Lawyers Worth Liking.........

[BSmack]

But, your entire (retarded) argument is based upon there being certain times that one has a "reasonable expectation" (you might want to look into that legal term, douche) that they will be subject to violent attack for excercising their Rights.

I'll hold my breath waiting for you to cite this legal precedent....really, I will.

Now that we've established the legal precedent, (thanks TVO) maybe now we can move past your shreaking rhetoric into a rational conversation?

[Diogenes]

I find what Phelps and Co. does to be abhorrent and disgusting. And I think anybody who wants to deny him his Rights as an American to be even more disgusting. Take the bad with the good, tards. What the BOR doesn't gaurantee you, is the "Right To Not Be Offended."

This goes to public saftey, not the "right" not to be offended. Mocking mourners at a funeral is tantamount to deliberately inciting a riot.

We'll remember that at your next flag-burning ceremony.

[BSmack]

I find what Phelps and Co. does to be abhorrent and disgusting. And I think anybody who wants to deny him his Rights as an American to be even more disgusting. Take the bad with the good, tards. What the BOR doesn't gaurantee you, is the "Right To Not Be Offended."

This goes to public saftey, not the "right" not to be offended. Mocking mourners at a funeral is tantamount to deliberately inciting a riot.

We'll remember that at your next flag-burning ceremony.

You're equating burning a flag with mocking a dead man in front of his family?

Not that I have any use for burning symbols. Just pointing out your idiocy.

[Diogenes]

This goes to public saftey, not the "right" not to be offended. Mocking mourners at a funeral is tantamount to deliberately inciting a riot.

We'll remember that at your next flag-burning ceremony.

You're equating burning a flag with mocking a dead man in front of his family?

Engaging in free speech in a manner likely to incite a riot. Both the actions and the 'speech' are repugnant in both cases, but if one is constitutionally protected, there is no valid reason the other shouldn't be.







Idiot.

[BSmack]

You're equating burning a flag with mocking a dead man in front of his family?

Engaging in free speech in a manner likely to incite a riot. Both the actions and the 'speech' are repugnant in both cases, but if one is constitutionally protected, there is no valid reason the other shouldn't be.

Sorry, but your attempts to draw an equivalency are just not getting any traction. The issue is one of certainty. When you go to a funeral to gloat over the death of the deceased, there is an absolute 100% certainty that you are attempting to incite a riot. The same is not true with flag burning. In fact, there are some places where burning an American flag would be considered a good way of fitting in. Like a Rainbow Gathering. There is no place where mocking the loss of a loved one in a funeral setting would generate anything BUT the potential for a riot.

Simply put, there is no reason that Phelps cannot get his free speech on without inciting a riot amongst people who's only interest is mourning the loss of their loved one.

[PSUFAN]

Amazing...folks have this spun into a dem/repub issue?

These idiots are going around taunting mourning families, and people are making political hay of it?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Actually, it's the GOP going to the anti-gay card to get votes, or at least shore up their base.

No, actually it is done to fracture your base.

Ahhh, so now you admit that W was being his usual lying sack of flaming shit self when he claimed that he was "a uniter, not a divider"?

Thanks again for being honest.