rather than a case of freedom of speech, perhaps it is a case of freedom of religion - the father's right to have a religious service performed for his dead son
in any case, it will be interesting to see how the supremes decide this one
Supreme Court Takes Phelps Case
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
rather than a case of freedom of speech, perhaps it is a case of freedom of religion - the father's right to have a religious service performed for his dead son
in any case, it will be interesting to see how the supremes decide this one
what about freedom of speech Vs. freedom of religion - the church's free speech Vs. the father's right of religious freedom to have a funeral for his son
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
He had his religious service. The freedom of religion argument works for phelps too. He's practicing his right to public religious speech.
the father's religious service includes peace to have it
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Oh really? I don't think so. A right to silence others is not part of religious freedom.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The case has already been established on 'right to privacy' issues. I seriously doubt 'freedom of religion' could be a basis for the case, because the father was not denied religious expression. He was denied reasonable privacy, in my opinion, but I am not Alana Kagen, so who knows how this nutty court will find. My gut instinct tells me, they find in favor of Phelps right to free speech, and uphold the lower court ruling, as unfortunate as it is. This is yet another case of someone having the RIGHT to do something that just isn't RIGHT.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Stfu you nazi, there is no right to privacy in public.
it would be interesting to conduct a very noisy demonstration outside a church and see how far you get
especially if the demonstration is noisy enough to intrude on the services
since there is a conflict of rights here, i guess that scotus will have to decide who wins
however, a silent protest with signs should not be barred
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
What do you idiots want the new standard to be, anyone who feels harrassed can sue, even from x yards away? So if people protest a leader, or a banker, that person can sue, even they're x yards away, and in public?
WTf is wrong with you people.
I guess you new world order fuckers have really lost your minds. It's really tragic.
WTf is wrong with you people.
I guess you new world order fuckers have really lost your minds. It's really tragic.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
There is no conflict of rights here. This case is bogus and you all know it.
i assume that this happened during the day and the protests were within noise limits then i suspect that scotus will rule in favor of the protestors
what i am curious about is how they found out what route the funeral procession would take and what time
if the protest was on public property then i do not think that they will be ruled against, however, if on cemetery property then trespassing charges apply
oh well, we shall see
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Uhm, yes, there is always a right to individual privacy, even when you are in public. I can't use an electronic device to listen to your phone calls because you are walking on a public street. The fact you are in public, does not mean you don't have a right to privacy. Sorry you are misinformed. Besides, a cemetery is not public property anyway, it is private property. The plot where the burial is taking place, is actually owned by the individual who purchased it.
The father has a legitimate 'right to privacy' case, but whether his right to privacy outweighs Phelps right to free speech, is what the court will have to decide, and it will be interesting to see how they rule. As I said, I suspect they will rule in Phelps favor, as unpleasant as it seems, because he was not AT the site of the funeral, rather on private property in another location nearby.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Im sorry dixie, but you're just making shit up. There is no right to privacy in public. That's moronic.
If they don't rule in phelps favor, it will be a grave injustice which harms our nation.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No it's not, individual 'right to privacy' has nothing to do with whether you are on public or private property. Your constitutional rights are not dependent on where you are! Idiot!
It wouldn't be a "grave injustice" at all, it would be somewhat interesting they overturned a lower court ruling, and it may set precedent for other cases in the future, but "grave?" nope... injustice? not at all. You're being a fuckwit.... just stop it! (yeah I know, that's what she said!)
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yes they do depend on where you are. You can sit in your living room naked and probe your prostate with a banana; you cannot do that in a public place. Stop being stupid.
Wrong. It would be a grave injustice.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The amendments only restrict what the government can do. This is like saying that criticizing someone is a violation of their first amendment rights.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
This is a violation of a law, not your constitutional rights.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
The government is also charged with defending your right against other private parties as well.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LMAO... indeed you certainly have a right to privacy inside your own home, on your own property... but there are still things you can't do... you can't cook meth in your home, it doesn't matter that it's your home and you own the property. If what you were saying were true, no one who lives in any public housing would have any right to privacy! It's public property!
LOL.... Yeah, now I get it... Certainly it WOULD be a "GRAVE" injustice! *shaboom*
