Read this first then come back for my commentary, don't worry, I'll wait.
Man, I'm really torn about this. As a staunch supporter of free speech I am appalled by this verdict. Free speech is meaningless if it doesn't include unpopular speech. I am also against the deliberate harming of others. Non-aggression and all that. It could very easily be argued that what Phelps and Co. are doing is just as harmful as a beating. That however is a dangerous road to travel. It lead to laws that ban all offensive speech. And who gets to decide what's offensive? The government? :shudder:
I'm no doubt affected by the amount of hate I have for what Phelps is doing, but that is exactly why I feel compelled to defend it. It's very hard to stand on principle. To defend a persons right to do something that you loathe so much that it makes you physically ill is a very hard thing to do, but that is the position I find myself in.
I'll be interested to see where this case goes as it will doubtless be appealled and, as a 1st amendment case, could go far in the judicial system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I know I'm treading turbulent waters here, but didn't the state of Maryland award the case? If so, then the state can do whatever it wants as long as it goes with their constitution. The first ammendment says that congress shall make no law so it would seem that that was broken by them passing a law that prohibits protesting on federal cemetaries. But with all that aside, and as wrong as I probably am about the inner workings of the constitution I don't think I'm wrong when I say that stopping people from protesting during one of the western culture's most solemn occasion and being punished for it if it happens does not go against the founder's original intent. In no way do I think they ever could have forseen such horrible abuses of the tongue. Anyway, those are my two cents. Aside from all that, I sure am looking forward to our trip the cities, gonna be a good time.
"Didn't the state of Maryland award the case? If so, then the state can do whatever it wants as long as it goes with their constitution"
Yes, but the appeals process could take the case into federal court. Also, we can count on somebody like the ACLU stepping in to represent Phelps & Co.
"The first ammendment says that congress shall make no law so it would seem that that was broken by them passing a law that prohibits protesting on federal cemetaries."
Yes and no, technically congress is just dictating where they can and can't protest, a common occurence. You can't protest in the Senate chambers either, people try, they get arrested, and while they aren't happy about it, none of them seriously claim that their first amendment rights are being violated because they know that the Senate Floor is not an appropriate place for civilian protest to begin with. Similar arguments could be made for Fed Cemetaries.
...stopping people from protesting during one of the western culture's most solemn occasion and being punished for it if it happens does not go against the founder's original intent.
Keeping in mind the argument I just made justifying a ban on protesting at funerals, I could argue the other way with a argument that says that a persons right political free speech is not rendered moot by the persons proximity to a funeral. All in all a very sticky subject. I'm a big fan of the group of motorcycle riders that have made themselves available to any family of a service member who requests their presence. They make a wall between the protesters and the funeral and drown them out with their bikes. Finally, a use for loud pipes!!!
Post a Comment