| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
|
| Skylace wrote: | | I don't like what they say, but I do defend their right to say it. However, I do see a problem as to where they are saying it because it's harassing these people. And last I checked harassment is illegal. |
Isn't all protests "harassment" of someone ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | | i was thinking maybe they could do something like say you can have your protest, but it has to be within this area - a certain distance from the church, but then you can see that being misused - like, you can have you anti war protest - but right down the street where the politicians can't see or hear you. that kinda thing is already happening here ( remember the one manchester protest where they weren't allowed anywhere near the labour party conference ) |
Also happened in the USA when protesters were herded into "free speech zones" under a fly-over.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
Interesting to see the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) position on the court case which started this thread. My instinct is they would NOT support the jury's decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Mandy wrote: | | faceless wrote: | | Mandy, do you think these people should be allowed to do as they please then? What if it was your brother who had been killed and they were there, revelling in your grief (the reason for his death being utterly irrelevant)? |
I of-course do not support their views .. the sore point is that I have seen, and fear more so in future, these same tactics being used against people who have "minority" views. The legal precedent in this case can now be used to claim damages against the LGBT, Liberals, anti-war crowd .. literally ANYONE who dares to raise his or hear voice against the crowd at the time.
We must defend the minority's right to free speech, however obnoxious, in order to be strong when the people in the firing line is us. There are red lines (e.g. shouting fire in a theatre), but fining protesters at a funeral $10m isn't too far legally from fining (or tasering) protesters at an event Bush or Kerry is speaking at.
|
But I asked if you would be bothered if they were at a funeral of a family member of yours. The philosophical idea of free-speech means nothing compared to a person's grief being mocked and used for political gain, and that is why, I believe, the jury made this award. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob
Joined: 01 May 2006
Location: US
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| It's not really a restriction on the freedom of speech, but of the appropriate platform to do it...they're perfectly allowed to spew this hate in a demonstration, but not at a private funeral. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Mandy wrote: | | Skylace wrote: | | I don't like what they say, but I do defend their right to say it. However, I do see a problem as to where they are saying it because it's harassing these people. And last I checked harassment is illegal. |
Isn't all protests "harassment" of someone ? |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Bob wrote: | | It's not really a restriction on the freedom of speech, but of the appropriate platform to do it...they're perfectly allowed to spew this hate in a demonstration, but not at a private funeral. |
Exactly. They are not telling them they have to break up or take down their website. They're saying you can't do this here. Just like it is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a public place if there is no fire. Which is something they tried to defend with freedom of speech as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Skylace wrote: | | Exactly. They are not telling them they have to break up or take down their website. They're saying you can't do this here. Just like it is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a public place if there is no fire. Which is something they tried to defend with freedom of speech as well. |
i don't think the fire thing was actually a case, but was given as an example of limitations of freedom of speech in a case to do with distributing fliers opposing the draft during world war one;
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
so if you go by this supreme court ruling, i guess you have to decide if what these protesters did created a clear and present danger - and i don't think it does |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
This is a v. slippery zone. The above (I mean above Luke's simultaneous reply) are the same argument both Democrats & Republicans use to herd demonstrators FAR FAR AWAY :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
RIP the US Constitution.
| luke wrote: | | so if you go by this supreme court ruling, i guess you have to decide if what these protesters did created a clear and present danger - and i don't think it does |
I agree. Indeed, the only danger is to the protesters themselves being attacked by the crowd, which is would make the crowd acting illegally.
The police should have been defending the right to free speech. Reminds me of an article last week or so when the police forced a home owner to REMOVE a political sign (I think it was anti-Bush) from that person's OWN PROPERTY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
theres a later supreme court ruling on freedom of speech which ruled;
that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | theres a later supreme court ruling on freedom of speech which ruled;
that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day |
I assume the possibility of the person speaking being attacked physically for what they were saying doesn't fall in this (since the speaker's speech is directed at him being harmed personally). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i'm not sure, i reckon if you put that in front on a jury it could be argued that the protesters were deliberately antagonizing the people at the funeral ... and on such an emotional day that those grieving might snap and fighting could break out ... but then that goes back to me saying you can just ignore them, people saying crap isn't an excuse for violence - turn the church music up 
like i said originally, i don't think they should have done it, i'm just worried about limitations on freedom of speech and where that leads - it'll be interesting to see what happens ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Mandy, I'll ask again - how would you feel if it was a member of your family whose funeral was being desecrated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | Mandy, I'll ask again - how would you feel if it was a member of your family whose funeral was being desecrated. |
I would be upset, but I would also be upset at many forms of protest against things I support or agree with.
I wouldn't regard verbal protesters as desecration. The news is so full of real hurt and real injury, that injury to feeling is a sick joke to me when there is so much real physical suffering out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Grief can be physical suffering - it can kill people - and Phelps and his gang took advantage of that, bullying people when they're at their weakest - which is partly why they're so reviled. The point of protesting is that you affect change, not upset grieving families.
Take Rose Gentle for example, I don't really have that much care for her son as he made his choice, but I care about her as a person on the basis that she's a human being who has lost someone close. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | Grief can be physical suffering - it can kill people - and Phelps and his gang took advantage of that, bullying people when they're at their weakest - which is partly why they're so reviled. The point of protesting is that you affect change, not upset grieving families.
Take Rose Gentle for example, I don't really have that much care for her son as he made his choice, but I care about her as a person on the basis that she's a human being who has lost someone close. |
That's the thing. Funerals are for the living, not the dead. And the family members deserve that respect.
However, what these people are doing is harassment. Not protesting. Harassment and protesting are not the same thing. Harassment is illegal. Harassment is behaving in a fashion that is perceived as being threatening and disturbing and goes further than displays that are considered normal in society. Protesters do not always harass people. Protesting doesn't even have to be done in public and can be done without causing any disturbance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
