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 22 of 26 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 260

Thread: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

  1. #211
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    These laws are usually health-related. Are the Phelps protesters desecrating the body or attempting to fornicate with it?
    Ah - so a family's stress and personal suffering and strife isn't measurable or worth protecting? Like I said - these people are USING the deceased in order to HURT the living.

    The whole: "Uncle Sam will kill your husbands but he won't keep you from getting harassed" bull**** that surrounds this is attrocious.


    I think they use this primarily to access the global media. That they get to screw emotionally with service personnel is just icing on the cake for them.
    And so that's ok? It's ok for them to take advantage of someone's tragic death in order to cause a stink and get on tv?

    Lucky for them that they've found this loophole, then, hunh? Lucky for them that soldiers are dying - otherwise they'd have no outlet for their voice.

    Even so, no one is denying that they are assholes. Does the fact that they are assholes justify undermining the right of free speech that soldiers fight and die for?
    Funny note on beign an asshole. I could, right now, call up my ex husband's wife and be a royal bitch to her if I wanted to. I wouldnt' say anything bad about her, but I'd bitch about him.

    And I'd eventually eat **** for it, too, and be told to cease my actions at the least.

    So, once again, it's pathetic that people are willing to protect this harassment and slander with the fallacy that "they're dead, it's not hurting anyone!"
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #212
    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
    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.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    "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.
    Since my argument is about very specific signs in very specific situations, and not about an overbroad ordinance, Lewis v. New Orleans does not apply. This is clear from in the courts findings:

    In that circumstance it is immaterial whether the words appellant used might be punishable under a properly limited statute or ordinance
    The ruling was not about the specific words used in the case, but the overly broad ordinance that was used to punish the words.

    My argument, however, is very specific and not related to ordinances, except insofar as it could be used as the basis for making such ordinances very specific instead of overbroad.

    And my argument is also fully supported by the reactions people are having in this thread (even though you don't seem to understand why such statements, "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions," actually provoke said violent reactions, it is clear that people here, ordinary people, have repeatedly stated that such statements being addressed at them, in the described situation, would very much provoke violence. It is very clearly common knowledge that certain things they do say will provoke a violent reaction from people.)

    To be honest, someone simply protesting outside of the funeral alone is not enough to provoke a violent reaction from ordinary people. If their words on their signs at these funerals were limited to stuff like the following:



    Then I'd say that there is no issue. It would surely provoke anger from ordinary people, but it would not be "inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction" in an ordinary person when directed at them.

    However, at a soldiers funeral, a sign like:



    or the sign on the left of the following picture:



    Will, as a matter of common knowledge, provoke a violent reaction from an ordinary person.

    The reactions of people above clearly indicate as much.

    The issue at the crux of my argument is that these particular signs are designed with malicious intent to provoke the bereaved. To inflict an emotional wound.

    The other signs are not designed with this malicious intent to inflict an emotional wound on the bereaved, not to promote the message that they want to convey (which is that "fags are bad, mmmkay, and bad things happen to the US because we don't kill off the fags, mmmkay"). Their message is actually fully conveyed with the "God hates Fag enablers" sign alone. The gloating about the death of a specific soldier is superfluous, and does not convey their message.

    These signs are simply done for malicious intent AND they are specifically oriented, a statement to the parents of the deceased in one case.

    As you can see, it's common knowledge that this **** does indeed have the likelihood of inciting violence in ordinary people to whom these words are directed.

    This is because of their inherent nature of inflicting injury upon the people to whom they are directed.

    The reason people are prone to reacting violently to them is because they go beyond being merely offensive. They are clearly a malicious attack on people in a state of grief.

    To clarify, my argument is based entirely on the fact that if I were at my own son's funeral, and some protesters were outside the funeral with a "God hates fags" sign, I would simply consider them vile pieces of ****.

    However, if I were at my own son's funeral and some protesters were outside with signs that were gloating about my son's death, calling him names, saying he was in hell, and that god killed him, I would walk outside and pummel one of them senseless.

