Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Shirley Phelps-Roper
Topic Started: Sep 25 2007, 02:10 PM (1,523 Views)
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
So the government has a right to make laws to protect itself, but it cannot make laws to protect others? Simpleton.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

It depends what it's protecting them from. There are laws to protect from people crashing into a funeral parlor, being a private establishment and all. There can't be laws forbidding political speech a thousand feet away from a funeral because it might hurt some people's feelings. Nor can the expression of these political beliefs net the family millions of dollars because they claim it hurt their feelings.

A funeral is a private affair, and should be respected. There are laws already protecting this. One thousand feet away from a funeral isn't a private affair, and families can not expect to be "protected" from the political speech people make so far away.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
I'm not sure of when free speech collides with existing laws. How does it work in the USA when, for example, comparing placards of "God hates Fags" and "Soldiers go to hell" with, say, a Swastika - which could also be seen as representing a political stance?

I think there are specific racial laws, obviously, so I'd imagine "Niggers go home" would be illegal. Likewise, "Gays fuck boys" would be offensive, amusingly, because of one word rather than the actual meaning expressed.

I'm fairly sure the Roper's pick their wording carefully and stay within the perimeter of the law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Apparently, they didn't break a law. That was a civil suit.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
A clip from the tidbit article that was left out:

Quote:
 
The church's founder and pastor, Fred Phelps, took the stand after Snyder and prompted a strong admonition from Bennett when the pastor said he had not considered whether children would see a sign carried by protesters with the words "Semper Fi Fags" and two stick figures that appear to be engaged in sodomy.




Is this bordering more on hate crime? I would say so. While freedom of speech and political belief is great, it isn't granted to the above. Which would probably include posters calling people fags.

Being held and seen by children.

This church doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Well once you start calling it a hate crime that's where I stop. The language used etc isn't what I think should be punished. But it doesn't appear any ordinance was violated and this is a civil suit using privacy torts, such as invasion of privacy, or false light. Violations of an ordinance can be used as per se evidence of a tort commission. However, there doesn't need to be a law broken to have a tort remedy. The father appears to have gotten emotional distress damages, but I haven't seen the court transcript and I don't really trust the media to fully explain the legal justification of a verdict. Emotional distress claims will rarely even make it to the jury unless there are physical manifestations of that distress. Such as vomitting, hair loss, perpetual insomnia, PTSD, etc. So when you hear emotional distress, just don't think he was depressed and sniffling once in a while. But anyway, more coffee for me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Lol, no - I was saying in argument of "free speech" seen earlier on this thread.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Free speech is free speech. There are obscenity laws in the states that they may run afoul of, but as far as I know "hate speech" isn't specifically a crime.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
But harassment is - and harassment consisting of slurs against one specific group of people constitutes a hate act.

Which is not covered under "free speech".

When these people made their signs, they gave up their rights to protection.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

But their use of "fag" and similar was not the issue, the fact that they protested at a soldier's funeral was. Snyder wasn't even gay, so even assuming that speech can constitute an "act of harassment" or a "hate act", it wasn't what was being contended by the father rather the "emotional distress" of learning of their protest after the fact.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Again, I was debating this:

Quote:
 
It's not only an absurd fine, it strikes at the heart of free speech. They're religious nutcases, of course, but they have every right to voice their opinions. Hopefully, it will be overturned.


They don't, actually, have a right to wave around signs with hateful slurs directed at a minority group.

That is where their right to free speech ended.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Actually, no, it didn't. If they don't like gays, they have every right to express that opinion.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
They don't, anymore than white students have a "right" to hang nooses from trees in a schoolyard.

Please prove they do.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

There's nothing to "prove", it's called free speech, and people have it. Whether governments recognize it or not is another matter, of course.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Oh, so this is a libertarian theory...and not a real one.

Got it. ;)
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

It's hardly a "libertarian theory" that people have freedom of speech. Most Western governments recognize it to some degree, and nominally adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as per Article 19:

Quote:
 
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Even Canada acknoweldges it as a right in the Charter, section 2( b ):

Quote:
 
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a. freedom of conscience and religion;
b. freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c. freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d. freedom of association.


Quite the hotbeds of libertarian theory.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Fundamental rights you give up under certain terms:

Quote:
 
In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.'


The right to swing your fist ends at another person's nose.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Except speech does not involve swinging anything. "Hurt feelings" exceptions to free speech are pernicious, but all the rage in the ever increasingly PC world. This case is a good example of that.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Any identifiable group lol. Allow me to submit to Canada's jackboot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ErgonomicLogic
Member Avatar
Ninja Valid
Laws like that are reasons why I am an evil hatemongering republican. I know several people who are template liberal democrats that would say, "We really need to start punishing only words that aren't immediately inciting chaos or violence." Maybe we should make a law like that, then if I ever happen to become a prosecutor, I will start telling the local police to arrest members of Mosques for their hate speech. And then I'll go further and arrest any Canadian that comes here and says they hate Americans. In fact, no really, I take it all back. Let's pass this law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply