03 Mar 11
Originally posted by generalissimoSure they're SOBs.
Obviously 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.
This isn't about the possession of opinions I dislike, we are talking about despicable individuals who exploit the literal wor ...[text shortened]... ns I don't agree with (no doubt an accusation inspired solely by your own meanspiritedness).
But that doesn't mean their political speech should be suppressed. If said political opinions are offensive to some people, even the family of dead soldiers, that's part of the price of living in a country based on principles of freedom. The SCOTUS opinion is clearly correct.
04 Mar 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"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." -- Alito
Sure they're SOBs.
But that doesn't mean their political speech should be suppressed. If said political opinions are offensive to some people, even the family of dead soldiers, that's part of the price of living in a country based on principles of freedom. The SCOTUS opinion is clearly correct.
The crunch issue is whether what the Phelps's were doing constituted an intentional attempt to harass others.
It could be they wanted to hurt the feelings of the bereaved.
It could be they wanted to publicly make their controversial points.
As it was ambiguous, they should not have been forbidden from picketing.
That said, I wouldn't cry (and I suspect Jesus wouldn't either) if, one fine day, a hidden sniper were to put one or two of them out of other people's misery.
04 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by IshDaGeggAssume their specific intent was to hurt the feelings of the bereaved.
"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." -- Alito
The crunch issue is whether what the Phelps's were doing constituted an intentional attempt to harass others.
I one fine day, a hidden sniper were to put one or two of them out of other people's misery.
Why isn't that covered by freedom of speech?
There's no free speech exception for when your speech is going to hurt people's feelings.
04 Mar 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHaving problems with formulas lately? People are more likely to start dying trying to figure out your convoluted logic than by so-called zealots.
If they can't protest in public, there's a good chance people will start dying to Christian zealots.
What a buffoon.
04 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76you'd think the least the USA could do would be to make an exception to the Constitution for servicemen.
Assume their specific intent was to hurt the feelings of the bereaved.
Why isn't that covered by freedom of speech?
There's no free speech exception for when your speech is going to hurt people's feelings.
i mean, they found one for late term abortions, apparently. babies don't have rights until their entire body, yea even unto the littlest toe, has exited the stage.
