Suing free speech

Watermark said:
I personally just would've called the police and teargassed them at the funeral for getting on private property. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

I think they've got that covered and they just hold their "rallies" on the street. There must be a bylaw or something that requires a permit for those demonstrations, though. Or perhaps there have to be a certain number of people involved for that requirement to take effect? I know that they get away with it but would strongly like to see something in place to prevent their disrupting such a sad, dignified and solemn occasion.
 
Most states have passed laws that prevent funeral protests by now in response to these goons, who go around and protest dead soldiers funerals. They say that since God hates gays, and America loves gays, God hates gays as well as America. And therefore, God loves dead troops.

These guys are just really odd. They're uber-conservatives, but it's like they're addicted to hatred. They hate everything.
 
Damocles said:
There is a time and place circumstance for free speech limitation. This just may be one of them.
Click to expand...

No need. The grounds for the suit don't touch on free speech, they're really focussing on the outcomes of the decisions to speak and if the suit succeeds - which I fervently hope it does - then reparation will be made.
 
If the government produces repurcussions for speaking how can anything be called free speech?

Hell, under your definition, the Chinese have free speech, since they can speak freely. They may have repurcussions such as forced labor or execution, but that's just free speech.
 
Watermark said:
If the government produces repurcussions for speaking how can anything be called free speech?

Hell, under your definition, the Chinese have free speech, since they can speak freely. They may have repurcussions such as forced labor or execution, but that's just free speech.
Click to expand...
In all cases there are time and place limitations.. The example most commonly used is the 'yelling fire in a theater' example. There are others such as threats to life or fraud and slander.

It is simply the ability to cause harm to others with your speech, you are still responsible for the real and actual result of what your speech brings.
 
Damocles said:
In all cases there are time and place limitations.. The example most commonly used is the 'yelling fire in a theater' example. There are others such as threats to life or fraud and slander.

It is simply the ability to cause harm to others with your speech, you are still responsible for the real and actual result of what your speech brings.
Click to expand...

The government shouldn't bring about these results.

"Yelling fire in a theater" is deception, and that is why it is wrong. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a fucking moron who equated disagreeing with the draft with "Yelling fire in a theater", but it doesn't stop people from quoting his fallacious argument constantly. There were men who wasted away their lives in jail because of those unconstitional acts in WWI, and for the first time, the supreme court directly acknowledged that the acts were unconstitutional, and it was allowing them to be merely because it considered them convenient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top