• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules in favor of WBC

Jetboogieman said:
Ahhhh ok I see the distinction now, no hate speech laws but just hate crime laws.
Click to expand...

Yep in the U.S. I can call you a French Canadian all day long. =)
 
apdst said:
Depends on the slur. There's a double standard as to what consitutes a, "racial slur".
Click to expand...
It also depends on the person the slur is directed at.
 
apdst said:
Right and the hate crime laws a ****ing joke, too.
Click to expand...

Dumbest laws ever contemplated.

If you kill somebody, it's really bad, but if you kill somebody because they're black, it's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad.

And of course, hate crime only applies to white criminals. LOL, who thought of this?
 
Hate Crimes are some stupid laws also.
 
Erod said:
Dumbest laws ever contemplated.

If you kill somebody, it's really bad, but if you kill somebody because they're black, it's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad.

And of course, hate crime only applies to white criminals. LOL, who thought of this?
Click to expand...

Librulz.................! :rofl
 
apdst said:
Librulz.................! :rofl
Click to expand...

The same librulz who defend the WBC's "hate speech". If these were AIDS victims funerals instead of soldiers'.........kinda make you wonder.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
The same librulz who defend the WBC. If these were AIDS victims funerals instead of soldiers'.........kinda make you wonder.
Click to expand...

Bollocks to that.

Librulz love teh gayz, and WBC is against teh gayz, and by the way, the Supreme Court voted 8 - 1 which means Consveratiz supportz too :)
 
Jetboogieman said:
Bollocks to that.

Librulz love teh gayz, and WBC is against teh gayz, and by the way, the Supreme Court voted 8 - 1 which means Consveratiz supportz too :)
Click to expand...

Oh, I know, and I support the decision in concept. Just brought up the part that still bugs me.

It won't end well for these folks. I predict a bag of baseball bats and/or worse will find them one day, and while entirely unlawful, these folks are truly begging for it.
 
Kandahar said:
That's exactly what they want. Just ignore them.
Click to expand...
How is that exactly what they want? These people make a living provoking people so they can sue them. These people should get everything that's coming to them.
 
I think this decision could have been very dangerous for them. It is not hard for me to imagine a soldier or marine with PTSD who reads about this after having lost a good friend or more due to this war who just snaps because their friend's/friends' family and friends have to endure, had to endure, or might have endure these guys at their loved one's funeral and deciding that it would be very much worth it to either bomb their church or community or just gun them all down (or at least as many as he can get). Heck, he wouldn't even have to have PTSD, he could just be really pissed off and claim it as a defense, if they catch him. Most likely the guy would be one of the most liked criminals in a very long time, if the police even bother to do a thorough investigation to find the guy. Plus, it is also likely that they might have a hard time finding the real perpetrator because I could also see a lot of guys falsely confessing to such an act. And he would probably have all his legal fees paid for as well.
 
Erod said:
There remains one aspect to this ruling that bothers me.

Rights are not absolute. They cease when actions infringe on the rights of others.

Do these demonstrations not infringe on another's right to conduct a funeral and burial in peace?
Click to expand...


They most certainly do. Someone should suggest that the bikers congregate around their church on Sunday and rev their bikes as loud as they can, let's see how they like that.
 
Erod said:
The same librulz who defend the WBC's "hate speech". If these were AIDS victims funerals instead of soldiers'.........kinda make you wonder.
Click to expand...

I thought Roberts (SCOTUS) was a conservative? Oh, and by the way, the writer of this article calls himself "Evil Teabagger" and is very much conservative.

Guess who now has egg on their face?

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son’s funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

I agree with this ruling



Evil Teabagger • SCOTUS Rules in Favor of WBC Leader Fred Phelps
 
apdst said:
Librulz.................! :rofl
Click to expand...


I guess Roberts, Thomas and the other SCOTUS that voted in favor of this rulling are now Liberals?
laughing.gif
 
I have often wondered why almost everyone agrees that the wording of the first amendment makes it clear that all speech is to be protected while at the same time many of those same people have no problem limiting other peoples 2nd amendment rights when the writing in that one is at least as clear if not even more so. Kind of funny how that works isn't it.
 
braindrain said:
I have often wondered why almost everyone agrees that the wording of the first amendment makes it clear that all speech is to be protected while at the same time many of those same people have no problem limiting other peoples 2nd amendment rights when the writing in that one is at least as clear if not even more so. Kind of funny how that works isn't it.
Click to expand...
I think the law has developmed this way because speech doesn't interfere with other rights/interests to as great a degree as guns, religion, etc. do. "Words can never hurt me" and whatnot.
 
Kane said:
Those religious nuts are disturbing the peace, club them in the head. They are NOT petitioning the government for a greivance, and does not qualify as "peaceable assembly".

Second, throw all the Supreme Court in jail for incompetence.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. The SC just said so. Remember?
Click to expand...

So much for grooming people their whole lives just to be Chief Justice. Roberts loves the Klan and upholds bigots rights. Like Thomas, Roberts is just a flunkie for the people who put him in his position, the NeoCon/Christian Right.

Aren't we glad that confirmation hearings are so substantive?

We have roughly 12 unqualified political lackys.:failpail:
 
But putting restrictions on my what I kind of gun I can buy and where I can carry it for sure interferes with my constitutional right. What makes my right to own a gun less important than other peoples rights to say what ever they want.
 
braindrain said:
But putting restrictions on my what I kind of gun I can buy
Click to expand...


You might want to give your statement some thought......it's a little confusing!
 
Jetboogieman said:
Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests - CNN.com

Sometimes, and I mean sometimes free speech is a bitch.

But it is free speech.

I may not like it, but that's the way it is.

At the end of the day, I actually feel nothing but sorry for the members of the WBC, to dedicate your life to this kind of hate, and to go out of your way to inflict this kind of pain on a grieving family shows a lack of happyness and fulfillment in your life, and for that, I truly feel sorry for them.
Click to expand...

I agree. If their God says that they should add to the suffering of others, then their God sucks.

It just isn't true that faith is an excuse for inhumanity. Whether you are a WBC asshole or a Muslim jihadi, your God sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom