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 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 260 of 260

Thread: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

  1. #251
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    I don't believe that the court is going to decide your way. Historically, fighting words have been extremely limited, and the court has almost always decided in favor of nearly unlimited speech. but, nice try. And you looked cute doing it.
    Actually Catz, the opposite is true. Usually when something was provably malicious and unwarranted the plaintiff lost, the case that involved New Orleans was the only time I can think of that the plaintiff won, this is because telling a cop "**** you" is not an assault nor is it enough to warrant obscenity charges, it wasn't particularly malicious in that it is a phrase in common usage and thus not personal.
    especially in this case, in light of the fact that the signs and protests weren't even visible at the funeral or burial, I don't think the plaintiff has a snowball's chance. But, you never know.
    I'm not familiar with the full details of this, but even so, just being a hate group at a funeral has the ability to damage the proceedings. I'll have to read up on this later.

    Let me put it like this: This is the same court that decided that corporations have 1st Amendment rights.
    Incorporation means that people within the company make the company, so therefore it does hold a personhood status with full rights, this is not a new concept, the court simply enforced it.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #252
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    Actually Catz, the opposite is true. Usually when something was provably malicious and unwarranted the plaintiff lost, the case that involved New Orleans was the only time I can think of that the plaintiff won, this is because telling a cop "**** you" is not an assault nor is it enough to warrant obscenity charges, it wasn't particularly malicious in that it is a phrase in common usage and thus not personal.
    I'm not familiar with the full details of this, but even so, just being a hate group at a funeral has the ability to damage the proceedings. I'll have to read up on this later.
    Actually with New Orleans it was because the ordinance was overly broad that prohibited such language. Essentially, it made it so that whether or not they were, in fact, words that could be construed as "fighting words" became "immaterial", as the only thing under consideration in the case was the wording of the ordinance, not the wording of the attack.

    It clearly states that in the decision of Lewis v. New Orleans.

    Quote Originally Posted by JUSTICE BRENNAN in Lewis v. New Orleans
    In that circumstance it is immaterial whether the words appellant used might be punishable under a properly limited statute or ordinance.
    It wasn't actually a "fighting words" decision, it was a decision that stated the ordinance in question did not limit itself to fighting words. That's why the plaintiff won the case. Not because the words she used were not considered fighting words. Actually, they were pretty much considered fighting words by the court. That was just immaterial to the decision.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 04-15-10 at 05:03 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #253
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    There is a difference between society stepping up and taking care of those who are infirm, old, or ill, and providing global health care. Your "reading" of the constitution is quite novel.
    i'm imaginative.

    seriously, we already pay for care, in more expensive ways. with the new plan, if you have the ability to PAY for that healthcare, you will. so we are providing access, not the actual healthcare. what's unconstitutional about that?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  4. #254
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Actually with New Orleans it was because the ordinance was overly broad that prohibited such language. Essentially, it made it so that whether or not they were, in fact, words that could be construed as "fighting words" became "immaterial", as the only thing under consideration in the case was the wording of the ordinance, not the wording of the attack.

    It clearly states that in the decision of Lewis v. New Orleans.



    It wasn't actually a "fighting words" decision, it was a decision that stated the ordinance in question did not limit itself to fighting words. That's why the plaintiff won the case. Not because the words she used were not considered fighting words. Actually, they were pretty much considered fighting words by the court. That was just immaterial to the decision.
    I'm thinking of a different case then. There was a similar one here, may have stopped at the appelate level. The case was that under La. law a citizen has the right to use force in resisting an unlawful arrest, the police officer in question took exception to being told "**** you" and considered it assault on a police officer.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i'm imaginative.

    seriously, we already pay for care, in more expensive ways. with the new plan, if you have the ability to PAY for that healthcare, you will. so we are providing access, not the actual healthcare. what's unconstitutional about that?
    I'm not quibbling with the healthcare plan. I'm quibbling with you creating new entitlements and pretending that they are constitutional rights.

  6. #256
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    I'm thinking of a different case then. There was a similar one here, may have stopped at the appelate level. The case was that under La. law a citizen has the right to use force in resisting an unlawful arrest, the police officer in question took exception to being told "**** you" and considered it assault on a police officer.
    Ah. I think that ruling would be more about the fact that his reaction would also be an overly broad interpretation of the laws regarding assaulting a police officer and again, the actual point about whether or not they actually were fighting words would become immaterial in such a case as well.



    Plus, this is a civil case, and as such, the discussion of laws and ordinances isn't going to be relevant.

    The only thing that would really need to be proven was malicious intent to cause harm with the speech and that it did not convey their message and that they were indeed fighting words.

    In a civil case, one only needs to prove that they were fighting words chosen with malicious intent, and therefore not protected by the 1st amendment.

    In a criminal case, one must prove that the ordinance was constitutional and that they were fighting words.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #257
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Ah. I think that ruling would be more about the fact that his reaction would also be an overly broad interpretation of the laws regarding assaulting a police officer and again, the actual point about whether or not they actually were fighting words would become immaterial in such a case as well.
    They tried to make the arrest stick on two grounds, first assault on a police officer and second obscenity. The finding was that assault was not relevant because there was no intent of harm expressed, obscenity was found to be irrelevant because there was no sexual meaning behind the usage, simply a bad word. If I remember correctly. But yeah, fighting words weren't the issue.


    Plus, this is a civil case, and as such, the discussion of laws and ordinances isn't going to be relevant.

    The only thing that would really need to be proven was malicious intent to cause harm with the speech and that it did not convey their message and that they were indeed fighting words.
    That's what I think it would boil down to. The thing that usually determines fighting words aren't necessarily intent to cause a fight though, it's a malicious intent that normally would lead to a fight or battery taking place after any reasonable human being were to hear said speech.

    In a civil case, one only needs to prove that they were fighting words chosen with malicious intent, and therefore not protected by the 1st amendment.

    In a criminal case, one must prove that the ordinance was constitutional and that they were fighting words.
    Yep and Yep.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #258
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    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.

    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.

    I'm starting to think that the reason you are bothered by people who might punch a guy for running his mouth in certain highly inappropriate ways/venues, is because you seem to be one of the likely punch-ee's.

    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.'.."

  9. #259
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I'm starting to think that the reason you are bothered by people who might punch a guy for running his mouth in certain highly inappropriate ways/venues, is because you seem to be one of the likely punch-ee's.
    Side note, I've noticed the first people to bitch about getting their ass kicked are the one's who most deserve it. I've been punched, slapped for being out of line a few times in life......when I realized my error I just stepped back, thought for a second, and apologized for the faux pas.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #260
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flea View Post
    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.
    Stop calling me out. I am sure if others read my comments and have a problem with it? They would speak up. Why call me out like this?
    ~Following My Own Flow~

Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526

Posting Permissions

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