02 Mar 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree. It is inflamatory and it is hard for me to imagine a fact pattern where the intentional infliction of emotional distress would be stronger.
If people try to do it at the door of where the person lives then yes, I guess it might.
But for me this has nothing to do with censorship of content. The same harsh political speech could be done in a rally, in the media, in front of political institutions, etc. I just don't see why disturbing a funeral should be allowed under the guise of free speech.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by generalissimoI thought the same thing, but I don't want to go there (at least not in this thread).
Coincidentally, the court's decision seemed to be rooted on the sort of "rights fundamentalism" endorsed by a few posters here, illustrating the real undesirable consequences of allowing fantastical idealism to dominate judgments on practical matters.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by quackquackI understood that the WBs are staging rallies at funerals of service members without respect to the gender preference of the deceased, on the basis that their god is punishing the USA by letting soldiers be killed, for our allowing homosexuality and other sinful behavior (in their view).
Obviously you are correct that a conservative judge would be more likely, when balancing free speech and another right, to put a limit on free speech. I think however it is interesting that the right that Alito wishes to protect is the right of the family of a homosexual soldier to have a funeral without hateful protests making it into a public issue. ...[text shortened]... endless defending religious groups and never defending the rights of average ordinary citizens.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by JS357Perhaps I misunderstood the fact pattern and I appreciate your correction but I think that makes the protests even more ridiculous. As Alito states
I understood that the WBs are staging rallies at funerals of service members without respect to the gender preference of the deceased, on the basis that their god is punishing the USA by letting soldiers be killed, for our allowing homosexuality and other sinful behavior (in their view).
"The church can write and distribute books, articles, and other texts; they may create and disseminate video and audio recordings; they may circulate petitions; they may speak to individuals and groups in public forums and in any private venue that wishes to accommodate them; they may picket peacefully in countless locations; they may appearon television and speak on the radio; they may post messages on the Internet and send out e-mails And they may express their views in terms that are “uninhibited,” “vehement,” and “caustic.” It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a timeof intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by quackquackTheir contribution consists in the lamentable spectacle they make of themselves -- a spectacle that cries out Why?; occasioning debate.
It does not follow, however, that they may intentionally inflict severe emotional injury on private persons at a timeof intense emotional sensitivity by launching vicious verbal attacks that make no contribution to public debate
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat "undesirable consequences" are that? That people will have opinions that you don't like?
Well said.
edit- Coincidentally, the court's decision seemed to be rooted on the sort of "rights fundamentalism" endorsed by a few posters here, illustrating the real undesirable consequences of allowing fantastical idealism to dominate judgments on practical matters.
02 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThey were a 1000 feet away from the funeral on public property. How much further should they have been required to go to meet your objections?
It's harassment. They could express their opinion elsewhere and at any time but they just decided not to for the purpose of getting a reaction from the family (or simply allow the possibility of getting a reaction which generates media attention).
Nobody is denying their right to express their opinions but I don't see why they should be allowed to harass press it publicly not that all possible mediums in all possible situations must be assured.
From the Court's decision, p. 2:
The picketing took place within a 10- by25-foot plot of public land adjacent to a public street,behind a temporary fence. App. to Brief for Appellantsin No. 08–1026 (CA4), pp. 2282–2285 (hereinafter App.).That plot was approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held. Several buildings separated the picket site from the church. Id., at 3758. The West-boro picketers displayed their signs for about 30 minutes before the funeral began and sang hymns and recited Bible verses. None of the picketers entered church prop-erty or went to the cemetery. They did not yell or use profanity, and there was no violence associated with thepicketing. Id., at 2168, 2371, 2286, 2293.
Furthermore: Although Snyder testified that he could see the tops of the picket signs as he drove to the funeral, he did not see what was written on the signs until later that night, while watching a news broadcast covering the event.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
03 Mar 11
Originally posted by no1marauderObviously you haven't put much thought into this post of yours given you have the nerve to ask what such consequences are, perhaps if you had read the link before posting you wouldn't have posed me such a perfunctory reply.
What "undesirable consequences" are that? That people will have opinions that you don't like?
This isn't about the possession of opinions I dislike, we are talking about despicable individuals who exploit the literal word of the law in order to torment grieving relatives of fallen soldiers, it is a very poor reflection of your empathy to suggest this is an endorsement of censorship of opinions I don't agree with (no doubt an accusation inspired solely by your own meanspiritedness).