• 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!

8-0 SCOTUS Free Speech Win

Alito got a simple opinion to write due to all justices being in agreement. No dissenting opinion(s) to counter, no concurring opinions to finesse.

A pre-law student could write the opinion and seem profound.

Scotus has never struck down the FCC prohibitions on certain words being used on the air to include via cable. Most of the prohibited words refer to sex acts -- sucker or lapper sort of words. Five will get you ten you could not get a business license to open a restaurant that uses one of the FCC six prohibited words. It might be due to a legal overlap.

Alito would be tongue tied.

No Alito's opinion is extremely important.

Do not confusing free speech with content. the FCC rules for content co-exist with existing law on what can be seen by kids.
not really the SCOTUS already ruled on it that the FCC has the power to limit content.
 
No Alito's opinion is extremely important.

Do not confusing free speech with content. the FCC rules for content co-exist with existing law on what can be seen by kids.
not really the SCOTUS already ruled on it that the FCC has the power to limit content.


Who other than a Conservative could confuse free speech with content speech. Justice Alito said free speech means the ability to offend is protected under the constitution. Unless of course it is not, as in the case of the FCC prohibition of six words that will cost you your license to operate either radio, television, cable-satellite or anything else overseen by the government.

I support the FCC in this but I also recognize a prohibition of speech when I see it. Sure the airwaves belong to the public so the government regulates them. Of course. Protect the children -- of course. So free speech of any category comes down to the matter of taste besides. Oops. Now we've got offend and taste. Worse yet we've got your post declaring Alito a rock star of a justice for his cakewalk opinion by the unanimous court.

I posted btw that Scotus hasn't overturned the FCC. You posted as above Scotus has ruled on it. Same-Same effect.

Alito is a black robe at Scotus and a rightwing vote, nothing more than that. He comes out of the rightwing cookie cutter and that's it. He finally got an opinion to write for the Court, but it wasn't a more complicated majority opinion that included addressing dissenting opinion(s) or concurring opinion(s) of other justices. Alito finally got to write one but it wuz the unanimous opinion of the Court. That's like showing up at Yankee Stadium to win by acclamation after throwing one pitch.
 
Who other than a Conservative could confuse free speech with content speech. Justice Alito said free speech means the ability to offend is protected under the constitution. Unless of course it is not, as in the case of the FCC prohibition of six words that will cost you your license to operate either radio, television, cable-satellite or anything else overseen by the government.

Leave it to you to not read and actually reply to what is being said.
the SCOTUS has already ruled on the FCC power to regulation public content. That has nothing to do with this case.
you seem to be confused.

I support the FCC in this but I also recognize a prohibition of speech when I see it. Sure the airwaves belong to the public so the government regulates them. Of course. Protect the children -- of course. So free speech of any category comes down to the matter of taste besides. Oops. Now we've got offend and taste. Worse yet we've got your post declaring Alito a rock star of a justice for his cakewalk opinion by the unanimous court.

Again as pertaining to this case alito is right. It is also a huge win in general against the though police crowd.
FCC content is irrelevant to this case and is a red herring argument and a strawman.

I posted btw that Scotus hasn't overturned the FCC. You posted as above Scotus has ruled on it. Same-Same effect.

YOu need to read better.

Alito is a black robe at Scotus and a rightwing vote, nothing more than that. He comes out of the rightwing cookie cutter and that's it. He finally got an opinion to write for the Court, but it wasn't a more complicated majority opinion that included addressing dissenting opinion(s) or concurring opinion(s) of other justices. Alito finally got to write one but it wuz the unanimous opinion of the Court. That's like showing up at Yankee Stadium to win by acclamation after throwing one pitch.

typical ad hominem come back when you actually have an argument.
his opinion is accurate and is well very much true.

you have yet to disprove anything I have said.

PS how did that recount turn out for you? not to well i guess.
 
Leave it to you to not read and actually reply to what is being said.
the SCOTUS has already ruled on the FCC power to regulation public content. That has nothing to do with this case.
you seem to be confused.



Again as pertaining to this case alito is right. It is also a huge win in general against the though police crowd.
FCC content is irrelevant to this case and is a red herring argument and a strawman.



YOu need to read better.



typical ad hominem come back when you actually have an argument.
his opinion is accurate and is well very much true.

you have yet to disprove anything I have said.

PS how did that recount turn out for you? not to well i guess.


You started carrying on about content speech after I'd referenced it in passing. As to the recount it's happening now in Washington in a certain sense and it's up to 39 states' boards of elections invaded by Putin for Trump. Putin is my enemy. So to Trump's way of thinking I am Trump's enemy of the state. I heard somewhere Stein unwittingly carried Putin's water but it's worse about Trump cause Trump does it half wittingly. And Putin sold Trump a bucket of dehydrated water besides. There's one born every minute as the saying goes.

In this case Chief Justice Roberts assigned Alito to write the opinion of the unanimous Court. There are worse justices than Alito on First Amendment cases, believe it or not. Roberts is one of 'em. For instance, Roberts thinks someone in an angry crowd at a funeral shouting fag to the family of a U S Marine who died in Iraq is okay while Alito thinks it's wrong and is not permitted speech. A family at a funeral being a captive audience, it would indeed not be free speech.

Learn something new every day over there. Hopefully.
 
You started carrying on about content speech after I'd referenced it in passing. As to the recount it's happening now in Washington in a certain sense and it's up to 39 states' boards of elections invaded by Putin for Trump. Putin is my enemy. So to Trump's way of thinking I am Trump's enemy of the state. I heard somewhere Stein unwittingly carried Putin's water but it's worse about Trump cause Trump does it half wittingly. And Putin sold Trump a bucket of dehydrated water besides. There's one born every minute as the saying goes.

In this case Chief Justice Roberts assigned Alito to write the opinion of the unanimous Court. There are worse justices than Alito on First Amendment cases, believe it or not. Roberts is one of 'em. For instance, Roberts thinks someone in an angry crowd at a funeral shouting fag to the family of a U S Marine who died in Iraq is okay while Alito thinks it's wrong and is not permitted speech. A family at a funeral being a captive audience, it would indeed not be free speech.

Learn something new every day over there. Hopefully.

funerals are private events therefore someone shouting at a funeral is actually invading a private event.

that again has nothing to do with this case any can't you actually address facts? ol yea because you don't have any counter.
this ruling just shut down all the SJW out there in the fact you don't have a right to be offended or prohibit someone from talking
because you feel it might be offensive.
 
funerals are private events therefore someone shouting at a funeral is actually invading a private event.

that again has nothing to do with this case any can't you actually address facts? ol yea because you don't have any counter.
this ruling just shut down all the SJW out there in the fact you don't have a right to be offended or prohibit someone from talking
because you feel it might be offensive.


Wrong again counselor at large.

The court considered three issues, none of which addressed the "event" per se. The Court considered first a "private matter" rather than an 'event' per se. In legal proceedings this is a material difference, i.e., a matter or an event.

The questions presented were as follows:[18]
1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;
2) Whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly.
3) Whether an individual attending a family member's funeral constitutes a "captive audience" who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps


Chief Roberts wrote the opinion that nullified the trial jury's award of $11 million dollars to the family of the deceased U S Marine returned from Iraq for services, respects, burial. The Hate Congregation of Westboro Baptist Church appealed all the way to Scotus which granted the church relief.


360_westboro_sc_0302.jpg

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Supporters of Westboro Baptist Church demonstrate outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 6, 2010


As reported and discussed by Time, Alito was the only dissenter....


Snyder's lone backer, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a passionate dissent that accuses his colleagues of being plain mean. "Respondents' outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," Alito wrote. He seems to be asking them, How can you sleep at night? "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner," wrote Alito. "I therefore respectfully dissent." Perhaps another adverb is more fitting: angrily.

