T1B

And corporations are people, too.

Rack the courts on this one. The First Amendment gives us the right to act like classless assholes and these morons are simply exercising that right.

Jsc810 wrote:Rights, even constitutional ones, are not absolute. You can restrict speech, under certain circumstances.

Look for states to pass laws restricting such protests at funerals.

And where else? Once you accept the premise that unpopular speech may be regulated, the encroachments will never end.

You are one simple, stupid bootlicking dipshit.

I can tell you there aren't any in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, bootlicker.

Alito was the lone dissenter? Ponderous...

i think we should pass a constitutional amendment giving folks the right to beat the fukking shit out of those pricks. that being said, this decision was the right one. as mvscal said, you better be real fukking careful when it comes to limiting speech. and the tired ass FIRE in a theater comparison is bullshit. doing so is illegal because it may cause people to be injured due to the impending stampede. asshole holyrollers picketing dead soldiers because biff and steve bang each other in the ass is a little different.

88 wrote:I am assuming that "biff" and "steve" are code for Phoenix Rob and Dan Vogel.

yeah, i guess it could be.

The quick little bits I've seen basically sum up Alito's dissent by saying Alito thought there was something in the Constitution granting the People the Right To Not Be Offended, or some sort of "Right To Grieve."

I'm sifting through those Amendments, since I must have skipped over that one.

it's right after the section on healthcare.

smackaholic wrote:it's right after the section on healthcare.

Which is right after abortion, which is right after defining marriage.

Dinsdale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:it's right after the section on healthcare.

Which is right after abortion, which is right after defining marriage.

But before the one covering automatic weapons.

actually, there is a part concerning automatic weapons, something about leaving it the fukk alone.

Diego in Seattle wrote: But before the one covering automatic weapons.

Uhm...

Uhm...


That one actually is covered. They even mention the word "arms" and stuff.

I'll help you out and tell you which one, if you can't figure it out after the first couple of Amendments or so.


And if you continue your reading and make it past... oh, say about the first ten... then I'll explain why the other ones mentioned are much different from having the SCOTUS ruling one way or another, as opposed to ruling one way or another on firearms issues.

Read it over and over until the light starts to come on, and figure out why you just mentioned the word "oranges" in a discussion about apples.

Ok 88....let's hear your take on how fighting words can be restricted, but what the nutjobs say can't.

Jsc810 wrote:In your GED law classes

Gotta give Jsc some points for that blast.

Jsc810 wrote:
fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

That's wild, you people are fucking surreal - it's like a country based on a 'Prisoner' episode.

88 wrote:The Westboro kooks are different. They do not want violence (unless it would bring them more publicity, I suspect).

I think part of their act is to invoke violence against them in order to file litigation (litigation is how they fund their activities). While they are attention whores, their primary goal is money (which in the case of litigation can also bring them attention).

What they want to do is to draw attention to the United States policies in engaging in wars, in permitting homosexuality etc. They are true nut jobs. But they are attempting to assert a political position.

If what you are saying is true, they cannot have it both ways. By this I mean that they cannot have their 501(c)3 status while engaging in political campaigns (regardless of how wacky they are). It sounds to me that the next avenue of attack is to go after their tax-exempt status.

88 wrote:This is a shitty situation, but there are other ways to deal with it besides restricting speech. You can pass laws that limit the speech in terms of time, place and manner.

Uh, time, place and manner restrictions do restrict speech...literally. Just pointing that out.

What part of FREE speech is so goddamn difficult to comprehend?

Jsc810 wrote:Not all speech is protected by the Constitution, you stupid fuck.

But please, do continue to try to argue constitutional law with lawyers, it entertains us.

You don't have to be an attorney to be entertained by mvscal's stupidity.

mvscal wrote:

88 wrote:This is a shitty situation, but there are other ways to deal with it besides restricting speech. You can pass laws that limit the speech in terms of time, place and manner.

Uh, time, place and manner restrictions do restrict speech...literally. Just pointing that out.

What part of FREE speech is so goddamn difficult to comprehend?

And what part of "time, place and manner restrictions have been upheld against First Amendment challenges" do you fail to understand?

First Amendment rights are not absolute (neither, for that matter, are Second Amendment rights, sup, Dins). I agree with the Supreme Court's decision here, and I also agree with those who say that the next action likely to be taken by the states will be time, place and manner restrictions as to Westboro Baptist's protests. That having been said, I think there's a possibility that a 5,000 foot barrier (I think 88 mentioned that as a possibility) possibly could be struck down as overbroad -- consider that 5,000 feet is nearly a mile. I think a 1,000 foot barrier probably would be upheld, though.

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

88 wrote:What they want to do is to draw attention to the United States policies in engaging in wars, in permitting homosexuality etc. They are true nut jobs. But they are attempting to assert a political position.

If what you are saying is true, they cannot have it both ways. By this I mean that they cannot have their 501(c)3 status while engaging in political campaigns (regardless of how wacky they are). It sounds to me that the next avenue of attack is to go after their tax-exempt status.

What I say is always true. You should know that by now... An attack on 501(c)(3) status could be very dangerous. You do realize that Greenpeace, for example, has 501(c)(3) status. 501(c)(3) status prohibits campaigning for specific candidates in specific elections. But it does not prohibit the use of funds to promote a political ideology or lobbying to influence legislation.