    It would be a purely emotional reaction on my part. An absolutely irrational one, in fact. I make no claims that my reaction would be rational or civilized. Quite the opposite. They would be animalistic, uncivilized, and extreme. They would absolutely deserve to be punished by law.

    The rational actions I would then take would be to turn myself in without resisting my arrest, plead guilty to my crime and accept any punishments that the courts render for administering this beating. I would not attempt to doge the sentence in any way. I would gladly accept it.

    I wouldn't care if they were legally justified, because my morality states that they would be morally justified.

    If the same statements were made about me personally, and not my deceased child, I would not react in this manner. I would not be driven to violence. When attacks are directed at me, I do not react in an instinctive manner, but when they are directed at someone I love, my animal side will always shine through.

    It is this perfectly natural instinct to protect our loved one's, even if they are dead, that is the basis for my argument. People will protect the one's they love even more aggressively than they will protect themselves, especially their children. This instinct doesn't realize that the protections are futile due to the fact that the loved one is deceased because this instinct is not rational.

    Thus, my arguments have been directed entirely towards the signs that will trigger this instinct. These signs are also the ones that are likely to inflict an emotional injury upon the bereaved. Thus, these signs very clearly fit both possible qualifications for "fighting words", IMO.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #213
    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 Goshin View Post
    Flea, maybe you'd like to collect your thoughts a bit, because they are all over the place.

    You took Coronado's statements to an illogical extreme, suggesting that he would beat up some old man for talking smack about the armed forces. (What does Italian have to do with it anyway?)

    We're talking about the Phelp's clan activities and things of that level, not about every moron with more mouth than brains.
    I know, that is why I am comenting, you and he both made comments about beating up people who say bad things about dead relatives. Tucker can thank you, but I am just commenting on your guys's strange comments. If you want to stop making comments that threaten violence against protestors and those that talk "bad" then that would be great.

  4. #214
    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 know, that is why I am comenting, you and he both made comments about beating up people who say bad things about dead relatives. Tucker can thank you, but I am just commenting on your guys's strange comments. If you want to stop making comments that threaten violence against protestors and those that talk "bad" then that would be great.
    You are actually ignoring the actual specificity of their comments and inserting different comments that are overly generalized in order to make your point.

    That's a strawman argument.

    I've explained why these reactions exist above. Your inability or unwillingness to understand their reactions doesn't change the validity and importance of their reactions (i.e. their reactions fully support my argument that some of the signs clearly qualify as fighting words).

    The truth of the matter is it is not their comments that are strange. Their reactions and described reactions are perfectly normal for the described situations they are talking about.

    When you remove them from the situation, or ignore the specificity of their comments, you change the meaning of their comments AND the situation.

    You cannot take the specific statements and generalize them because they are not generalizable.

    That's why the slippery slope argument fails here and why Lewis v. New Orleans wouldn't apply. The specifics are why this case is different, and are absolutely important to gain an understanding of the arguments and statements that are begin presented.

    If you continue to ignore the specifics and keep generalizing people's comments, you will never understand the points they are making.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #215
    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
    Since my argument is about very specific signs in very specific situations, and not about an overbroad ordinance, Lewis v. New Orleans does not apply. This is clear from in the courts findings:



    The ruling was not about the specific words used in the case, but the overly broad ordinance that was used to punish the words.

    My argument, however, is very specific and not related to ordinances, except insofar as it could be used as the basis for making such ordinances very specific instead of overbroad.

    And my argument is also fully supported by the reactions people are having in this thread (even though you don't seem to understand why such statements, "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reactions," actually provoke said violent reactions, it is clear that people here, ordinary people, have repeatedly stated that such statements being addressed at them, in the described situation, would very much provoke violence. It is very clearly common knowledge that certain things they do say will provoke a violent reaction from people.)

    To be honest, someone simply protesting outside of the funeral alone is not enough to provoke a violent reaction from ordinary people. If their words on their signs at these funerals were limited to stuff like the following:



    Then I'd say that there is no issue. It would surely provoke anger from ordinary people, but it would not be "inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction" in an ordinary person when directed at them.

