-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Freedom of speech gone too far..
- Thread starter JMonte85
- Start date
let me start by saying i think the a-holes at WBC are treacherous human beings who are taking advantage of the liberties protected for them by the very people they are defaming.... Now, poor a glass of wine and find a comfortable chair:
click here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=09-751
and then click here to follow along: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-751.pdf
Could the Snyder family have found a more inept or poorly prepared petitioner to speak for them at the Supreme Court? There are a lot of flaws in the arguments Mr Summers made that all but required this ruling.
and, yes, i really am that big of a nerd that i listen/read supreme court oral arguments on a regular basis
click here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=09-751
and then click here to follow along: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-751.pdf
Could the Snyder family have found a more inept or poorly prepared petitioner to speak for them at the Supreme Court? There are a lot of flaws in the arguments Mr Summers made that all but required this ruling.
and, yes, i really am that big of a nerd that i listen/read supreme court oral arguments on a regular basis
But it doesn't include ALL speech. The line is drawn at harassment, libel and intimidation. The Klan doesn't have the right to burn a cross on my lawn. But, as noted, these assclowns know exactly where the line is and are happy to stay exactly on it.
It continues to amaze me that they'll damn America, but in the next breath expect and demand their rights and protections.
It continues to amaze me that they'll damn America, but in the next breath expect and demand their rights and protections.
Recommend everyone take some time to listen/read the links I posted before we go any further espousing our own interpretations of the law. Probably worth understanding what 7 of the 8 Justices (including Roberts and Thomas...) think.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-751.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=09-751
Agree. That said it is simply a travesty that the "media" inculding Internet blogs/forums, refer to the Wesboro group as a Baptist Church. They have absolutely no affiliation with the Baptist Church, in fact Phelps himself was thrown out of the Baptist Seminary for being queer. Nor are they a church. They are a hate group and should be referred to as such.
They would prefer but why should they be accomodated.
I think that defending baptists is really a worthless endeavor. I think anyone with half a brain KNOWS that these people have NOTHING to do with any real sect of religion. Lord knows they have some pretty poor reading comprehension. I can't seem to find ANYWHERE where it says gay people deserve to die in the bible, and I've checked. Certainly doesn't say anything like that in there.
I believe this hits the nail on the head. I believe this is also the answer to how we fix this situation.
JUSTICE KAGAN: But that goes back to the question that was asked previously about -- suppose you had a general statute that just said there will be no disruptions of any kind at private funerals. You know, pick your distance, 500 feet, 1,000 feet, but something that didn't refer to content, that didn't refer to ideas, that just made it absolutely clear that people could not disrupt private funerals. What harm would that statute not address in your case?
JUSTICE KAGAN: But that goes back to the question that was asked previously about -- suppose you had a general statute that just said there will be no disruptions of any kind at private funerals. You know, pick your distance, 500 feet, 1,000 feet, but something that didn't refer to content, that didn't refer to ideas, that just made it absolutely clear that people could not disrupt private funerals. What harm would that statute not address in your case?
Somehow, I don't think this came across like you wanted it to ...
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Good points, and I believe this was the Supreme Court cautiously addressing the MD statute (where this case originated) that was instituted after the fact. In writing these parts of the decision - they are tacitly approving with the MD statute without the issue being brought before their court...
I concur. Excellent point. Now we will see what the lawmakers have to say about it.
Otto, I'm not a Baptist, but you'd better check yourself, before throwing the biggest Protestant denomination in America under a bus. Were you referring to the WBC in particular, or Baptists in general? There's a big difference, and I'm giving you an out here.
That's a little better, because I read it as if he was saying that all Baptists are saying that gays should die and therefore don't need to be defended. I like that explanation a little better, and hope that's what he meant.
