An example of when free speech should be regulated.

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Bud Lee, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. Bud Lee

    Bud Lee Call me buttercup

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    168
  2. OkieTigerTK

    OkieTigerTK Tornado Alley

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    18,000
    Likes Received:
    1,286
    this is one where i am really torn. on one hand, what the westboro cult does is completely despicable, disgusting, and i hope a truck runs over van loads of em. and i hope they burn in hell for what they do. i have made no secret in several threads what i think of phelps and his followers.

    that said, there is part of me that believes their vomit inducing behavior is covered by free speech. but the fine lines of what causes harm and is considered indecent to be considered, i go back and forth.

    one way to "regulate" this is to set up barriers of how close to funerals one may protest, require permits (fee based), etc. this is required for protesting in many places already. laws regulating protests would at least keep these idiots a distance from families. i am wondering about the legalities of making the permit fees for picketing a funeral a lot (and i mean a LOT) higher than normal picketing permit fees? can that be done on the basis of using the fees to cover the extra law enforcement needed to keep the peace when these morons protest?

    the best "regulation" i have seen yet is the patriot guard riders, who exercise their own free speech by placing themselves between westboro and grieving families.
     
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    they should be free to speak, no question. there is no argument against it. you are allowed to hurt people's feelings.

    and again, you here that are religious have not one bit of room to talk. you would do the same, if god told you to, if you are not lying about your faith.
     
  4. Bud Lee

    Bud Lee Call me buttercup

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    168
    A woman has the right to pop a titty out in an attempt to express herself. Almost every city has regulations that require establishments that allow women to pop their titties out in peace, to be a certain distance from schools, churches, and only operate during certain hours because the act may be offensive to others. Even though such regulations may slightly burdens their right to do so.


    So can a city constitutionally regulate the picketing…you bet.

    Now, the question the article brings up is it a suppression of their free speech to award the plaintiff’s damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I am going to be very interested in the Higher Courts outcome. In my opinion, they should be awarded the money. You have the right of free speech, but others have a right to recover damages for any harm that your act or words caused.
     
  5. Bud Lee

    Bud Lee Call me buttercup

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    168
    WOW...here is another article. Apparently they didn't stop at protesting at the funeral.



    Justices struggle with free speech, funeral protests - USATODAY.com
     
  6. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,034
    Likes Received:
    18,018
    I believe their right to free speech should be protected. However i also believe that a military family should have the right to mourn the loss of their children, husbands, wives, etc. without having to deal with these douchebags. It's not what they are saying that bothers me, because it's so ludicrous it's comical, but the Military should have a more active roll in the funerals, and march these ****ers far away from the actual funeral and gravesites.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Your personal rights end when they impinge on the personal rights of others. The Westboro Kooks are protesting the US government and are free to do so. But they are disrupting private family funerals in the process which impinges on the rights of others.

    They are exploiting private citizens for publicity they would not get if they protested at the Pentagon. The families should have the right to sue them for invasion of privacy.
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    but arent these people in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy? i dont think this is happening inside private churches or gravesites or whatever.
     
  9. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,034
    Likes Received:
    18,018
    If these pieces of sh!t died today, i think i might drink a beer.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Bud Lee

    Bud Lee Call me buttercup

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    168

    The issue is one of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    Intentional infliction of emotional distress is deliberately committing an act that one knew or should have known that the result of his act would cause the distress and that this distress manifested itself in a physical ailment. The act most be extreme enough to shock the conscience of a reasonable person.

    It matters not that they have the “right of free speech,” since they are targeting private individuals they should be held accountable if the elements for IIED can be meet.
     

Share This Page