• 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!

Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

Is protesting at funerals 'Free Speech'?

  • No, this was never the intent of the founding fathers!

    Votes: 2 4.4%

  • It's harassment and should be illegal

    Votes: 20 44.4%

  • It's open to interpretation

    Votes: 4 8.9%

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

    Votes: 14 31.1%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 5 11.1%
  • Total voters
    45
Catz Part Deux said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

JUSTICE BRENNAN in Lewis v. New Orleans said:
In that circumstance it is immaterial whether the words appellant used might be punishable under a properly limited statute or ordinance.
Click to expand...

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:
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
liblady said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not quibbling with the healthcare plan. I'm quibbling with you creating new entitlements and pretending that they are constitutional rights.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Yep and Yep.
 
Flea said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Flea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom