View Poll Results: Is protesting at funerals 'Free Speech'?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, this was never the intent of the founding fathers!

    2 3.64%
  • It's harassment and should be illegal

    24 43.64%
  • It's open to interpretation

    4 7.27%
  • It's most certainly a form of protected free speech

    18 32.73%
  • Other, please explain

    7 12.73%
Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 260

Thread: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I support protesting at funerals. However, I also support the right for family and friends to bury and remember their dead in peace. What I think should be done is implement a decibel limit for how loud protesters can protest outside of funerals. You can ignore them while they protest without having the funeral be audibly disturbed. Specifically about the Westboro church group, they have their right to protest outside of soldiers funerals, but we also have the right to protest at Phelp's funeral when he dies and begins his rotting in hell
    So, even if Phelps has 'accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior', he is doomed to Hell?

  2. #182
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    So, even if Phelps has 'accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior', he is doomed to Hell?
    He may proclaim that he has accepted Jesus, but the man doesn't show any of Jesus' Love and casts judgement on everyone. He's a hypocrite in my opinion. The Bible says that many who say they are Christian will be sent to hell because they really hadn't repented and accepted Christ.

  3. #183
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    He may proclaim that he has accepted Jesus, but the man doesn't show any of Jesus' Love and casts judgement on everyone. He's a hypocrite in my opinion. The Bible says that many who say they are Christian will be sent to hell because they really hadn't repented and accepted Christ.
    I know many Christians who fall short. Where is the line in the sand? What differentiates Phelps from an ordinary judgmental churchgoer, except that he is very vocal and extreme? Maybe he's mentally ill.

    Who are we to say who might be going to Hell?

  4. #184
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    I know many Christians who fall short. Where is the line in the sand? What differentiates Phelps from an ordinary judgmental churchgoer, except that he is very vocal and extreme? Maybe he's mentally ill.

    Who are we to say who might be going to Hell?

    Actually you have a point. It isn't for us to say, and it is a bit presumptuous for anyone to do so.


    Generally the most I will ever say about someone who professes Jesus but doesn't seem to live it, is something like: "If he has the grace of God in him... he ought to let it out for a walk once in a while!"

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #185
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Financial loss, physical injuries, etc.
    These things -can- be measured -- and, if you wanted to, you could create a
    'unit' from those measurements, describing equivelancies among them.
    Words that have the potential of causing financial loss would not be considered fighting words. And what is measured is financial loss, not harm. A billionaire who loses $20K in profit has lost more than a person who makes an average $50,000 if they lose $10K. The latter person has, more than likely, received more "harm" from their losses, but the former has had greater measurable losses.

    Conversely, a person who makes $65K a year and has three kids that loses 10K is probably going to suffer more harm than a bachelor with no kids who makes $60K a year and loses that very same 10K. teh difference in harm would be documentable, but not measurable.

    Physical injuries simply cannot be measured. Only described and documented. Measurements can only relate to values. To show that there can not be a value placed on physical "harm", I offer the following:

    What's the difference in value between the loss of the left foot and the loss of a left hand?

    Now, after you've thought about that in a general sense, what's the difference in value between teh loss of the left foot and the loss of left hand for a professional musician, say a concert pianist at the start of their career?

    Clearly, for said musician, the harm done by the loss of a left hand is going to be greater than that of the loss of the left foot. Whereas a professional soccer player would be harmed more from the loss of the left foot, as losing his hand would have little to no effect on his livelihood.

    Do we consider the harm received from losing one's left hand equal to that of losing the right? If so, does that mean a right-handed person has been harmed just as much as he would have been if he lost his left hand? Or do we measure harm in this situation by handed-ness?

    Is so, what about losing a finger on the left hand versus losing a finger on the right one? Would that still be based on handedness, or would it be equal? Is a pinky worth the same value as an index finger? Would a right-handed guitar player get more "harm points" if he lost a finger on his left hand as opposed to his right?

    What I'm trying to show is that harm, the actual damage one receives overall, is simply not a legitimately measurable construct.

    Harm is a relative factor, though, it is just not a subjective one. You can document and describe the damage that comes from something harmful, and this degree of harm inflicted will be clear to an objective observer.

    i.e. For a professional musician, going deaf is more harmful than going blind would be. We can't place a value on one over the other without knowing more details about the person being harmed.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #186
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Words that have the potential of causing financial loss would not be considered fighting words. And what is measured is financial loss, not harm. A billionaire who loses $20K in profit has lost more than a person who makes an average $50,000 if they lose $10K. The latter person has, more than likely, received more "harm" from their losses, but the former has had greater measurable losses.

    Conversely, a person who makes $65K a year and has three kids that loses 10K is probably going to suffer more harm than a bachelor with no kids who makes $60K a year and loses that very same 10K. teh difference in harm would be documentable, but not measurable.

    Physical injuries simply cannot be measured. Only described and documented. Measurements can only relate to values. To show that there can not be a value placed on physical "harm", I offer the following:

    What's the difference in value between the loss of the left foot and the loss of a left hand?

    Now, after you've thought about that in a general sense, what's the difference in value between teh loss of the left foot and the loss of left hand for a professional musician, say a concert pianist at the start of their career?

    Clearly, for said musician, the harm done by the loss of a left hand is going to be greater than that of the loss of the left foot. Whereas a professional soccer player would be harmed more from the loss of the left foot, as losing his hand would have little to no effect on his livelihood.

    Do we consider the harm received from losing one's left hand equal to that of losing the right? If so, does that mean a right-handed person has been harmed just as much as he would have been if he lost his left hand? Or do we measure harm in this situation by handed-ness?

    Is so, what about losing a finger on the left hand versus losing a finger on the right one? Would that still be based on handedness, or would it be equal? Is a pinky worth the same value as an index finger? Would a right-handed guitar player get more "harm points" if he lost a finger on his left hand as opposed to his right?

    What I'm trying to show is that harm, the actual damage one receives overall, is simply not a legitimately measurable construct.

    Harm is a relative factor, though, it is just not a subjective one. You can document and describe the damage that comes from something harmful, and this degree of harm inflicted will be clear to an objective observer.

    i.e. For a professional musician, going deaf is more harmful than going blind would be. We can't place a value on one over the other without knowing more details about the person being harmed.
    Nothing about my counter argument?

  7. #187
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    Nothing about my counter argument?
    I must have missed your counter argument, sorry. Which post was it?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #188
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    I was lazy. There were some posts that all looked like that topic when I super freaky style skimmed it, sue me.

    Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

    What person is the religious protestor addressing? Dead soldiers? Like I said, not relevant. Not even the point.

    Read Brandenburg v. Ohio to see how and why I made my decision. I think that you will find post Chaplinsky decisions interesting and understand that perhaps I have some tools that increase my knowledge to a level that you don't fully appreciate and that display that I am fully equipped.
    Is it this one?

    I'm not sure how Brandenburg v. Ohio relates to my argument in the least. That ruling was about the advocacy of violence, and how that is different from incitement.

    My argument is actually about the words which, "by their very utterance" in certain circumstances "inflict injury." and how they should be prevented from being uttered in said circumstances.

    an important ruling would be cohen v California which states that fighting words are those "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction."

    Standing outside of a funeral with a sign telling people that their son is going to hell is indeed inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 04-14-10 at 09:01 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #189
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    04-15-10 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,303

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Is it this one?

    I'm not sure how Brandenburg v. Ohio relates to my argument in the least. That ruling was about the advocacy of violence, and how that is different from incitement.

    My argument is actually about the words which, "by their very utterance" in certain circumstances "inflict injury." and how they should be prevented from being uttered in said circumstances.

    an important ruling would be cohen v California which states that fighting words are those "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction."

    Standing outside of a funeral with a sign telling people that their son is going to hell is indeed inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.
    Don't worry, I figured as much.

    Fair enough. But is "by there very utterance inflict injury" a little vague? Depending on the sensitivity of the "victim", almost anything could apply. That is why the Court has systematically been narrowing the definition since the Chaplinsky decision. The religious guy was not standing the funeral telling them that their son was going to hell. He was away. The dad did not even know about it until after the funeral when he saw it on the news.

    In Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

    Held: The ordinance, as thus construed, is susceptible of application to protected speech, and therefore is overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and facially invalid.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=415&invol=130

    "Inflict injury" was the first step. Many have been taken since that narrow these broad terms into more reasonable and specific ones. And thank god for that.
    Last edited by Flea; 04-14-10 at 09:14 PM.

  10. #190
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rightwing86 View Post
    The reputation left from that person could be damaged, along with his family members. Plus it still falls under fighting words.

    Reputation = what somebody is known for.

    So therefore it can be damaged even after they are deceased.
    A corpse does not have a reputation to harm. Even if it did, how would you measure it? Loss of employment opportunities? Therapy bills?

Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •