorry asses to go to hell and that they would kick their asses back to Kansas, if they messed with them too much!!! They in effect told them they loud and proud,,, I mean they said that they "were gay and that's their way", and to them, "there's the highway", and so get over it!!!

To me it seems that the Reverend Phelps and his entourage has simply found another way to "beat up on the queer folks" that's all. Dam shame that he has to use the veterans to do it.

Now seriously, considering the kind of idiots we now seem to have in Washington. You really don't want them messing with the constitution or making any amendments.

I say a bumper sticker that had a rainbow flag on it and it said
God wants spiritual fruit,,,,Not religious nuts! ,,,, LOL, I liked that one.

Your friend, :doggie:

[Pasadenacpl2]

Pasa
All that I will write is that your perspective is your perspective. If you can not understand the connection of what is reasonable between a question/issue and the text of a free and democratic society's constitution , that is your issue. I suspect that is what your Supreme Court does when deciding a question/issue. They base their decision on the text of your constitution and decide the answer as being reasonable.

The Constitution is quite clear.

After reading the transcripts of the hearing, I don't think Snyder has a leg to stand on. From the tone of the Justices in their questions (particularly Scalia and Ginsberg) I don't think this will go down the way you predict it will.

As for what you cannot understand, I am not surprised. I don't trust anyone to be able to reasonably answer what is reasonable. I don't want, nor do most Americans, anyone telling us what we can and can't say. Canada, apparently, has no problem with telling people what they can and can't say. Canada, as we have seen again and again, does not support free speech.

IF the Justices deem Phelps to have uttered 'fighting words' then that is an incitement to violence and we have agreed as a society that those are out of bounds. But, if they were merely insulting, well...no one has the right not to be insulted.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

So really what you're saying is that it is the American people's fault for letting him get as far as he did, so let's let him continue? Dude, now that mentality is fucked up. We stopped them right at square one, and you say we are a repressed society? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Obviously your first ammendment needs a little ammending again.

As for Canada being fucked up, dude, you clearly are delusional. You just don't get it. The U. S. is not the same country it was when the constitution was written. Why can't you see that? Oh, cause your blinders are on. Man do I feel sorry for you.

Over and out. It's hard to have a battle of witts with an unarmed opponent.

If you are going to make a statement like that, I suggest you at least learn to spell. It's 'amendment' 'amending' and 'wits.'

And, no. When you said 'so what you're saying...' you were wrong. I did not say that, in the slightest. I said that since he has plenty of evidence that this does not incite people to violence, that his case that these are not inciting words is pretty stout. Which it is. Reading comprehension is your friend. I suggest you learn it.

Moving on. Yes, you stopped it. You prevented free speech. You prevented someone from entering the country because you didn't like their message. That's not a victory. That's a crying shame. If you disagree with someone, then you win by by being better in the arena of ideas. You don't muzzle the opposition unless you feel your position is so weak it cannot win. Governments like to do that. In the US, we understand that the government cannot compete and will, if allowed, muzzle opposition. We understand how dangerous a government can be to personal freedoms. It's why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place.

No blinders here. Those would be what you wear. You have stated, clearly, that you do not support free speech. You said, proudly, that you prefer to have people gagged. You said that this is the way you like it. Great. Then stand proud for that. Just don't pretend that you are now for free speech or civil liberties.

Free speech must be unbridled, or it is not free. Civil liberties are for ALL, and not just whom we agree with. If they are not, then no one has civil liberties.

Pasa

[Long Duck Dong]

The Constitution is quite clear.

After reading the transcripts of the hearing, I don't think Snyder has a leg to stand on. From the tone of the Justices in their questions (particularly Scalia and Ginsberg) I don't think this will go down the way you predict it will.

As for what you cannot understand, I am not surprised. I don't trust anyone to be able to reasonably answer what is reasonable. I don't want, nor do most Americans, anyone telling us what we can and can't say. Canada, apparently, has no problem with telling people what they can and can't say. Canada, as we have seen again and again, does not support free speech.

IF the Justices deem Phelps to have uttered 'fighting words' then that is an incitement to violence and we have agreed as a society that those are out of bounds. But, if they were merely insulting, well...no one has the right not to be insulted.

Pasa

DD and I are both of that opinion too..... all the facts point to while the wbc remarks were vile, they were not seen or heard by the complainant while the funeral was being heard,....only afterwards ......

300 yards from a funeral, not visible and silent.... while the wbcs may be pieces of shit, but they are legally tutored and use it well......

on the issue of canada, refusing entrance to the wbc into canada can be seen as a opposition to free speech, but rights of entrance into a country, are seperate to free speech in a country...... and the same applies to the us..... denial of entrance into a country, is not infringing on the first amendment, as the first amendment applies to speech within the countries borders......
border control and visa grants, cover the laws of the borders, ( as I understand it ) not the first amendment......

the way I understand free speech... is that I can say dammed near anything I want, people have the right to scream blue murder over what I say.... but provided I am not endorsing murder or any other violent act or saying it right to your face, the first amendment will protect my right to mouth off...and your right to tell me that the world is better off without my kind lol

[Pasadenacpl2]

I agree that each nation has the right to say yes or no to whomever they choose to enter. However, their stated reason was to stop the message. And this was supported at least by Tenni and Mikey. So, to say that the government of Canada in general and these two in particular are against free speech is not out of bounds.

Glad that we agree on the rest though.

Pasa

[bicurcple]

I hate these people and their message, although there is free speech, there are also anti-harassment laws. What these people are doing should be considered harassment of these parents and families who are burying a loved one who fought for this country. I know as a parent, if I lost a child and had some backwards ass losers telling me my son or daughter deserved to die I would be hysterically irate. I think a well placed sniper could take care of this in the future.

[Bluebiyou]

OH,oh, oh... don't say that.
You clearly have not got the same lawyer advice as WBC.
Please delete your comment.
MODERATORS!!!!
While I'm sure bicurcple's comment is just careless frivoless talk and certainly not serious in intention... please just delete the comment which was clearly not well thought out.

:)

[tenni]

I agree that each nation has the right to say yes or no to whomever they choose to enter. However, their stated reason was to stop the message. And this was supported at least by Tenni and Mikey. So, to say that the government of Canada in general and these two in particular are against free speech is not out of bounds.

Glad that we agree on the rest though.

Pasa

Pasa
If you read the article, the government ministers stated officially that it was a public safety issue. With so many Canadians having signed petitions and made statements that they would not accept these slim ball creeps doing anything it would have taken many, many cops to protect these slim ball creeps. The police were at the funeral just in case some of these creatures showed. Many Canadians were there to "protect" the family as I recall. The emotional situation of the country would mean that violence would have happened and their would not be safety for those who attended the funeral nor the protectors or the slim ball Yanks. Add to your disgust for making statements about your dead soldiers "eating" the dead solider and figure out the emotional level of most Canadians. It is similar emotional state of Canadians that your people might have towards permitting a foreign Al Qaeda speaker in to your country the week after 911 to speak about how 911 was the dead people's fault and God's revenge for US policies.

[tenni]

The Constitution is quite clear.

After reading the transcripts of the hearing, I don't think Snyder has a leg to stand on. From the tone of the Justices in their questions (particularly Scalia and Ginsberg) I don't think this will go down the way you predict it will.

As for what you cannot understand, I am not surprised. I don't trust anyone to be able to reasonably answer what is reasonable. I don't want, nor do most Americans, anyone telling us what we can and can't say. Canada, apparently, has no problem with telling people what they can and can't say. Canada, as we have seen again and again, does not support free speech.

IF the Justices deem Phelps to have uttered 'fighting words' then that is an incitement to violence and we have agreed as a society that those are out of bounds. But, if they were merely insulting, well...no one has the right not to be insulted.

Pasa

If I exercised my right to USA freedom of speech about your above thoughts I would be violating the bisexual.com Canadian website's rules and endangering my membership. If you do not like these "Canadian" rules about restricting your freedom of speech, don't let the door hit your ass on your way out dude....:bigrin: You were kicked off this site once already for exercising what you think is your "freedom of speech" rights. This is not the USA dude. If you are not open to fixing your flawed constitution, so be it. You are not in the land of the free for all of your citizens and you should know it. You and your kind are only deluding yourself.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Bi curcpl, whilst I understand your meaning, I dont condone That kind of violence, nor driving my car into a crowd. (Altho the thought of running over Phelps' and his daughter's feet appeals to me Real well...lol)
In keeping with the second question is more of what I was after here. Killing someone else is never the answer.

Pasa-honey and Tenni. I have yet to see your answers outside of ya'll talking about the countries constitutions and all that. Answer the question. If the funeral were of someone YOU knew, or was Your family member, how would You handle it? How would it make You feel?
Cat waiting

[Pasadenacpl2]

I'd be pissed. I've ridden with the Freedom Riders twice. I've expressed my outrage. I will continue to do so.

Doesn't make what they do actionable in court. Just makes them douchenozzles. Being a douchenozzle is not illegal. Offending someone is not illegal, either.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

If I exercised my right to USA freedom of speech about your above thoughts I would be violating the bisexual.com Canadian website's rules and endangering my membership. If you do not like these "Canadian" rules about restricting your freedom of speech, don't let the door hit your ass on your way out dude....:bigrin: You were kicked off this site once already for exercising what you think is your "freedom of speech" rights. This is not the USA dude. If you are not open to fixing your flawed constitution, so be it. You are not in the land of the free for all of your citizens and you should know it. You and your kind are only deluding yourself.

Me and my kind? And what kind is that, exactly?

Our Constitution keeps people who wish to limit freedoms at bay. I'll take it over censorship anyday.

We weren't discussing this website. We were discussing WBBC and their Constitutionally protected free speech. We were also discussing freedom of speech in Canada.

I can always tell when you know you are losing an argument. You attack me personaly with veiled threats about getting me kicked off the site. Also, when you can't win on freedom of speech yoi go off on other freedoms and try to make the argument that because we are not perfect in all areas we have to leg to stand on. It is a weak debate strategy. I have allowed you to get by without calling you on it previously. I am not feeling so charitable, now. We are discussing 1st Amendment rights. That's it. And in that Canada gets a much lower grade than the US.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

We are discussing 1st Amendment rights. That's it. And in that Canada gets a much lower grade than the US.

Pasa

Nip Nip Nip Nip Nip... pompous, bumptious arse...

[tenni]

Pasa
Your kind? :cool:

Your kind believes that the US interpretation of freedom of speech is the only correct interpretation of freedom of speech

Your kind believes that he lives in "the land of the free" when where he lives has a history of excessive discrimination based upon race, gender and sexual orientation preventing those people of their freedoms.

Your kind believes that violence brings peace.

Your kind believes that he has freedom of speech but it is acceptable if your citizens and media were censored while Bushlite and his crew violated rights and the Geneva Conventions.

Your kind believes that the USA goes about the world freeing people.

Your kind believes that his constitution is infallible and needs no revisions while minorities are excluded from equal rights to freedoms.

Your kind believes that his freedom of speech includes the right to threaten other posters with violence.

[Long Duck Dong]

If I exercised my right to USA freedom of speech about your above thoughts I would be violating the bisexual.com Canadian website's rules and endangering my membership. If you do not like these "Canadian" rules about restricting your freedom of speech, don't let the door hit your ass on your way out dude....:bigrin: You were kicked off this site once already for exercising what you think is your "freedom of speech" rights. This is not the USA dude. If you are not open to fixing your flawed constitution, so be it. You are not in the land of the free for all of your citizens and you should know it. You and your kind are only deluding yourself.