    However, at a soldiers funeral, a sign like:



    or the sign on the left of the following picture:



    Will, as a matter of common knowledge, provoke a violent reaction from an ordinary person.

    The reactions of people above clearly indicate as much.

    The issue at the crux of my argument is that these particular signs are designed with malicious intent to provoke the bereaved. To inflict an emotional wound.

    The other signs are not designed with this malicious intent to inflict an emotional wound on the bereaved, not to promote the message that they want to convey (which is that "fags are bad, mmmkay, and bad things happen to the US because we don't kill off the fags, mmmkay"). Their message is actually fully conveyed with the "God hates Fag enablers" sign alone. The gloating about the death of a specific soldier is superfluous, and does not convey their message.

    These signs are simply done for malicious intent AND they are specifically oriented, a statement to the parents of the deceased in one case.

    As you can see, it's common knowledge that this **** does indeed have the likelihood of inciting violence in ordinary people to whom these words are directed.

    This is because of their inherent nature of inflicting injury upon the people to whom they are directed.

    The reason people are prone to reacting violently to them is because they go beyond being merely offensive. They are clearly a malicious attack on people in a state of grief.

    To clarify, my argument is based entirely on the fact that if I were at my own son's funeral, and some protesters were outside the funeral with a "God hates fags" sign, I would simply consider them vile pieces of ****.

    However, if I were at my own son's funeral and some protesters were outside with signs that were gloating about my son's death, calling him names, saying he was in hell, and that god killed him, I would walk outside and pummel one of them senseless.

    It would be a purely emotional reaction on my part. An absolutely irrational one, in fact. I make no claims that my reaction would be rational or civilized. Quite the opposite. They would be animalistic, uncivilized, and extreme. They would absolutely deserve to be punished by law.

    The rational actions I would then take would be to turn myself in without resisting my arrest, plead guilty to my crime and accept any punishments that the courts render for administering this beating. I would not attempt to doge the sentence in any way. I would gladly accept it.

    I wouldn't care if they were legally justified, because my morality states that they would be morally justified.

    If the same statements were made about me personally, and not my deceased child, I would not react in this manner. I would not be driven to violence. When attacks are directed at me, I do not react in an instinctive manner, but when they are directed at someone I love, my animal side will always shine through.

    It is this perfectly natural instinct to protect our loved one's, even if they are dead, that is the basis for my argument. People will protect the one's they love even more aggressively than they will protect themselves, especially their children. This instinct doesn't realize that the protections are futile due to the fact that the loved one is deceased because this instinct is not rational.

    Thus, my arguments have been directed entirely towards the signs that will trigger this instinct. These signs are also the ones that are likely to inflict an emotional injury upon the bereaved. Thus, these signs very clearly fit both possible qualifications for "fighting words", IMO.
    I stopped reading after you said that, "even though you don't seem to understand why such statements". More crap from the Three Beat People Up Amigos. Right. Label me though it is incorrect. Attack me if it helps you feel it makes your point more valid. Hell, infract me if you want. This conversation is gay.

    My point may not be valid to your one specific scenario. It is valid regarding speech and what people can and can't do in most "fighting words" situations. Also, it keeps getting ignored to THIS ONE CASE, since you want to talk about how YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THIS CASE, and that is that the dad did not even know about the protestors until later when he saw it on the news. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO CARE about this truth, as you have just ignored it. What is the point in debating? They aren't fighting words if the intendee doesn't even hear/see them.

  6. #216
    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
    You are actually ignoring the actual specificity of their comments and inserting different comments that are overly generalized in order to make your point.

    That's a strawman argument.

    I've explained why these reactions exist above. Your inability or unwillingness to understand their reactions doesn't change the validity and importance of their reactions (i.e. their reactions fully support my argument that some of the signs clearly qualify as fighting words).

    The truth of the matter is it is not their comments that are strange. Their reactions and described reactions are perfectly normal for the described situations they are talking about.

    When you remove them from the situation, or ignore the specificity of their comments, you change the meaning of their comments AND the situation.

    You cannot take the specific statements and generalize them because they are not generalizable.

