1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro protesters

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Score one for free speech:


    Like I said on the thread on Anything Goes that mentions the ruling, Alito has now been the lone dissenter in two free speech cases in the last two years (animal cruelty case last year), though he sure was on board with Citizens United.

    Hopefully this bodes well for the California video game law being struck down when that judgment comes down.

    This Court seems quite speech-friendly.
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    As horrible as those people are, how that case lands up at the Supreme Court 220 years after the first amendment went into effect, is mind boggling.
  3. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    I don't see the inconsistency on Alito's part.
  4. Boomer7

    Boomer7 Active Member

    Excellent point.
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I am not sure there is any inconsistency. I don't know Alito's record.

    But it's scary that anyone who rises to the Supreme Court can really sit there and say, "The First Amendment gives a right to free speech; except speech that the government deems offensive."
  6. terrier

    terrier Well-Known Member

    This is one of those cases where the only way to fight free (albeit extremely distasteful) speech is with more free speech.
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I think it's more nuanced than that. He thinks that Westboro is basically immunizing defamatory speech by cloaking it in speech on public issues, and he doesn't think they should be able to do that.
  8. apeman33

    apeman33 Well-Known Member

    This. It's either that or ignore them. The two things that would piss the WBC off more than anything else would be 1) Not listening to them or 2) Having a message thrown back at them via the same methods they've been using against everyone else.

    When people show up at the Phelps' funerals protesting, you can bet the Phelps will bitch about it, even though it's their lawsuits that allow it.
  9. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Ball bats would be good too.
  10. Shoeless Joe

    Shoeless Joe Active Member

    I am certainly against providing police protection for these inbreds. If you're willing to spout your filth, have the balls to do it where you can get your ass kicked.
  11. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    They'll eventually miscalculate, and one or more of them will get hauled off on a stretcher, or preferably in a rubber bag.

    And I predict the jury will be amazingly lenient in terms of criminal sentence or civil damages.
  12. PeterGibbons

    PeterGibbons Member

    I wonder if an English person reading the "God Hates Fags" signs thinks this is all blown out of proportion for the church-led stop smoking campaign?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page