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. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    If this doesn't tell you everything you need to know about how wacked these people are, I'm not sure what more you have to see.....

     
  2. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    Though this court has plenty to answer for . . . in this specific instance, yes, they absolutely did.
     
  3. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    "Canada is a filthy country run by fags" Awesome

     
  4. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire


    Ultimately the best solution to the situation comes on the beautiful day somebody eventually buries a Louisville Slugger in their skulls.
     
  5. dkphxf

    dkphxf Member

    A lot of you agree that the Supreme Court did the right thing here, but shouldn't there be some expectation of privacy at a funeral? I believe the SC ruled that picketing outside the homes of people (for example, anti-abortionists picketing outside the home of a doctor who performs abortions) is illegal. Shouldn't there be some expectation of privacy where we go?
     
  6. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    The laws are expected to balance the expectation of privacy and the right to protest. You can't blanket ban the protests, but you can force them a certain number of feet away from the funeral. The burden is on the government to show that they are doing the minimum necessary intrusion on the right to protest in order to protect the expectation of privacy.
     
  7. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Isn't this one large inbred family? Won't the laws of genetics start to turn the tables and these people will come out retarded and deformed?

    Oh wait, that's already begun to happen, never mind.
     
  8. HC

    HC Well-Known Member

    I've never been happier to live in a country where free speech is tempered by hate laws.
     
  9. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    You can have it. Canada's lack of respect for free speech is the biggest blight on it's otherwise general aura of awesomeness.
     
  10. HC

    HC Well-Known Member

    Americans hold unlimited free speech in an awe I don't comprehend. Decency demands limits.
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    At one time in our country, "decency" demanded that people of opposite races couldn't marry one another.

    We have since come to the conclusion that we would prefer the government stay out of the business of deciding what is "decent" and what is not. Over history, they have not proven themselves particularly adept at it, to say the least.
     
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    HC, all that being said, obviously you aren't singular in your thinking. For example, Europe values personal privacy above free speech.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page