Supreme Court Takes Phelps Case

Darla said:
Well, surprisingly, I like Stringfield's argument the best on this thread. Many of you are engaging in complete absolutism. He has solved the problem.

Many of the others on this thread are over-emotional and some are stupid. But thanks for your input!

:)
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, you intended this to be ironic, right? :clink:
 
Darla said:
No, he not only has the best argument, he has found a solution that is very workable.
Click to expand...

Its just that you came out in favor of an emotional reaction to Phelps on the first page, so I thought you were poking fun at your earlier posts now that you had some ideas and postulates to go off of.
 
Threedee said:
Its just that you came out in favor of an emotional reaction to Phelps on the first page, so I thought you were poking fun at your earlier posts now that you had some ideas and postulates to go off of.
Click to expand...

Oh. I was not being serious. I'm not really advocating murder. Though, seriously if someone did it because they were grieved and he pulled this shit at the funeral, I would be rooting for jury nulification for sure. I do think it'd be a better planet without them on it, but, time will take care of that just as it takes care of everything.
 
Stringy and Sochead, all I know is you two seem to think you are vastly smarter than the SCOTUS, and already have this whole case figured out. In fact, they could have saved themselves the time hearing the case, and just asked you two what to do! You both think you know Constitutional Law, but are totally clueless, which puts you about on the level of Kegan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg. But I'll bet even they understand, this case is not Phelps vs. The State, where the State prohibited the protests. That would have to be the case, if all of this garbage about "content neutral..narrowly tailored" comes into play. In this case, the protests happened, and caused emotional damage to others, and possibly violated their Constitutional rights to privacy, that is what the case is about, that is what has to be decided by the SCOTUS. The lower court found their rights weren't violated by Phelps, and the SCOTUS will probably agree with them. But it has nothing to do with the parameters by which the State can prohibit protests.
 
RStringfield said:
From the perspective of dealing with this through civil liability it is analogous to Flynt. Snyder is arguing the speech is outrageous and that he is due damages for hurt feelings. I see no reason why such reasoning would not have allowed Falwell to prevail.

The difference though is that Flynt did not invade the privacy of Falwell. I see no reason why the state should not be able to restrict this through other avenues because of the privacy invasion.



Not if he invades your privacy. The court has okay'd the limits on picketing in front of private residences based on the idea that in your home you are a captive audience. That is, you have no other place to retreat and you should not be expected to retreat further. I don't think individuals should be expected to retreat from a funeral either. They should not have to deal with Phelps at all in that arena.

I mean, you don't actually expect people mourning to go out and have a counter-protest where they mock Phelps? That's kind of absurd.
Click to expand...
Naaa I'm to street wise for that. I'd call some local biker buddies of mine and have them show up. It would be their idea of a good time. :)
 
Lowaicue said:
Just for fun, what is like 40? Surely 40 is unique. I mean you cant say 39 is like 40 or 41.5 is like 40. Perhaps he is 25 but behaves as if he is 40 or is he 60 and looking remarkably young?

Sorry just having a dig at this Valley Talk stuff.
Click to expand...

As if! Like, totally.
 
Jarod said:
Clearly a free speech issue, the line must be drawn, but where?
Click to expand...

jarod gets this one right....

where is the line drawn is what makes this a great country

most countries draw the line as close to your mouth as possible, especially if its against the government
 
Jarod said:
Clearly a free speech issue, the line must be drawn, but where?
Click to expand...

If there is direct harm done by the speech, as in yelling "Fire" in a theater or inciting a riot.

Offending someone is not the same thing.




Phelps is a disgusting worm. But he got all the necessary permits and acted according to the laws for protests. I would love to see him beaten within an inch of his miserable, hate-filled life. But the constitution protects miserable, hate-filled worms too.
 
Darla said:
No, he not only has the best argument, he has found a solution that is very workable.
Click to expand...
But I thought that Mott had completely "proved" the idea that Libertarians are Anarchists who don't come up with ideas that are workable or even coherent.

(This is sarcasm. Just an FYI for the sarcastically deficient.)
 
WinterBorn said:
If there is direct harm done by the speech, as in yelling "Fire" in a theater or inciting a riot.
Click to expand...

The current standard for free speech in the United States is imminent lawless action:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action"]Imminent lawless action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Scale_of_justice_2.svg" class="image"><img alt="Stub icon" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/22px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0e/Scale_of_justice_2.svg/22px-Scale_of_justice_2.svg.png[/ame]

Speech can only be regulated if it's purpose is to incite action that is both lawless and imminent.

Being offensive is not inciting lawless action. And although what the Phelps does can promote a lawless action toward themselves, the state can't protectively restrict free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top