First Amendment Rights: Constitutional Dilemma Before The Supreme Court

[meesterperfect]

i don't see what all the debate is about.

its clearly harrassment, which is illegal.

 

[biomech]

Let me first say that these people are absolute pieces of shit. They are the most disgusting, worthless, wastes of human life known to man.
That being said, they have the right to peacefully protest as they see fit.
This subject is a slippery slope as far as free speech is concerned.
I can feel offended about what they say, I can be pissed about what they say, but I can not say they are not allowed to say it.
At the same time, they should not expect that something horrific will not happen to them because of their disgusting displays.
If it was a member of my family's funeral, speech would be difficult with a broken jaw.
That is the risk they take, and the price I would be willing to pay. :2 cents:

 

[pete rose]

Let me first say that these people are absolute pieces of shit.

You are not the first, my friend!

 

[Hot Mega]

i don't see what all the debate is about.

its clearly harrassment, which is illegal.

I believe in order for there to be a legal claim of harassment..there has to be deliberate actions toward an individual or group and it has to be pervasive.

By definition harassment has to be persistent or multiple occasions. I don't think showing up at a funeral with signs 1000 feet away will sustain a harassment claim.

I think this is a case that is defined by jurisdiction though..but at minimum it has to be directed at someone or some group and be persistent..

If this group followed around one specific family then that would begin to be a case for harassment...but as I understand it they just go from funeral to funeral and don't target individuals.

 

[D-rock]

You are doing exactly what I am stating that everybody else is doing - interpreting the words of the Constitution/Bill of Rights in such a manner that supports their own argument. So, allow me to play lawyer for a second and do the same thing myself to win the argument for the other side...

By definition, the Bill of Rights does NOT give anybody the right to picket outside of a gay man's funeral with signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS". Those exact words and/or description is not located in any legal document recognized by the United States' lawmakers. The exact words of the Bill of Rights, First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere is the right to picket outside of a gay person's funeral with an anti-gay agenda listed in the Bill of Rights.

However, by definition, the Bill of Rights does give people the right to protest and peacefully assemble. Key word: PEACEFULLY.

By definition, according to the law, a protest or assembly which is peaceful is one that is "untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion" - "devoid of violence or force."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peaceful

By definition, according to the law, conflict is "competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons", to agitate is "to stir up public discussion of" and/or "to attempt to arouse public feeling", and commotion is "a condition of civil unrest or insurrection" or "mental excitement or confusion" or "an agitated disturbance."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agitate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commotion

Compare those DEFINITIONS and avoid any personal interpretations and you will see that people do NOT have the right to protest with an anti-gay agent at a gay person's funeral, because the result does not fit the definition of "peaceful" - in fact, it fits the definition of the complete opposite.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" fits the definition of conflict - competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of conflict.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" and creating a national conversation/argument that involves heated, emotional discussion fits the definition of agitate - to stir up public discussion of" and/or "to attempt to arouse public feeling - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of agitation.

Protesting a gay man's funeral with signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" and arousing a nationwide flood of outrage fits the definition of commotion - a condition of civil unrest or insurrection" or "mental excitement or confusion" or "an agitated disturbance - which means that it does not fit the definition of peaceful, as a peaceful situation is one that is void of commotion.

Protesting outside of a gay person's funeral with anti-gay signs which say "GOD HATES FAGS" - peaceful? I think not.

:dunno:

The constitution is pretty clear here and does give them the right. "No law" means "no law". The constitution shouldn't have to spell out every situation when it already covers it with the "no law' part. A law that doesn't allow them to protest is a law that restricts speech. Actually, it's very simple. True even the freedoms we have been given are not a total blank check with no restrictions, but there needs to be extraordinary reasons and those restrictions need to be confined in the narrowest way possible giving, being the most lenient on people possible, and having them keep as much of that right as possible. It also needs to keep with the intent of the constitution. While It's a part of free speech and they should be allowed to do it. If anything the burden is on other people against them to show by extraordinary proof and measures that's it's not a part of the freedom of speech, like how yelling fire in a theater directly and intentionally causes harm to other people and shouldn't be allowed. When in doubt it should be assumed people have the freedom to say what they want and to do measures that let them do that like protesting outside somebody's funeral. The burden shouldn't be on them to make it alright to do so.

You also have a flawed outlook on what peaceable assembly is. What is considered "peaceful" is how they people assembling are acting not how others might react to them. By your way of thinking I could get any opposed group for any situation for any issue to get riled up and get it to be non peaceful. That's just ridiculous. Any speech could be curtailed that way by the opposing group purposely causing havoc to limit their opponents. The ones engaged in speech must be the ones causing it to be non peaceful. While they might be acting like scumbags what is essentially hurting somebody else's feeling is a peaceable thing. The hurting of ones feeling should also be nowhere close to one of those extraordinary measures that should be a limiting factor in speech. They're not causing violence, threatening anybody with violence, intentionally trying to incite violence, causing direct bodily harm, or restricting what they are protesting against or what people on the other side can do, or anything like that. It would also not be fair to blame them in a legal way for how others react to what they do when they engage in speech.

 

[ForumModeregulator]

There was a time when men could legally defend their honor against defamation and libel with a choice of weapons – a pistol or a sword...

 

[bustybbwlover]

while these cunt buckets are acting in a way most disrespectful and rude, it sounds as though they legal logic is sound...it's one of those things i don't like it, i don't understand it, i don't even understand how you could justify it to yourself, but the law is what it is

 

[CunningStunts]

Agree with most of you... While these whackjobs need a good asskicking like no one else, as long as they are far enough away not to be heard and have a permit, they are allowed to say what they want, no matter how odious it may be.

That said, if it was my son being laid to rest, I'd probably snap and take them out with my M4

 

[vodkazvictim]

If it were my son or daughter's death, I would have the right to kick the ever-living dogshit out of all of them. Why? When you buy a burial lot in a burial ground you are buying your own private property. That property is yours and your family and the other property is the private property of others. By private property rights, I should be able to discharge anyone from my private property by force if necessary.
The linear thoughts of this church are disgusting and immoral. As a former minister, they have taken verses in the Bible and have turned them into corrupted vileness and have invoked hatred and violence in people. Yes, religion is meant to divide all human beings, but it is meant more as a personal choice rather than causing war and hatred. Religion has caused more wars and violence than any other thing on the planet.
If the Supreme Court has any sense, it will allow the church to protest off the burying ground sites and out of interference of traffic. It will allow the families to grieve in their own time and space and it will save them from having to deal with this idiotic people who don't even read the book that the supposedly preach from.

Your private property argument shouldn't be considered; once one takes human dignity into account, the argument is won in favour of stopping the protestors. Turning up at somebodies kids funeral and acting like this is unacceptable. Remember; the soldier and his family did NOTHING to the church-goers.

Agree with most of you... While these whackjobs need a good asskicking like no one else, as long as they are far enough away not to be heard and have a permit, they are allowed to say what they want, no matter how odious it may be.

That said, if it was my son being laid to rest, I'd probably snap and take them out with my M4

If it was your son and you did snap I don't think there's a judge in the land who wouldn't be leniant with you.

 

[meesterperfect]

i don't see what all the debate is about.

its clearly harrassment, which is illegal.

I believe in order for there to be a legal claim of harassment..there has to be deliberate actions toward an individual or group and it has to be pervasive.

By definition harassment has to be persistent or multiple occasions. I don't think showing up at a funeral with signs 1000 feet away will sustain a harassment claim.

I think this is a case that is defined by jurisdiction though..but at minimum it has to be directed at someone or some group and be persistent..

If this group followed around one specific family then that would begin to be a case for harassment...but as I understand it they just go from funeral to funeral and don't target individuals.

i disagree.

example:
driving 90 mph in a residential area.

maybe youre just having fun, with no intention of harming anyone.
but reality is you are posing a danger to other people, be it intentional or not.

i think its clear that if you hold offensive signs and shout vulgarities near a funeral about the deseased, you will upset people.
harrassment.


and even if it isn't, for fucks sake pass a law saying you can not disrupt a funeral.
let common sense prevail as they say.

another example: if i call someone at 3 am everyday , maybe i sleep in the daytime.
to me its normal, but to them its disruptive.
once they ask me to stop, if i continue, harrassment.

 

[Jagger69]

i disagree.

example:
driving 90 mph in a residential area.

maybe youre just having fun, with no intention of harming anyone.
but reality is you are posing a danger to other people, be it intentional or not.

i think its clear that if you hold offensive signs and shout vulgarities near a funeral about the deseased, you will upset people.
harrassment.

Your argument makes sense MP but that's not the definitive legal interpretation of harassment:

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

Without the "threats and demands" part, it isn't harassment.

and even if it isn't, for fucks sake pass a law saying you can not disrupt a funeral.
let common sense prevail as they say.

I don't disagree at all. :thumbsup: However, even if passed, it is highly likely that the law would be challenged as being unconstitutional with a high probability of being ruled as such.