Westboro Baptist SC ruling

[Matt J]

I fell it was the correct decision. While I can guarantee that most straight people won't or don't remember it wasn't that long ago that the 1st Amendment was used to uphold the rights of gay people to simply publish magazines regarding news and information.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"
- [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall"]Evelyn Beatrice Hall[/ame]

 

[Beauty hunter]

These protestors are neither baptist nor christian.
They practice evil.
Within their sick group the true victims are the children.
We can pray for them to see that hate is not the solution.
There is still a Just Judge, though seemingly silent, that still reigns.
He is not blind or deaf.
It is from there that true justice will be served.
Not just at the end of time, but even on earth where it is needed.
That doesn't mean everything is going to happen the way you or I think it should.
We would all be in trouble if that happened:shock:

I totally identify with you guys about tweakin their little masquerade.

As we know, not all legal decisions produce justice.
So, we could be goaded into falling into their trap of "opening up a can" so to speak, and probably land in the slammer, or we could pray for justice to prevail in the situation.
Then again, on the other hand, a random drone that took out the head guy might work. Oopsy
It's a mommy thing: step away from the baby

 

[CampCreekLou]

Hateful church full of hateful people. They are the reason why people struggle with organized religion. Hopefully they will not get any more attention. I am sickened by them.

They are neither a church nor organized religion. By all accounts, they are a bunch of incestuous lawyers.....

 

[CampCreekLou]

I fell it was the correct decision. While I can guarantee that most straight people won't or don't remember it wasn't that long ago that the 1st Amendment was used to uphold the rights of gay people to simply publish magazines regarding news and information.

Don't you feel that we are on a very slippery slope to moral oblivion when we allow a bunch of lawyers to hide behind the constitution to validate activities like this, and say, abortion? Have we lost all sense of what is right and wrong?

 

[LuciferSam]

Don't you feel that we are on a very slippery slope to moral oblivion when we allow a bunch of lawyers to hide behind the constitution to validate activities like this, and say, abortion? Have we lost all sense of what is right and wrong?

Nobody validated these activities or implied in any way that they are moral, only that there was no legal basis for prohibiting them. It's also improper to use the expression "hide behind the constitution". If you think there is something wrong with the constitution, then you should be working to change it to prohibit free expression. Like it or not, the freedoms in our country allow for hurtful speech and even certain activity that most would agree is immoral.

 

[CampCreekLou]

I'm not sure I understand how one can have it both ways in their minds.....

"One ... way to put it is that the First Amendment protects heartless, crass morons from any legal liability for trading on the grief of families in order to make headlines."

or, as Alito put it:

?Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.?

 

[idlewind]

Nobody validated these activities or implied in any way that they are moral, only that there was no legal basis for prohibiting them. It's also improper to use the expression "hide behind the constitution". If you think there is something wrong with the constitution, then you should be working to change it to prohibit free expression. Like it or not, the freedoms in our country allow for hurtful speech and even certain activity that most would agree is immoral.

We are going to make you into a strict constructionist, libertarian yet.

 

[LuciferSam]

I'm not sure I understand how one can have it both ways in their minds.....

"One ... way to put it is that the First Amendment protects heartless, crass morons from any legal liability for trading on the grief of families in order to make headlines."

or, as Alito put it:

?Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.?

I don't know what Alito was thinking, and neither do his colleagues. If you want to end vicious verbal assault, you'd have to stop the printing presses and shut down the Internet.

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't like what these people say, but I know that we need to let them say it. They can have websites, books, signs, videos, protests at many locations, you name it as their venues.

But I think that they are infringing on other's rights when they choose a burial or church service and a captive grieving audience as the venue for their protests.

There are already restrictions on free speech to protect people. I do not think that limiting protests surrounding funerals/burials, especially funerals/burials of veterans is in any way a slippery slope.

The legal system already has rules about funerals and how the dead are treated because it recognizes that funerals/burials are important.

 

[Matt J]

I can assure you that if you censor them you will embolden them and escalate their rhetoric.