    That's why the slippery slope argument fails here and why Lewis v. New Orleans wouldn't apply. The specifics are why this case is different, and are absolutely important to gain an understanding of the arguments and statements that are begin presented.

    If you continue to ignore the specifics and keep generalizing people's comments, you will never understand the points they are making.
    I understand the points that they are making. I undestand the reactions. I understand the ****ing emotions. Dude, get over yourself. Instead of assuming I don't understand, which is condescending and lame, by the way, maybe you should try to figure out why I am saying what I am saying.

    If you were able to actually make a case against what I said, then I would listen. Just saying straw man doesn't mean anything. I am picking apart the way that they are saying it. I obviously used the words that he used. That is the scenario that I described. I changed nothing and took nothing out of context. Re-read his post and my scenario. He said if a guy comes down to disrespect they would get some boondock asswhoopin and that is what I described. If they want to say what they actually mean, that would certainly help. That is the point. It was not a straw man. If you looked at this objectively, you might be able to understand this point instead of compounding the issue.
    Last edited by Flea; 04-15-10 at 11:22 AM.

  7. #217
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    I'm sure you've heard the story:

    FOXNews.com - Father of Dead Marine Wages Court Battle Against Funeral Protests

    What do you think? Is protesting at funerals free speech that should be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
    Those who "protest" at a man's funeral deserve no First Amendment protection. Instead they should be given some upbringing - they should to taught to be respectful and courteous of others.
    Its probably too late for this, so how about a year in a Turkish jail ?
    And that 35% of the responders here think that this disgraceful protesting is OK...
    Sad.

  8. #218
    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'?

    Hell, Kali is calling for the death of people that disrespect the dead. If you guys don't get how talking about beating and killing people who use words is seriously ****ed up, then I will just rest my case since it perfectly illustrates why humanity will never be peaceful, for one thing.

  9. #219
    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 earthworm View Post
    Those who "protest" at a man's funeral deserve no First Amendment protection. Instead they should be given some upbringing - they should to taught to be respectful and courteous of others.
    Its probably too late for this, so how about a year in a Turkish jail ?
    And that 35% of the responders here think that this disgraceful protesting is OK...
    Sad.
    Reason. Finally! Teach them respect and courtesy. By jail if needed? Maybe. Ignore them would be the best and easiest. Punch people out or kill them? Hell no, that is what insane barabaric people do.

  10. #220
    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 stopped reading after you said that, "even though you don't seem to understand why such statements". More crap from the Three Beat People Up Amigos. Right. Label me though it is incorrect. Attack me if it helps you feel it makes your point more valid. Hell, infract me if you want. This conversation is gay.
    You don't seem to understand why. You said as much yourself when you said "If there is one thing that has always confused me, it is people that get so ****ing pissy when other people badmouth them, their friends or their family."

    Now, ironically as all hell, you are getting "so ****ing pissy" because you have erroneously perceives my mere restatement of something you have said yourself as an "attack" and a "label. i.e. you erroneously perceive my comments to be "badmouthing" you.

    Think about that. Think about your reaction to me restatement and how it inherently contradicts what you said above about being confused.

    Perhaps it will help you gain a better understanding of other people's positions when you actually hold those same positions, at least subconsciously.

    [/QUOTE]My point may not be valid to your one specific scenario.[/QUOTE]

    Then it isn't a valid response to my argument, which has always been specific.

    It is valid regarding speech and what people can and can't do in most "fighting words" situations. Also, it keeps getting ignored to THIS ONE CASE, since you want to talk about how YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THIS CASE, and that is that the dad did not even know about the protestors until later when he saw it on the news. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO CARE about this truth, as you have just ignored it. What is the point in debating? They aren't fighting words if the intendee doesn't even hear/see them.
    The intendee did see the words. He just saw them later on the news. You can't say he didn't even see or hear them four sentences after you say he saw and heard them.

    They are still fighting words, even if they are heard after the ability to fight has been removed. They will not always be heard or seen after that ability has been removed.

    Had one of them been in the room when he saw the words, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he'd have decked them.

    The fact remains, the words do indeed, inherently provoke a violent reaction.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 22 of 26 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... 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
  •