19
   

Westboro baptist church

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 06:40 am
@engineer,
I suppose an engineer might well "step away from the emotion". I don't think atheist scientists have any alternative.

If you are right it seems a sad situation. The Constitution looks like a Gordian knot waiting for an Alexander.

Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 06:59 am
@spendius,
Spendi wrote:
The Constitution looks like a Gordian knot waiting for an Alexander.


Yeah, give us one of those pagan kings that will execute the christians like Alexander III executed the Magians (Zoroastrians)...

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:02 am
@Francis,
Typical drivel by Spurious . . . the constitution has proven to be a flexible document which has provided an effective framework for governance for more than two centuries. Unlike the mare's nest they have in little England, it's written down so that it is accessible to all citizens, instead of being the province of gnome-like scholars of arcane parliamentary study.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:24 am
@Setanta,
And it's ended up breaking the worldwide historical taboo on irreverence to the dead. And to a dead warrior's family who have been unable to grieve properly.

"Accessible to all citizens" my arse. Even lawyers can't understand it but that's the general idea.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:56 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I think it is ridiculous for the right to try to tie this decision to hate crimes. There is no connection between free speech and hate crimes laws.

Free speech is not a crime. Beating up immigrants and homosexuals is a crime. There is no reason that we shouldn't make racially motivated violence a crime, unless you want to make the case that violence is a form of speech.

These are two separate issues.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 08:06 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I think it is ridiculous for the right to try to tie this decision to hate crimes. There is no connection between free speech and hate crimes laws........
.........These are two separate issues.

Are you sure?! If you were to follow that line of reasoning to its absurd conclusion you would be flatly contradicting all related USSC rulings, plus A1 itself:
Quote:
....a majority of justices determined that respondent [..] conviction could not stand because the jury in his case was instructed that the burning of a cross was sufficient evidence of intent to intimidate. The justices determined that the part of the law holding that the burning of a cross is prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate is unconstitutional on its face.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Virginia_v_Black
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 08:07 am
@maxdancona,
Racially motivated violence is a crime. It is no more a crime than violence without the racial motivation. I do not see how beating up someone just because you have a grudge against them is somehow less of a crime than beating up someone because you hate the color of their skin. The victim is just as beaten up. It is idiocy.

That said, I'm not sure how all that ties into a free speech issue, or if it does the tie in is tenuous at best.

EDIT: Of course, then I read HighSea's post, and I can start to see the connection.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 08:13 am
@CoastalRat,
Well Costal Rat.

If crime is crime regardless of the motivation, why is there a separate word for "terrorism". Do you believe there is a difference between terrorism and murder?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 08:30 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

That said, I'm not sure how all that ties into a free speech issue, or if it does the tie in is tenuous at best.

EDIT: Of course, then I read HighSea's post, and I can start to see the connection.

All hate crime statutes must eventually be struck down as contradicting 1A no matter what Max claims about terrorism being a form of free speech (if that's his argument). In the meantime the court's 9 justices (of various political affiliations) must rule on the narrower issues raised by cases that do reach them:
Quote:
Petitioner's Claim: That a St. Paul city ordinance banning all public displays of symbols that arouse anger on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender was invalid under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Justices for the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting: None
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12681/R-V-v-City-St-Paul.html
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 08:39 am
@maxdancona,
You're an educated person so it's surprising you can't see the difference between murder / terrorism, which are intentional killings, and homicide. If you're driving at night on the freeway, someone decides to cross, and you run him over and kill him, you're neither a murderer nor a terrorist; you knew that. Murder is targeting specific persons, terrorism is targeting unknowns - but whether any speech is present at the time or not can't be relevant in any way: both are crimes, and there are plenty of laws on the books to prosecute them. The USSC has held that in every single 1A decision, usually 9 to 1, as in R.A.V.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 09:01 am
@High Seas,
Edit, sorry, that was 9 to 0, as in RAV v. city of St Paul (link posted previously). The Westboro church decision of course was 8 to 1. Apologies for typo.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 09:12 am
So much for Setanta's "accessible to all citizens".

Who is in favour, in the name of the "free speech" rubbish, of giving legal sanction for a bunch of assholes, who do not represent the "right" at all, to barrack and spew garbage at a family laying to rest a loved son who has been killed on active service?

Put your names to it. engineer has done. I respect him for it. It is an attack on family and it is an attack on morale in the military. And on ordinary decency.

Going all round the houses to try to square a faith in the USSC with that sort of thing I don't respect.

Say your piece on the WBC mob or forever hold your gob shut. Justice Alito has done.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:16 pm
@InfraBlue,
Nonsense.

Do you really think that every publicly displayed noose is an attempt at intimidation and terror?






Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:19 pm
@CoastalRat,
You should have more faith in me Rat.

Finn and HighSeas...an A2K Tag Team
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:53 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
the constitution has proven to be a flexible document which has provided an effective framework for governance for more than two centuries.


Yeah, we hear this all the time about how the Constitution works. It worked so great during Watergate that all the crooks walked. Then, after we had to suffer all the wags telling us once more how "the Constitution works", we had an even bigger crook and war criminal than Nixon, Reagan run roughshod over the Big Doc.

Next came Bush, a felon and war criminal as a VP elected to be the ******* prez. Then, fer christ's sake, Bush jr, at least as big, maybe a bigger war criminal than either Reagan or his pa, not to mention a felon who broke numerous US laws.

Yup, that's one fine Big Doc you got there, Set.


Quote:
Unlike the mare's nest they have in little England, it's written down so that it is accessible to all citizens, instead of being the province of gnome-like scholars of arcane parliamentary study.


You sound like an excellent mark, ummm, person, to buy a bridge. I've got one, probably a little out of your price range but get a couple more of your equal intellect friends to pitch in and I think we can work out a fair price for you lot.

Maybe you and Ican and ... .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:54 pm
Was reading the Picayune articles on the WBC assholes. Roberts ,writing ofr the majority apaolagizes as to their limited scope and fcts they had at hand. (Could the decision have gone another way? of cpourse) ALito recognized that and the comments that were made "ex Cathedra" were such that
"Ok , strict Constitutionalists, why then is the WBC supposed to stand off 1000 feet for its demo? There were no requirements or local ordinnaces that superceded the 1s Amendment".
The majority posted the tired old chestnut about "more free speech" yet even that was controlled and was not challenged by WBC

As far as intimidation, incitement, and slander , the paper reported that incitement was not brought up only because there was no data presented by the attornies for the plaintiffs. Roberts intimated that the "facts in the case being limited" would naturally limit the scope of the decision (even though incitement could be presented).

Sort of saying that the plaintiffs were ill prepared for the USSC tage.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 07:57 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
The USSC has held that in every single 1A decision, usually 9 to 1,


Shocked Laughing

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 08:17 pm
@JTT,
PENALTY BOX, too many judges on the field
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 01:06 am
@High Seas,
High Seas,

First, hate crime legislation has been part of American law since 1964. The USSC has never seen any reason to touch these laws. The idea that the Supreme Court is going to magically come around to your way of viewing them is wishful thinking. Of course you can say whatever you want about what 50 years of precedent the USSC is going to overturn or not, this means nothing until they actually do so.

Second, the basic flaw in your reasoning is your inability to distinguish between speech and violence. Burning a cross (provided it is your cross) has been ruled as speech. It is not a crime. This is the reason the USSC has ruled it as protected. Beating someone to a bloody pulp and then leaving them for dead tied to a fence is not speech.


farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 05:46 am
@maxdancona,
AS Roberts intimated, there were no underlying facts that could allow the court to rule that the WBC actions were "Incitment". In thi case,
Incitment is knowingly using the 1st amendment to goad the respondent into performing violent actions. Actually had the Snyder family "tuned up" the WBC folks, they would have provided the facts that perhaps would have allowed the USSC to rule other than what it did.

HAve Louisville Slugger, will travel.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 09:12:11