On difference with the example you cited is church status. Greenpeace may have tax-exempt status, but it is not a religion, nor does it even pretend to be one. Churches, IIRC, always have been treated a little differently. That said, as long as they're not actively campaigning for or against a certain candidate for elected office, to take away their tax-exempt status based on publication of a political position might be a bit of an overreach.

terry, he's not worth your time on most issues. he posts opinions for shits and giggles, an attempt to get intelligent people to melt and yea, maybe sometimes to spark a debate on an issue but there's very little sincerity in his takes. these boards function as his other internet masturbatory exercise

Terry in Crapchester wrote:And what part of "time, place and manner restrictions have been upheld against First Amendment challenges" do you fail to understand?

Name one and we'll talk about it.

Now reconcile those "opinions" with the actual text of the 1st Amendment.

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.

Time, place and manner restrictions absolutely abridge the freedom of speech. There is no intellectually honest argument that can be made against that obvious fact.

The purpose of speech is communication. If legal authorities herd people into places where their message will not be heard or prevent it altogther, they have violated the 1st Amendment. The text is in plain language and there is no ambiguity.

Shake yourself, ambulance chaser.

88 wrote:If you feel strongly about your position, you should march into the nearest federal courthouse and walk into the first actual trial you can find in progress, and start picketing in the space between the judge and the jury box. Select any political topic you care about. And when you are charged with some sort of crime, you can defend yourself on the basis that any action by the judge constitutes an abridgement of your First Amendment freedom of speech, and that you are not going to let some unconstitutional time, place and manner restriction prevent you from getting your spoken message to the jurors and anyone else within earshot of you whenever, wherever and however you want.

this example is a bit different in that the floor space mentioned is not exactly public. you'd have cuffs thrown on you if you just wandered in, uninvited.

88 wrote:If you feel strongly about your position, you should march into the nearest federal courthouse and walk into the first actual trial you can find in progress, and start picketing in the space between the judge and the jury box. Select any political topic you care about. And when you are charged with some sort of crime, you can defend yourself on the basis that any action by the judge constitutes an abridgement of your First Amendment freedom of speech, and that you are not going to let some unconstitutional time, place and manner restriction prevent you from getting your spoken message to the jurors and anyone else within earshot of you whenever, wherever and however you want.

But the action you are describing conflicts with someone else's Constitutional rights.
Namely, disrupting Constitutionally protected jury trial.

88 wrote:This is a shitty situation, but there are other ways to deal with it besides restricting speech. You can pass laws that limit the speech in terms of time, place and manner. The majority noted that states are enacting laws to restrict political speech within a certain distance of funerals and cemeteries, and that this type of limitation will likely be acceptable because there are so many other places in which one can speak.

Were it my son, they would not have to worry about a lawsuit. Now me curb stomping them with the grill of my SUV would be a whole different story.

kind of surprised that a few of the WBC assclowns haven't been offed yet. I'll bet a few of them in the grave would settle the rest down.

Since when is a SCOTUS ruling a substitute for Common Sense? This is how we handle the WBC 'round here in these parts....

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:This is a shitty situation, but there are other ways to deal with it besides restricting speech. You can pass laws that limit the speech in terms of time, place and manner. The majority noted that states are enacting laws to restrict political speech within a certain distance of funerals and cemeteries, and that this type of limitation will likely be acceptable because there are so many other places in which one can speak.

Were it my son, they would not have to worry about a lawsuit. Now me curb stomping them with the grill of my SUV would be a whole different story.

You could always rub some Cheetos dust in their eyes.

Hmmm.

Wonder what SCOTUS's reaction would be to Pastor Fred if his merry bunch were to work in the word "mvscals" to their peaceful li'l steet-corner gatherings?

Truman wrote:Hmmm.

Wonder what SCOTUS's reaction would be to Pastor Fred if his merry bunch were to work in the word "mvscals" to their peaceful li'l steet-corner gatherings?

They'd restrict his picketing to Harlem and South Central L.A. and leave the rest up to Darwin.

Just one more reason to hate these fuckers...



BTW, the coat is NOT wytched...

Truman wrote:Hmmm.

Wonder what SCOTUS's reaction would be to Pastor Fred if his merry bunch were to work in the word "mvscals" to their peaceful li'l steet-corner gatherings?

There's a long list of case law affirming the KKK's right to demonstrate. There's also a long history of counter demonstrations. I went to one in Philadelphia. There were 10k or more anti klan demonstrators compared to 10 or so VERY confused skinheads from Baltimore who showed up to support the klansmen. The klan themselves backed out at the last moment and never showed.

Truman wrote:Just one more reason to hate these fuckers...

I wonder if he's going to make a trip to Provo to cheer on the Cougars.

mvscal wrote:Now reconcile those "opinions" with the actual text of the 1st Amendment.

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.

Time, place and manner restrictions absolutely abridge the freedom of speech. There is no intellectually honest argument that can be made against that obvious fact.

The purpose of speech is communication. If legal authorities herd people into places where their message will not be heard or prevent it altogther, they have violated the 1st Amendment. The text is in plain language and there is no ambiguity.

Shake yourself, ambulance chaser.

the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience when you are babbling out your speech.

titlover wrote:the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience when you are babbling out your speech.

It is supposed to guarantee that the government does not deprive you of one which is what "time, manner and place restrictions" and "free speech zones" do.