If a lawsuit can win against the WBC for them being obnoxious, a lot of Dopers have something to worry about.
Might you enumerate, specifically, the “rights of others” that are being wantonly trampled underfoot?
Again, from whence does this “right not to be so exposed” come?
In Diosa Bellissima’s friend’s case, I’m down with charges of harassment, if warranted. And I truly feel for her friend and think it’s horrible that the Phelps’ believe what they do. Yet, the reactionary anti-protest is exactly the appropriate course of action. Furthermore, it might even have been a situation that did qualify as “incitement”. But probably not: assuming the Phelps coven obtained the proper permits and followed the rules, it would be the anti-protestors who would be endangering public safety.
And that is exactly why DtC railed against your post. If you truly are a proponent of the first amendment, your wish would be that no one held, nor expressed such foul ideology, not that they should be forcibly muzzled.
How so?
Obviously not, since you seem to want to repeal it.
I just wonder if there’s a level of abusive behavior shielded by it that perhaps bears exposing to the light and questioning and limiting when it tramples on the rights of others. The Phelps are a prime example of this. IMO, they’re abusing free speech and exercise of religion in order to cause severe emotional pain and exacerbate the grief of already devastated people – witness Diosa Bellissima’s friend’s experience. At what point does their right to do so conflict with the general public’s right not to be so exposed, and particularly the families of dead soldiers?
[/quote]
This is rhetorical gibberish. There is no such thing as “abuse” of free speech or religious practice. The only exceptions (which you seem to have a poor grasp of) are when expression infringes on the rights of other or endangers the public. Phelps calling people fags does not endanger anybody. You have no right to not be offended. You are not being “abused” by hearing an opinion you don’t like.
On the contrary, it’s a very CLEAR area. Congress shall make NO LAW.
It’s the only reading possible.
No, you just think they shouldn’t be allowed to say it in public.
You’re using the phrase “inflict pain” as if it actually means something with regards to free speech. It doesn’t. Being offended is not being harmed. You are not injured by hearing an opinion you disagree with.
No, they really don’t. Not for speech alone.
Might I suggest you move to a country like Saudi Arabia? I don’t think the US sounds like a good fit for you.
The dots are still not joining for me…
-I’m sure there are cases where fundamental rights other than freedom of speech are limited so as to prevent harm to innocent third parties
-I’m sure there are cases where emotional distress or other non-physical effects are considered to be ‘harm’
But there is no legitimate argument for limiting freedom of speech in cases where it is very likely to cause emotional distress? Why is it different?
It still doesn’t make sense to me. Is it a special case - distinct from all the other fundamental rights?
I don’t believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, is ever enough to claim civil damages. I know that damages can be awarded for emotional suffering if they occur as a result of something which is already a tort, but since speech is not tortiable (unless it’s libelous or defamatory), then the emotional damage is irrelevant.
If you don’t want to hear free speech, stay off of public property.
OK, this kinda makes sense to me (if indeed it is the case that emotional distress alone is never enough), but I’m not curious about why libellious and defamatory speech gets an exception - it’s just speech, isn’t it?
If this was intended as some kind of advice to me personally, it’s really less than necessary. I’m just trying to understand how things fit together, not complaining about it.
So to offer an example of your argument in a different context, are you saying that because the Constitution as originally written doesn’t say an income tax can be imposed, therefore you shouldn’t have to pay taxes? Why are you insisting on sticking your head in the sand with regard to the hundreds of years of legal precedent interpreting the Constitution – not just one amendment but the ENTIRE document – and insisting that it doesn’t apply because YOU don’t like it? Our system of jurisprudence isn’t just that one document, in case you didn’t learn that. The Constitution is only the broad principles; the system of legal precedent is what defines and outlines the scope of the application of those principles.
I’m not saying throw the First Amendment out, and frankly, I regard your suggesting I I do and that I should just move to Saudi Arabia as a personal insult. I was discussing a very narrow interpretation of one aspect of the First Amendment, and not saying do what I would like; I’m saying look at what *the courts *are saying. The courts are the ones who interpret the application of the First Amendment, and they may very well determine that the Phelps picketing a military funeral is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theater. My personal beliefs really ultimately don’t matter in this context, because apparently unlike you, I’m willing to accept that the courts have the final say in this discussion. That’s how the legal system in this country works.
And again, you’re taking what I say and exaggerating it all out of recognition. I did NOT say the Phelps couldn’t say what they say in public, anywhere, ever. That’s YOUR broad brush, not mine. Unlike you, however, I do believe the legal system of this country has a right to limit where and when they can speak. There are certainly many other forums where they can say anything they want, and more power to them in those forums. I personally would like to see them restricted from this one public forum. Not all. ONE. You can put your broad brush away where I’m concerned, thank you very much.
But all that being said, that still doesn’t stop me from thinking that people who go out of their way to be so hateful to total strangers at a private and supremely painful event shouldn’t be limited in any legal way possible. I am 100% behind the father in his lawsuit, and I hope he takes the Phelps to the cleaners.
I take it the “not” before “curious” isn’t supposed to be there, right?
Rather than libel and defamation as exceptions, my guess is that it makes more sense to think of the guiding principle as: one should not suffer a penalty for speaking the truth.
One might be considered tactless (or simply an asshole) for truth telling, but should not have the force of law brought down on one’s head.
I would think that once he dies, that whole family is just going to blow up.
This is an informational question and not a rhetorical one: If I stood in a public park and called every passerby a bitch or a motherfucker and every other bad word or phrase I wanted to, would that be protected by freedom of speech? So, if I put it on a sign, You’re a bitch! on one side and You’re a motherfucker! on the other and waved it at every passerby, would that be protected by freedom of speech?
The Phelps clan has signs that say Fag and depict (admittedly with stick figures) anal sex, isn’t that violating any laws about decency or infringing upon the rights of others?
oops. Correct - I don’t know how that slipped in.
I don’t really understand how this stops libel and defamation being exceptions - could you explain? Also, are you drawing a distinction between telling the truth and saying whatever you want to say.
Well, again, I’m just hazarding a guess that may (or may not) make sense to you. Flip side of the coin, as it were; I think that you might well insist that they’re exceptions and be correct, but I’m just taking another perspective. Applying the same method, I’d draw the distinction between saying whatever you want to say and telling blatant (and injurious) falsehoods.
Thinking about it a bit more, I’d say that these opposing viewpoints aren’t quite opposite equivalents. That is, from my POV, we assume that the default position is to protect any and all speech; said protection is only removed once the speech has been proven to be false. ISTM that the POV you’ve given tends to leave matters in the grey areas (specifically, opinions) easier to restrict. Hence, the difference between protesting in front of a store with a sign that reads “The owner is a thief” vs. “I think the owner is a thief”. The first is an objective matter of law (was the owner convicted of stealing?); the second is explicitly stated as an opinion, which others may or may not accept.
A bit of a historical note (according to my understanding): the notion of libel (specifically, seditious libel) was in play in pre-colonial England (c.f. prior restraint). A person was allowed to express opinions against the ruling class, but could be prosecuted and convicted after the fact for sedition, even if what they said was true. Obviously not a good position for colonists just prior to the revolution. The case of John Zenger solidified the notion that truth can indeed be used as a defense and has colored all resultant freedom of expression.
Thanks.
“The owner is a thief” is still just an opinion though, isn’t it? It doesn’t really matter whether it’s clearly labelled as such - likewise “God hates fags” or for that matter, “The end is nigh” are just opinions, even if they’re printed on a placard.
And who gets to decide whether a falsehood is injurious, and/or that the person promoting it realises that it is false? (and does that make a difference?)
No, it’s not. There is an objective standard by which to determine whether someone is a thief or not. No such standard exists for questions of god.
And I base this on a case I read about recently (I have no idea how I’d go about searching for a cite) in which a person made a similar claim on their website. They were convicted for libel; if the person had included a disclaimer about it being their opinion, s/he would have been in the clear.
And I think that this is where Polycarp’s point about actionable vs. illegal comes in. The facts of a case can be determined and then analyzed (whether by judge or jury). To me, absence of fact indicates that the lawsuit is frivolous, and opinions are not facts.
I believe Congress should draft no law limiting the freedom of speech or the press, etc. Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court believes, as I do, that speech meant only to intimidate, frighten, cause strife or otherwise provoke without making a salient point isn’t really protected by the First Amendment. Certainly, Larry Flynt learned that when Jerry Falwell sued him, and rightly so. As recently as 2003, the State of Virginia was upheld in making cross burnings illegal. Yes, the hatred contained within speech makes it different from non-hateful, even offensive satirical speech.
Words do count. No one knows that better than journalists. And no one wants to see the Phelpses successfully sued or prosecuted more than serious journalists. Whether we WANT ordinary citizens to seek to curtail our freedoms is irrelevant; time and time again, ordinary citizens have tried very hard to curtail constitutional freedomes because of the abuses wrought by lunatics. Better that the Phelpses suffer serious consequences within the legal system, and that the Constitution be left unchanged, than that attempts be made to rewrite the Constitution.
Cite?
The Supreme court ruled in favor of Larry Flynt, dude. Falwell LOST.
Just so you’re not totally ignored, I’ll venture a guess. Even though this seems like it might have a factual answer that I don’t have. And I note that these fringe cases are generally not comparable, in full, to what the Phelps do. Seeing as how it was an “informational” request, please take the following as neither fact nor argument.
Yes, it would be free speech, but only for a limited time. At some point, it would qualify as a public nuisance or harassment. As far as decency goes, just change the wording; make it You’re an idiot! instead. Or, require a permit. AFAIK, the Phelps have complied with all of these.
And each of those are more than just hatred. As I said, if it’s solely the hatred angle that’s getting you, you don’t actually believe speech should be free.
It’s very creative of you to re-define my words to give you the illusion I’m wrong about something. There are limits to free speech. The Phelps gang has overstepped those limits.