Posting Rules:
Generally I am not a "rules person", but experience with various internet communities has taught me that rules are necessary, even on a site that is all about about sexual freedom such as Bisexual.com. So here they are:

I guess the site owner is more supportive of the us rights of free speech..... cos he doesn't like to restrict the rights of expression......

thats one canadian I can respect......:tong:

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Ya know what?? I think you Boys need to take this pissing contest off board so you can insult each other alot better. Since when did my post turn into a Your Kind/My Kind type of thing???!!
Bad form Gentlemen!!!
A getting pissed Cat

[mikey3000]

Ya know what?? I think you Boys need to take this pissing contest off board so you can insult each other alot better. Since when did my post turn into a Your Kind/My Kind type of thing???!!
Bad form Gentlemen!!!
A getting pissed Cat

Sorry Cat, but when someone starts insulting Canada because we don't share his views, we have to stand up. He is the one who started bashing Canada and our laws cause they differ from yours. If he can't agree to disagree and keeps dissing our way of life, He will get what he deserves.

Best to stay clear and let this one be, Cat. It's more personal now. And I will defend my country, whether you like it or not.

[Long Duck Dong]

Sorry Cat, but when someone starts insulting Canada because we don't share his views, we have to stand up. He is the one who started bashing Canada and our laws cause they differ from yours. If he can't agree to disagree and keeps dissing our way of life, He will get what he deserves.

Best to stay clear and let this one be, Cat. It's more personal now. And I will defend my country, whether you like it or not.

there is a number of posts by tenni telling us citizens that their laws and constitutions are wrong and outdated well before pasa first posted in the thread..... starting with post 21

[tenni]

Bi curcpl, whilst I understand your meaning, I dont condone That kind of violence, nor driving my car into a crowd. (Altho the thought of running over Phelps' and his daughter's feet appeals to me Real well...lol)
In keeping with the second question is more of what I was after here. Killing someone else is never the answer.

Pasa-honey and Tenni. I have yet to see your answers outside of ya'll talking about the countries constitutions and all that. Answer the question. If the funeral were of someone YOU knew, or was Your family member, how would You handle it? How would it make You feel?
Cat waiting


Cat
I have not read Pasa's response but I think that it is just below your's. I would be very angry and terribly hurt. I don't know how I would handle it. I really do not. I think that if I had a sibling who was killed whether as Tim MacLean died or in the military and one of my parents were alive, I would be feeling the need to defend my family's honour and demand that the lies be stopped. I may go after these people personally. I just don't know how I would react depending upon what was going on in my family.

Since I obviously believe that freedom of speech may not be appropriate in these circumstance and I lost it..you can bet that I'd have quite a few words to these fuckers.(opps did I write that) I might start a campaign or join a group to stop this harassment legally. (including changing our constitution to stop it if needed) I am rather prone to fight against injustice but when it is your own family I just don't know if I'd have the emotional strength to be productive (vengence might become my right...not really but ). I hope that I would fight this legally to my best ability.

Post
Oh...I just looked and maybe Pasa has not answered you Cat. Cat I have tried to bring my posts back to the actual situation as best as I can. We can not all be emotive ..well guys just do it in our own way(pissing contests...lol)

Mikey, I don't mind Pasa offending Canada. I will respond where it seem worth it and realize that he is doing it perhaps because he considers that I have attacked his country. I'm big enough to accept someone stating negative things about Canada. If it is to insult and not debate , no point responding. Some in the US are wise and broad minded. Others can not understand that the world exists outside of mainland USA. We can learn from each other if we chose to.

[DuckiesDarling]

I hope that I would fight this legally to my best ability.

And yet, we are telling you that what they are doing is legal, at least until the Supreme Court makes a decision that it isn't and your response is to tell us our laws are outdated and need changed. That we are not free because we allow hate speech yet what the hell do you think freedom is? Is freedom only allowed when it's something you want to hear, see, smell, feel, think or do? Freedom is a double edged sword and there are undesirable aspects but they have to be allowed or you are not truly free.

[tenni]

And yet, we are telling you that what they are doing is legal, at least until the Supreme Court makes a decision that it isn't and your response is to tell us our laws are outdated and need changed. That we are not free because we allow hate speech yet what the hell do you think freedom is? Is freedom only allowed when it's something you want to hear, see, smell, feel, think or do? Freedom is a double edged sword and there are undesirable aspects but they have to be allowed or you are not truly free.

DD
I don't believe that true freedom is a double edged sword. If you re read my thoughts, I have pointed out what two elements that may be missing in your constitution. I may be wrong with these points. Freedom does not permit discrimination, persecution and harassment based upon connecting another citizen to minorities based upon, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, mental or physical disability. Hopefully, your Supreme Court is able to determine that you have such strength in your constitution to find a positive resolution. However, it has taken a very long time for your society to resolve issues due to the lack of such elements in your constitution from what I have seen over the years.

I also stated that if needed, I would fight to change our constitution if needed rather than make statements like freedom is a double edged sword. We defend the freedom of speech etc.

[Long Duck Dong]

DD
I don't believe that true freedom is a double edged sword. If you re read my thoughts, I have pointed out what two elements that may be missing in your constitution. I may be wrong but freedom does not permit discrimination, persecution and harassment based upon connecting another citizen to minorities based upon, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, mental or physical disability.

first amendment, freedom of speech, the right to express yourself as you wish..... then the legal laws such as hate speech apply depending on what you say......

key difference.......

you may speak as you see fit.... you are not stopped..... but you are judged on what you say after you say it....... not before you say it....

canada stopped phelps before they said a word in canada..... the us allowed them to say their stuff...... freedom of speech, who stopped the phelps expressing themselves

[DuckiesDarling]

DD
I don't believe that true freedom is a double edged sword. If you re read my thoughts, I have pointed out what two elements that may be missing in your constitution. I may be wrong with these points. Freedom does not permit discrimination, persecution and harassment based upon connecting another citizen to minorities based upon, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, mental or physical disability. Hopefully, your Supreme Court is able to determine that you have such strength in your constitution to find a positive resolution. However, it has taken a very long time for your society to resolve issues due to the lack of such elements in your constitution from what I have seen over the years.

And as I pointed out the same amendment that gives the WBC the right to protest gave Constance McMillan the right to sue the school when they said she couldn't go to prom in a tux. That is what I mean by double edged sword, we have to allow the bad with the good or we are not free. Freedom loses it's value when it's only what we want to see, hear, view or read. Do not devalue a society because they choose to be truly free. We also have the right to not to listen to them, not to give them the attention they seek yet we still find them front page news even on a site like this.

[tenni]

DD
re: post #138
I've tried to construct a response to this above post. I find it difficult. I do not believe that freedom has a double edged sword and you do. I definitely do not believe that your society is truly free for the stated reasons about denial of equality of equal benefits and equal protection under your laws. This is most evident with your DOMA law but that is not the thread topic.

I agree that freedom of speech gives the right for this group to express their views but is that what is really happening here? I don't think so.

Other free and democratic societies have freedom of speech but it seems to be only your society that continues to bred wackos like the Phelps. Why is it that your society continues to confuse or experience such strange interpretations about freedom of speech and freedom itself? This is a rhetorical question as our views are so far apart that we do not have common ground for discourse. It is just confusing how far apart we are.

[bicurcple]

OH,oh, oh... don't say that.
You clearly have not got the same lawyer advice as WBC.
Please delete your comment.
MODERATORS!!!!
While I'm sure bicurcple's comment is just careless frivoless talk and certainly not serious in intention... please just delete the comment which was clearly not well thought out.

:)

why should my comment be deleted.....what about free speech? I am sorry but it's how I feel and I have every right to feel that way!!!! Who the hell are you to judge my comments?

[DuckiesDarling]

DD
re: post #138
I've tried to construct a response to this above post. I find it difficult. I do not believe that freedom has a double edged sword and you do. I definitely do not believe that your society is truly free for the stated reasons about denial of equality of equal benefits and equal protection under your laws. This is most evident with your DOMA law but that is not the thread topic.

I agree that freedom of speech gives the right for this group to express their views but is that what is really happening here? I don't think so.

Other free and democratic societies have freedom of speech but it seems to be only your society that continues to bred wackos like the Phelps. Why is it that your society continues to confuse or experience such strange interpretations about freedom of speech and freedom itself? This is a rhetorical question as our views are so far apart that we do not have common ground for discourse. It is just confusing how far apart we are.

Argh, it's like talking to a brick wall. Actually let's go with that. You are a brick wall, I am a brick wall. The first amendment is the ball that bounces off of us. No matter if it takes a good bounce or a bad bounce it has the right to bounce. Make more sense now? Just because we as humans don't like something it doesn't mean it's illegal. There is no Supreme Court of public opinion and for a good reason. The judges are appointed for life and represent a good mix of religions, races and genders at this point in time. They will have to rule for the Phelps group because of the Constitution, even if they write a scathing dissent to it limiting as much as they can the power of the hate group. I pretty much think it will go 5-4 in favor of the Phelps group and I think that sucks. But I don't get to choose who is covered under a law and neither do you. Rights are rights and apply to everyone.

[bicurcple]

Maybe you people took me too serious. I did not mean to suggest violence in the situation. What the phelps do is just f*****g rude. A funeral for the victims family is a very sad ordeal, I do not believe anyone should have to endure harrasment by a bunch of screwed up individuals, at a service for the death of a loved one. I could care less about Canada's free speech laws or the constitution of the U.S. What they do at funerals should not be allowed. Period. And if an extremist took it to the stage of violence towards the phelps I would have little care. What if the father or mother of one of these soldiers ended up commiting suicide because of the harrasment they were subjected to by the phelps.....would it not be the same as bullying? Would it take on a whole new outlook other than free speech?

[tenni]

I agree with you bicurple
This situation is not about freedom of speech.

This is the best that I could find as to what type of harassment is going on imo.

Sociological harassment involves elements of many categories of harassment; it usually takes the form of organised, group-based psychological harassment with a political or ideological motive in organisational, institutional, and academic contexts. It was first observed and described in the United Kingdom circa 2010; although similar forms of harassment have always existed, this form is characterized by its unusually high level of organisation, the ostensible unrelatedness of episodes and incidents, and certain typical phases, patterns and practices.

[flightdeck]

im from the UK so i dont know anything about this phelps person but hasnt he got anything better to do than insult a family in their grief.cant he go out and buy a fishing pole or something and go and sit by the river in the sun shine and just look up and thank god he is still alive because i think he is lucky to still be walking. does he go and protest at the mosque when an american is killed. the man wants to just shut his mouth and respect people of any religion including muslim.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Best to stay clear and let this one be, Cat. It's more personal now. And I will defend my country, whether you like it or not.

Then take it off the damn board and fight amongst yourselves like men! If its That personal then duke it out between the two of you...geez. And no more of this "My Country is better than Your Country BS"
We're all in this together and no one is better than anyone else. The results would still be the same if Phelps and his band of idiot zealots had protested a funeral of a service person in the US,Canada, NZ or where the fuck ever else! Its morally wrong, disrespectful the the family and friends of the person lost, and Either or You would feel the same if it was someone You knew.
And dont jump up My ass for your disagreement with someone else. I dont have a prob with you or anyone else defending your country, that Isnt the Prob here. Your bickering back and forth and throwing insults at each other Is.
Cat

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Tenni, you and I dont always agree, but we do agree to disagree and thats a great thing. This time we agree, and I thank you for answering the questions that way I had originaly requested for them to be.
Thank you. I'm not yet to the pecking your cheek stage but I will give a grin and nod in your direction..LOL:bigrin:;)
Cat

[Pasadenacpl2]

Sorry Cat, but when someone starts insulting Canada because we don't share his views, we have to stand up. He is the one who started bashing Canada and our laws cause they differ from yours. If he can't agree to disagree and keeps dissing our way of life, He will get what he deserves.

Best to stay clear and let this one be, Cat. It's more personal now. And I will defend my country, whether you like it or not.

Actually, it was Tenni who decided to make this a Canada vs. US issue, slamming the US, as he usually does.

Going by your logic, you should understand exactly where I'm coming from. I'm pretty sick of Tenni running his mouth about things he doesn't have the first clue about, especially where the US is concerned.

Instead of trying to get him censored, however, I do what you do. I stand up and defend my nation. If your above post is any indication, you should be able to respect that.

Oh...and my name on this board is Pasa...not 'he.'

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Best to stay clear and let this one be, Cat. It's more personal now. And I will defend my country, whether you like it or not.

Then take it off the damn board and fight amongst yourselves like men! If its That personal then duke it out between the two of you...geez. And no more of this "My Country is better than Your Country BS"
We're all in this together and no one is better than anyone else. The results would still be the same if Phelps and his band of idiot zealots had protested a funeral of a service person in the US,Canada, NZ or where the fuck ever else! Its morally wrong, disrespectful the the family and friends of the person lost, and Either or You would feel the same if it was someone You knew.
And dont jump up My ass for your disagreement with someone else. I dont have a prob with you or anyone else defending your country, that Isnt the Prob here. Your bickering back and forth and throwing insults at each other Is.
Cat

Sure is. I agree completely. And when Tenni can open his gob without slamming the US, I'll stop shoving it back down his throat. His anti-US rhetoric is in just about everything he posts. Thankfully, I have better rhetorical skills, facts, and solid debate points to counter that. I'll take his ability to open his mouth and spout off insane shit he has no clue about any day over any attempt to silence him.

I also agree that what Phelps does is morally wrong and disrespectful (I said as much in my earlier answer to you).

But, we don't legislate morality (and when we try, we fuck it up). Who do you want legislating morality? Hrmm? How about the "Moral Majority?" Hrmm? It is a very dark path you turn down when you start legislating people being moral and polite.

Pasa

[Conran]

The hypocrisy of the American government and legal system is astounding.

You can be kicked out of your job in the military for even suggesting that you are bi or gay, but a whole group of people can incite hatred and violence on the streets and their "freedom of opinion and expression" is held up as a defense.

I can accept that freedom should trump personal opinion, but this is not the case in other areas of society. Obscenity laws prevent me from being naked outside. This is because it offends others. It doesn't cause any other harm.
So why is this permitted when the majority are offended?

Freedom of expression and opinion are complex, but they're needlessly so.
The rule of "if it harms none, do what you wish" should apply. If their actions harm the majority of a community, that community should have the right to refuse it on the grounds that their public behavior is obscene.

[Long Duck Dong]

The hypocrisy of the American government and legal system is astounding.

You can be kicked out of your job in the military for even suggesting that you are bi or gay, but a whole group of people can incite hatred and violence on the streets and their "freedom of opinion and expression" is held up as a defense.

I can accept that freedom should trump personal opinion, but this is not the case in other areas of society. Obscenity laws prevent me from being naked outside. This is because it offends others. It doesn't cause any other harm.
So why is this permitted when the majority are offended?

Freedom of expression and opinion are complex, but they're needlessly so.
The rule of "if it harms none, do what you wish" should apply. If their actions harm the majority of a community, that community should have the right to refuse it on the grounds that their public behavior is obscene.

friendly fire is a very real reality.... biased in the military amongst troops, does exist.........
part of DADT is protection of the front line soldiers.......

now I am not excusing DADT or condoning it.... I am being realistic about some aspects of human thinking.... and the us military does have people like neo nazis etc in it....... they can be a very real threat to the safety of the us military personnel......

and the last thing you want, is a platoon turning in on itself....as friendly fire due to bias, is never a good moral booster......


anybody can pick holes in any aspect of law and legal law etc..... how many can fix it and remove all the issues........

look at NZ, we gave the LGBT the same rights as everybody else....and now we have a group of gay males expecting to be exempt from the laws of public decency and be allowed to perform sexual acts in a public / family area, despite the fact its illegal.......
( gay cruise area thread )......

it just goes to show that its not really about the equal rights aspect, it comes down to the * I want to do this, so the law should not apply to me, only to those that object to it * stance.......

people that use the * if it harms none, do as ye will * statement, amuse me....
* as ye harm none ( including yourself, by way of envy, jealousy, greed etc ) do as ye will ( do not seek to provoke the same in others )....

also the ability to offend is outweighed by the ability to be offended.....and by your statement of if it harms the majority of society........ the LGBT would cease to exist as people would find a reason to be offended, even if they are not offended by the lgbt......

power games are dangerous, but its the lgbt that give the power to the rest of society, to oppose them.......

[Pasadenacpl2]

1. The members of teh military do not have the same rights as other citizens. This is necessarily so (not just for this, but in a wide variety of areas). Without the military controlling it's members to such a high degree it does not get the results it wishes. This has nothing to do with being bi or gay or straight. It is simply a fact of military life that the military does not provide an appropriate mirror to use when viewing the society at large. It's not hypocrisy. It simply is a fact of military life (and applies to most nations).

2. Public nudity has consistently been struck down in the US as not qualifying as 'speech' and therefor not covered in the 1st Amendment. Apples and oranges.

3. The idea of harm is an interesting one. What is considered harm and what isn't is hard to adjudicate. This is precisely why we pretty much let any moron with two brain cells run his mouth. When we start trying to determine what 'harm' is and what is 'reasonable' we find that there isn't a valid enough metric to measure such a thing.

The Supreme Court declined to define the term 'obscene' and pornography for just this reason. Instead, they developed a test, and even that test doesn't apply to demonstrations or religious expression, as the SCotUS has never had a question put to it regarding religious expression that might be deemed 'unreasonable.'

I realize that from the outside it might seem on the face that we have inconsistencies. Once you get the full story behind most of it, you get a much different (and more complex) picture.

Pasa

[DuckiesDarling]

1. The members of teh military do not have the same rights as other citizens. This is necessarily so (not just for this, but in a wide variety of areas). Without the military controlling it's members to such a high degree it does not get the results it wishes. This has nothing to do with being bi or gay or straight. It is simply a fact of military life that the military does not provide an appropriate mirror to use when viewing the society at large. It's not hypocrisy. It simply is a fact of military life (and applies to most nations).

2. Public nudity has consistently been struck down in the US as not qualifying as 'speech' and therefor not covered in the 1st Amendment. Apples and oranges.

3. The idea of harm is an interesting one. What is considered harm and what isn't is hard to adjudicate. This is precisely why we pretty much let any moron with two brain cells run his mouth. When we start trying to determine what 'harm' is and what is 'reasonable' we find that there isn't a valid enough metric to measure such a thing.

The Supreme Court declined to define the term 'obscene' and pornography for just this reason. Instead, they developed a test, and even that test doesn't apply to demonstrations or religious expression, as the SCotUS has never had a question put to it regarding religious expression that might be deemed 'unreasonable.'

I realize that from the outside it might seem on the face that we have inconsistencies. Once you get the full story behind most of it, you get a much different (and more complex) picture.

Pasa

Completely agree, Pasa.

[darkeyes]

But, we don't legislate morality (and when we try, we fuck it up). Who do you want legislating morality? Hrmm? How about the "Moral Majority?" Hrmm? It is a very dark path you turn down when you start legislating people being moral and polite.

Pasa

But we do Pasa dear.. our entire systems of law are framed and tailored to the pervading sense of morality in any society.. but I do agree that we do so often make a mess of it..

..it is very difficult to legislate for the behaviour of people regarding politeness and morality.. so many different ideas exist for what both mean throughout the world.. but it can be, and is done to a greater or lesser extent in every society.. and very often we make a mess of that too.. but in both cases.. not always :)

[darkeyes]

..and of course there is legislation still on statute books legislated from the pervading historical moralities.. the conservators of those historical moralities fight tooth and nail to retain such legislation.. two examples affecting gay and bisexual people are DADT and gay marriage, the latter not being exclusively an American issue.. it is not that we should not legislate morality for that is inevitable.. rather how we legislate it..

[mikey3000]

What I think is on the wain in today's society is civility and common sense.

[darkeyes]

What I think is on the wain in today's society is civility and common sense.

I would agree Mikey.. yet just like what is moral, what is civil and common sense to one is not necessarily civil and common sense to another... what is acceptable to us differs to others in respect of all things..:)

[mikey3000]

But they shouldn't be. By mere definitions, civility and common sence (different than morality) should be common threads that tie a society together. It appears that commonality and unity are not desired traits anymore.

To me, it's common sense that you don't use another's very public tragedy to further your own personal agenda, whether you have the right to or not.

If society on a whole can no longer distinguish from right and wrong, then it must be legislated for the greater good.

[MtnMan]

Attempting to micro-manage the Constitution gets us into deeper doo-doo every time. Would I like to even out the strengths and weaknesses of its tenets? You bet. Our lawmakers have usually let one amendment outweigh another (pick your own examples), according to their own cause. What I'd really like to see is a working Congress that isn't constantly running for office and selling itself to those SIGs who think they can get into their political pants. Give us that, and a Supreme Court immune to the spotlight with great insight, ponderance, and nerve, and we can improve.

[darkeyes]

But they shouldn't be. By mere definitions, civility and common sence (different than morality) should be common threads that tie a society together. It appears that commonality and unity are not desired traits anymore.

To me, it's common sense that you don't use another's very public tragedy to further your own personal agenda, whether you have the right to or not.

If society on a whole can no longer distinguish from right and wrong, then it must be legislated for the greater good.

Whether we discuss morality, civility or common sense, every culture has its own ideas of what that means.. within every culture, there are groups who differ from the societal understanding of what they mean.. and within groups, there are individuals who have different understandings again.. what to you is civility in Canada, may not be mine in Scotland, or a french persons in France, chinese in his or her own country.. societies differ from each other on many "rights and wrongs". For instance I hate American gun law, arming the police and its attitude on capital punishment.. in my view they are wrong about all of thses things.. however much else we may have in common.. yet their history and culture sees it in an entirely different context from me.. I do not believe they engender civility or common sense.. yet Pasa would take issue with me that at the end of a gun everyone is polite.. not true in my opinion, nor wise, but it is a valid view which I would argue is undesirable.. and no Pasa dear, I am not spoiling for an argument.. merely expostulating the difficulty of attaining common morality, civility and common sense..

..even in a little country like my own, Scotland, what passes for civility in Glasgow, is looked down upon by many in my home city of Edinburgh, and Scottish attitudes about what pass as civility and common sense differ often from those of our partners in the UK.. our history and cultures have a great deal in common yet on so many issues we do have a divide.. so if we have different ideas of what is civil and common sense in one small country, what chance is there for a common position in the larger world where cultures have a far, far greater divide than exists among a population of 5 million?

It is that freedom of thought, and those differences which make us such a confusing and fascinating species.. it is a part of our genius and also quite possibly, some (although not me) would argue in all likelihood a part of our ultimate failure and downfall. We do have much in common, yet so much our individuality and our own personality, our own ability to reason in our own way will always ensure that in some way, we shall always differ from our fellow human beings in trying to make a better world.

[Gay2Bi]

I've been following this thread for a bit, and initially I wasn't going to post given the flame-prone nature of this topic, but since it's about freedom of speech (which, as a writer and filmmaker, is quite important to me), here goes nothing...

Former US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once said that: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Many people seem to miss the point that - at least under US law - just because you have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you can do it without there being consequences. In US jurisprudence, whenever two sets of rights collide - in this case, Phelps' right to say what he believes and the family's right to bury their child in peace - penalties are almost always placed on the aggressor's actions.

For example, take slander: I am free to slander anyone and everyone I choose, but if I do choose to slander someone, then I can be held accountable for any negative consequences that result from that choice if my target seeks a legal remedy. The same thing with harassment: If I bully you to the point where you commit suicide, your family can seek damages against me. Then there's drinking and driving: I have the right to get blitzed out of my skull if I so choose, but if I do get drunk and then get in a car and cause an accident that kills someone, the law isn't simply going to say, "Oh, well, he had the right to get drunk so it's out of our hands." The important point is that none of my actions are banned - I'm still free to do whatever I want - but if I choose to engage in those actions knowing the penalties for doing so in advance, then I can, will, and should be held accountable for that choice.

All of which means that in my opinion, Phelps has every right to show up and harass people if he so chooses - it would be unconstitutional to ban him from doing so - but at the same time, he should be held accountable for his actions if his target seeks a legal remedy and his actions are determined by a jury to constitute harassment. To paraphrase Holmes, Phelps' right to harass someone ends where that person's right to be free from harassment begins.

[Conran]

Gay2Bi

You've stated the case far better than I did. :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

I've been following this thread for a bit, and initially I wasn't going to post given the flame-prone nature of this topic, but since it's about freedom of speech (which, as a writer and filmmaker, is quite important to me), here goes nothing...

Former US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once said that: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Many people seem to miss the point that - at least under US law - just because you have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you can do it without there being consequences. In US jurisprudence, whenever two sets of rights collide - in this case, Phelps' right to say what he believes and the family's right to bury their child in peace - penalties are almost always placed on the aggressor's actions.

For example, take slander: I am free to slander anyone and everyone I choose, but if I do choose to slander someone, then I can be held accountable for any negative consequences that result from that choice if my target seeks a legal remedy. The same thing with harassment: If I bully you to the point where you commit suicide, your family can seek damages against me. Then there's drinking and driving: I have the right to get blitzed out of my skull if I so choose, but if I do get drunk and then get in a car and cause an accident that kills someone, the law isn't simply going to say, "Oh, well, he had the right to get drunk so it's out of our hands." The important point is that none of my actions are banned - I'm still free to do whatever I want - but if I choose to engage in those actions knowing the penalties for doing so in advance, then I can, will, and should be held accountable for that choice.

All of which means that in my opinion, Phelps has every right to show up and harass people if he so chooses - it would be unconstitutional to ban him from doing so - but at the same time, he should be held accountable for his actions if his target seeks a legal remedy and his actions are determined by a jury to constitute harassment. To paraphrase Holmes, Phelps' right to harass someone ends where that person's right to be free from harassment begins.

Cant say 'bout US law..but think u will find mosta the things u mention here, cept the Phelps an funeral thing, by bein illegal r de facto..banned... that there r consequences.. indeed there r... pretty serious an definately legal..;) There may or may not be mitigatin circumstances, but illegal they most certainly r... therefore... banned..

.. u may be free to do whatever u want... but u do not have the right legally so to do...

[Cowboy51]

I've been following this thread for a bit, and initially I wasn't going to post given the flame-prone nature of this topic, but since it's about freedom of speech (which, as a writer and filmmaker, is quite important to me), here goes nothing...

This thread wasn't intended to discuss the freedom of speech, as I have understood from Cat's many replies to stick on topic. This was intended to discuss what our individual reactions would possibly be if we were to experience these protests at a funeral for someone we knew, possibly familia or amigo, either which way. Unfortunately it has become a heated discussion about freedom of speech, then into freedoms, then into "my country is better than your country", "my dad can beat up your dad", etc. etc. etc. It is an overgrown playground pissing contest where everyone, IMO, is continuously saying the same thing over and over. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. To truly know the intentions of what Cat wanted to discuss, it would be better to ask her.

[DuckiesDarling]

Actually, Cowboy, the thread is about freedom of speech and the current case being heard by the Supreme Court, Snyder vs Phelps (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-751.pdf). At heart is whether or not the type of protests done by the WBC, a church that spews its views that everything bad that happens anywhere in the world is because God is punishing the wicked is covered under the First Amendment.

As Gay2Bi said there is a difference between being able to say something and being immune from prosecution over it.

[Cowboy51]

Ok Ya'll. We're getting vastly off topic here. The topic Isnt how great one country or another is, the topic are intolerant, ignorant, disrespectful assholes protesting at the funerals of American Soldiers. THEY should be bearing the brunt of your disgust and anger, not each other!
Get back on track here!
Cat

DuckiesDarling you are correct, I am wrong. It isn't my first time to be wrong, nor will it be my last. Yes, I know that generally this discussion has been about Snyder vs Phelps and everything associated with it. Or at least it started out that way. I agree with what Gay2Bi said, and I think so far, despite some of y'alls best efforts, he has said it the best. Of course I love your brick wall analogy. So I apologize for allowing myself to get "off topic" and stating that this thread was supposed to be discussing something else. My bad.

[DuckiesDarling]

No worries, Cowboy :)

[Gay2Bi]

Cant say 'bout US law..but think u will find mosta the things u mention here, cept the Phelps an funeral thing, by bein illegal r de facto..banned... that there r consequences.. indeed there r... pretty serious an definately legal..;) There may or may not be mitigatin circumstances, but illegal they most certainly r... therefore... banned..

.. u may be free to do whatever u want... but u do not have the right legally so to do...

That's true. :) I was using the word "banned" in the extremely hair-splitting sense that our laws (in general) don't explicitly void the right to take an action, they only impose penalties on you if you do it - which means that if you're accused of an illegal action, you can argue that the law violates your rights and possibly have it (or at least your sentence) overturned. On the other hand, if an action is banned in the sense that your right is explicitly voided, you cannot claim that the law violates your rights so it's much harder to challenge the sentence and the law.

For example, our federal ban on same-sex marriages is a true ban because it explicitly voids the right of same-sex couples to marry; if two women marry in a state that permits same-sex marriages, they are still considered unmarried for federal purposes and they really can't appeal because the law has preemptively said that they never had the right to marry in the first place. Laws like that can only be overturned by an act of Congress or a direct constitutional challenge - i.e. someone has to claim and then prove to the US Supreme Court's satisfaction that the law directly violates an established constitutional principle. On the other hand, the federal prohibition against using drugs doesn't explicity void the right to do so, it just imposes penalties on you if you do. A person who is convicted for drug use could - and I'm sure many have tried to - argue that the law violates his or her right to get wasted since that right was never preemptively removed.

I did say I was being extremely hair-splitting! :tong:

But yes, you're definitely right - in practice, our laws do have the effect of voiding the associated rights even if they don't say so directly. :)

[Gay2Bi]

I agree with what Gay2Bi said, and I think so far, despite some of y'alls best efforts, he has said it the best.

Okay, now I'm blushing. :tong: Did I ever mention I have a thing for cowboys?

[tenni]

With all due respect to Cat, I do not see anything in post #1, the OP asking the readers to comment on their reaction as to how they would react if this happened to their family. I do not read any restriction on what is to be said. All that I read was an article about this case. I may be wrong.

Cat commented for the first time at post 39 and at post 40 with her own "personal" reaction and what she would do. The "Ok Ya'll...." post was post 59.

[tenni]

"But, we don't legislate morality (and when we try, we fuck it up). Who do you want legislating morality? Hrmm? How about the "Moral Majority?" Hrmm? It is a very dark path you turn down when you start legislating people being moral and polite."

If morality was not part of the US legislation, there would be no marriage law stating that a marriage is between a man and a woman or attempts to make laws stating this. (since the argument for same sex marriage is recent). Same sex marriage would be very common and GLBT would not have been under the impression that they could not marry since time began. There would be no restriction about gays in your military. There would be no law restricting the use of "weed". Morality is all over , inside deep in what is legislated in many countries.

[Long Duck Dong]

"But, we don't legislate morality (and when we try, we fuck it up). Who do you want legislating morality? Hrmm? How about the "Moral Majority?" Hrmm? It is a very dark path you turn down when you start legislating people being moral and polite."

If morality was not part of the US legislation, there would be no marriage law stating that a marriage is between a man and a woman or attempts to make laws stating this. (since the argument for same sex marriage is recent). Same sex marriage would be very common and GLBT would not have been under the impression that they could not marry since time began. There would be no restriction about gays in your military. There would be no law restricting the use of "weed". Morality is all over , inside deep in what is legislated in many countries.

if morality didn't exist, nor would marriage......
bisexual people have never been denied the right to marry the opposite gender......
discrimination against gays is not morality, its discrimination....
smoking dope is a moral choice ???? rolls eyes.....

just another * bash the us * post......

[Cowboy51]

With all due respect to Cat, I do not see anything in post #1, the OP asking the readers to comment on their reaction as to how they would react if this happened to their family. I do not read any restriction on what is to be said. All that I read was an article about this case. I may be wrong.

Cat commented for the first time at post 39 and at post 40 with her own "personal" reaction and what she would do. The "Ok Ya'll...." post was post 59.

Refer to post #135, where I stated that I was wrong. Then refer to post #73 where I was able to allow myself to get confused as to what the true topic of this discussion was all about. Then try reading post #133 again where I stated ... "as I understood" as well as, "I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. To truly know the intentions of what Cat wanted to discuss, it would be better to ask her."

[Cowboy51]

Okay, now I'm blushing. :tong: Did I ever mention I have a thing for cowboys?

HAHAHA, didn't mean to make you blush. ;):tong:

[tenni]

Refer to post #135, where I stated that I was wrong. Then refer to post #73 where I was able to allow myself to get confused as to what the true topic of this discussion was all about. Then try reading post #133 again where I stated ... "as I understood" as well as, "I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. To truly know the intentions of what Cat wanted to discuss, it would be better to ask her."

lol...well that certainly makes my head spin too...

Since Cat did not state in post 1 that she wanted to know what we would do if this happened in our family until much later, it is about whatever the posters take it too. I do think that it would be good if people did state what they would do if this happened to their family. I can not imagine too many of us stating that well....freedom of speech I'll just smile as they harass me while I bury my son, brother, daughter, sister etc. cuz I believe in freedom of speech more than I do in reacting to these wonderful Christians harassing me.

[darkeyes]

discrimination against gays is not morality, its discrimination....
smoking dope is a moral choice ???? rolls eyes.....



Discrimination against gays comes from a warped sense of morality.. it is difficult to separate discrimination against anyone from the pervading morality and prejudices of the day..

..and smoking dope a moral choice?? Yes Duckie it is just that...