Any reasonable person, Alito opined, could interpret Westboro's signs as personal attacks on a dead soldier rather than opinions about public issues. "God Hates Fags" could have been viewed as an attack on Matthew Snyder's sexuality. "Moreover," Alito wrote. "Since a church funeral is an event that naturally brings to mind thoughts about the afterlife, some of the respondents' signs — e.g., 'God Hates You,' 'Not Blessed Just Cursed' and 'You're Going to Hell' — would have likely been interpreted as referring to God's judgment of the deceased."

Roberts emphasized that the court's ruling was narrow. Since, at the time of the protest, Maryland law did not dictate the minimum distance funeral protesters must stand from a service, the court declined to evaluate the constitutionality of the 44 state statutes that have passed picketing restrictions.


Snyder v. Phelps: Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Westboro - TIME


Your side prevailed in both the cases but in the Congregation of Hate case quoted above your "rock star" Justice Alito sang a different tune. Alito played a different riff. One of these dayze we may find out how Alito's alleged legal mind works.
 
Wrong again counselor at large.

The court considered three issues, none of which addressed the "event" per se. The Court considered first a "private matter" rather than an 'event' per se. In legal proceedings this is a material difference, i.e., a matter or an event.

The questions presented were as follows:[18]
1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;
2) Whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly.
3) Whether an individual attending a family member's funeral constitutes a "captive audience" who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps


Chief Roberts wrote the opinion that nullified the trial jury's award of $11 million dollars to the family of the deceased U S Marine returned from Iraq for services, respects, burial. The Hate Congregation of Westboro Baptist Church appealed all the way to Scotus which granted the church relief.


360_westboro_sc_0302.jpg

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Supporters of Westboro Baptist Church demonstrate outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 6, 2010


As reported and discussed by Time, Alito was the only dissenter....


Snyder's lone backer, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a passionate dissent that accuses his colleagues of being plain mean. "Respondents' outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered," Alito wrote. He seems to be asking them, How can you sleep at night? "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner," wrote Alito. "I therefore respectfully dissent." Perhaps another adverb is more fitting: angrily.

Any reasonable person, Alito opined, could interpret Westboro's signs as personal attacks on a dead soldier rather than opinions about public issues. "God Hates Fags" could have been viewed as an attack on Matthew Snyder's sexuality. "Moreover," Alito wrote. "Since a church funeral is an event that naturally brings to mind thoughts about the afterlife, some of the respondents' signs — e.g., 'God Hates You,' 'Not Blessed Just Cursed' and 'You're Going to Hell' — would have likely been interpreted as referring to God's judgment of the deceased."

Roberts emphasized that the court's ruling was narrow. Since, at the time of the protest, Maryland law did not dictate the minimum distance funeral protesters must stand from a service, the court declined to evaluate the constitutionality of the 44 state statutes that have passed picketing restrictions.


Snyder v. Phelps: Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Westboro - TIME


Your side prevailed in both the cases but in the Congregation of Hate case quoted above your "rock star" Justice Alito sang a different tune. Alito played a different riff. One of these dayze we may find out how Alito's alleged legal mind works.

thank you for supporting my argument. alito was correct in that regard. I do not view funerals as public events but private events.
is someone barges into my private event I can ask them to leave. I believe the SCOTUS was wrong in it's dealing with phelps.

in fact it was due to that ruling that states setup up distances from funerals to ensure that the family could bury their dead in peace.

private events are not what are being discussed here which is why you are wrong.

what we are talking about is a government agency deeming something icky and denying it. this ruling prevents that.
it says people can do things even though others find offensive and that it is supported by the constitution.

this goes back to US vs larry flynt
 
thank you for supporting my argument. alito was correct in that regard. I do not view funerals as public events but private events.
is someone barges into my private event I can ask them to leave. I believe the SCOTUS was wrong in it's dealing with phelps.

in fact it was due to that ruling that states setup up distances from funerals to ensure that the family could bury their dead in peace.

private events are not what are being discussed here which is why you are wrong.

what we are talking about is a government agency deeming something icky and denying it. this ruling prevents that.
it says people can do things even though others find offensive and that it is supported by the constitution.

this goes back to US vs larry flynt


One can easily determine any time the right has lost its case because the right just continues to talk right past the facts, evidence and plain proof to instead continue with its rote recitations as if nothing had interposed.

The right simply declares, pronounces, issues forth, as if no one else were out here knocking 'em back and down. The benefit to the rest of us is that each time the right does this routine it proves it has no arguments, no basis, no answer(s). All the right does is brush itself off and resume reciting the same-o and same-o discredited and debunked stuff.

What elephant?!?
 
One can easily determine any time the right has lost its case because the right just continues to talk right past the facts, evidence and plain proof to instead continue with its rote recitations as if nothing had interposed.
Drivel is what that is. No case was lost. The case was won by the people that filed it as it should have been.

The right simply declares, pronounces, issues forth, as if no one else were out here knocking 'em back and down. The benefit to the rest of us is that each time the right does this routine it proves it has no arguments, no basis, no answer(s). All the right does is brush itself off and resume reciting the same-o and same-o discredited and debunked stuff.

What elephant?!?

Just more blathering nonsense because you can't deal with the argument presented.
Nothing was debunked the case was 8-0 in favor of the people that filed the suit.
Free speech wins SJW lose.
 
thank you for supporting my argument. alito was correct in that regard. I do not view funerals as public events but private events.
is someone barges into my private event I can ask them to leave. I believe the SCOTUS was wrong in it's dealing with phelps.

in fact it was due to that ruling that states setup up distances from funerals to ensure that the family could bury their dead in peace.

private events are not what are being discussed here which is why you are wrong.

what we are talking about is a government agency deeming something icky and denying it. this ruling prevents that.
it says people can do things even though others find offensive and that it is supported by the constitution.

this goes back to US vs larry flynt


Not only do you not know whether you are coming or going but you just met yourself on the way back.

You said it was an event. I corrected you to say Scotus considered it a "private matter." Then you said I considered it an event which makes me wrong. Then you said again it wuz an event. This is but one instance of your complete confusion and chaos.

You'll know and acknowledge the elephant in the room but only after it sits on you. :rofl

Conservatives are the most confounded and muddled people I know. Call 'em to account and the only thing that happens is that their heads explode.
 
Not only do you not know whether you are coming or going but you just met yourself on the way back.

You said it was an event. I corrected you to say Scotus considered it a "private matter." Then you said I considered it an event which makes me wrong. Then you said again it wuz an event. This is but one instance of your complete confusion and chaos.

You'll know and acknowledge the elephant in the room but only after it sits on you. :rofl

Conservatives are the most confounded and muddled people I know. Call 'em to account and the only thing that happens is that their heads explode.

You need to learn to read I said specifically that a funeral is a private event. Which it is.
You don't know what you are talking about because you are trying to hard to be right.

Funeral aside his case was about a government agency squashing free speech because some people might get offended.
The SCOTUS said they were 100% wrong as they should have.

Now if you want to argue that go ahead but you are going to have a hard time doing it.

This decision confirms previous decisions in this case.
 
Drivel is what that is. No case was lost. The case was won by the people that filed it as it should have been.



Just more blathering nonsense because you can't deal with the argument presented.
Nothing was debunked the case was 8-0 in favor of the people that filed the suit.
Free speech wins SJW lose.
:boom


You said this 8-0 Scotus decision is the same as the Larry Flint case -- you know, the one with Woody Harrelson throwing his ripe opinions around the courtroom but at the judge especially. The case Edward Norton won bless him. You however fail to specify the particulars of how you believe the Westboro Baptist Church Hate Congregation resembles in legal terms the Flint Case. Until you specify, your belief is a basket full of fog and nothing more. A flying basket of fog besides. Mush.


In the meanwhile, here is why the trial jury awarded the family of the deceased U S Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder killed in the line of duty $3 million in damages and $8 million in punishment of Westboro Baptist Church....


"The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,”
“America is Doomed,”
“Don’t Pray for the USA,”
“Thank God for IEDs,”
“Fag Troops,”
“Semper Fi Fags,”
“God Hates Fags,”
“Maryland Taliban,”
“Fags Doom Nations,”
“Not Blessed Just Cursed,”
“Thank God for Dead Soldiers,”
“Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,”
“You ’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.”
While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet, to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even
if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues."



Here is from the minority opinion of Justice Alito....


"In this case, respondents implemented the Westboro Baptist Church’s publicity-seeking strategy. Their press release stated that they were going “to picket the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder” because “God Almighty killed Lance Cpl. Snyder. He died in shame, not honor — for a fag nation cursed by God. Now in Hell—sine die.”

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church,
approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. 1 The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree."


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf


The Constitution was not intended or designed to do as Justice Alitio says the Court believes. There is no benefit to the general welfare or to the public good to torture a family at a time of its greatest grief. Or to try to dishonor a fallen member of the armed forces killed in the line of duty.
 
:boom


You said this 8-0 Scotus decision is the same as the Larry Flint case -- you know, the one with Woody Harrelson throwing his ripe opinions around the courtroom but at the judge especially. The case Edward Norton won bless him. You however fail to specify the particulars of how you believe the Westboro Baptist Church Hate Congregation resembles in legal terms the Flint Case. Until you specify, your belief is a basket full of fog and nothing more. A flying basket of fog besides. Mush.


In the meanwhile, here is why the trial jury awarded the family of the deceased U S Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder killed in the line of duty $3 million in damages and $8 million in punishment of Westboro Baptist Church....


"The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,”
“America is Doomed,”
“Don’t Pray for the USA,”
“Thank God for IEDs,”
“Fag Troops,”
“Semper Fi Fags,”
“God Hates Fags,”
“Maryland Taliban,”
“Fags Doom Nations,”
“Not Blessed Just Cursed,”
“Thank God for Dead Soldiers,”
“Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,”
“You ’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.”
While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed, unlike the private speech in Dun & Bradstreet, to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even
if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues."



Here is from the minority opinion of Justice Alito....


"In this case, respondents implemented the Westboro Baptist Church’s publicity-seeking strategy. Their press release stated that they were going “to picket the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder” because “God Almighty killed Lance Cpl. Snyder. He died in shame, not honor — for a fag nation cursed by God. Now in Hell—sine die.”

Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church,
approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. 1 The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree."


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf


The Constitution was not intended or designed to do as Justice Alitio says the Court believes. There is no benefit to the general welfare or to the public good to torture a family at a time of its greatest grief. Or to try to dishonor a fallen member of the armed forces killed in the line of duty.

this case is similar to people vs flynt and the constitution won.

you are attempting to compare apples to oranges.

the funeral case was lost over merit the guy couldn't see or hear the protestors he admitted it in court. he only saw it on the news and very briefly for a second on the way there.
alito is consistent that private events are different from public ones.

you really should just stop. the fact is the this case is 8-0 and affirms what we all knew that again had to have the court say in open court.
 
You need to learn to read I said specifically that a funeral is a private event. Which it is.
You don't know what you are talking about because you are trying to hard to be right.

Funeral aside his case was about a government agency squashing free speech because some people might get offended.
The SCOTUS said they were 100% wrong as they should have.

Now if you want to argue that go ahead but you are going to have a hard time doing it.

This decision confirms previous decisions in this case.


You make no arguments.

You instead issue forth pronouncements, declarations, assertions.

The posts are vacuous.
 
Back
Top Bottom