+1. Freedom of speech has its limits. Once such freedom of speech turns to obvious messages that promote hatred and disunity, it should be stopped. In this situation, I agree 100% with the UK's decision.
Funeral Protests Ruled OK By Supreme Court
- Thread starter IndigoSensor
- Start date
+1. Freedom of speech has its limits. Once such freedom of speech turns to obvious messages that promote hatred and disunity, it should be stopped. In this situation, I agree 100% with the UK's decision.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I am not going to debate the matter as I already have my opinion on this. However I will state it just this once: It's been shown that this is constitutional and I agree with the ruling as I said in the OP. They are indeed harassing people that is clear as day. However, they are doing it in an organized and civil manner within the parameters of what is legal for protests. If that is the case, then it is within the bounds, and as such I feel it should be permitted. It is within the walls of what is considered legal under the law. You will be opening a can of worms that ought not to be opened if this were ruled unconstitutional.
Its not been shown to be constitutional that's up for debate. Its been ruled that it is. Those are very two different statements.
Also lawful doesn't mean right. I would argue strongly, that its unwise to lean too heavily on the law in the area ethics and morals.
Isn't this considered bullying and hate speech though? I don't see how this is that much different from burning a cross in your front lawn.
I think this is key. Constitutional does not mean unchangeable. We should always be looking to improve the country's system. Just because it was drafted to be right centuries ago does not make it appropriate for current times. This is a case of activism vs strict interpretation, but I would tend to agree with activism. I don't see anything wrong in putting it for debate like BB said.
I can see your logic, but it hardly makes what they done right or appropriate given the circumstances...free speech, and FREE is the word I'm looking at here, because I'm sure the cost to the family wasn't such.
Gay rights or not, it is extremely disturbing and hurtful to the families of the dead soldiers having extreme fundamentalists shove religious unjustified hatred down their faces. Does it really always have to take hate for the country to see the light?
+1
And how has religious fundamentalism done anything for gay rights??
The most recent win was gaining rights and then having them taken away..
I think it's simply the fact that morally I am outraged that people can be so unfeeling, inconsiderate and downright nasty to grieving families.
Freedom of speech, in my opinion, can only go so far before it becomes harrassment.
Just as I would be outraged if the local branch of the KKK staged a street protest, I am outraged that there are people in the world who think it's completely fine to protest at a funeral.
As an Australian though, the idea of this constitution that's hundreds of years old just baffles me. it also baffles me that this document is interpreted so rigidly and changing it to suit the current time is met with such agrivation from the general public.
times change and laws should change with them, in my opinion.
Freedom of speech, in my opinion, can only go so far before it becomes harrassment.
Just as I would be outraged if the local branch of the KKK staged a street protest, I am outraged that there are people in the world who think it's completely fine to protest at a funeral.
As an Australian though, the idea of this constitution that's hundreds of years old just baffles me. it also baffles me that this document is interpreted so rigidly and changing it to suit the current time is met with such agrivation from the general public.
times change and laws should change with them, in my opinion.
Excellent question! The Westboro Baptist Church protests military funerals because it claims every soldier's death is the result of God's vengeance on the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.
While indeed hurtful, it was not shoved down their faces. From the funeral, the family could barely see the tops of the signs of the protesters and they were far enough away that they were not audible.
I agree that we shouldn't be afraid to change things... or add onto them depending upon consensus of the time.
I know this video was highly criticized, but somehow the fundamentalist efforts have worked in taken away Gay Rights.
Videos like this:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI"]YouTube - National Organization for Marriage Gathering Storm TV Ad[/ame]
Though they may seem ignorant in nature, will still attract a large fundamentalist population. That's why when voting comes, the fundamentalists come out in masses while gay rights "supporters" tend to simply lurk or voice their opinion through polls while not really coming out in the masses the fundamentalists have. In that I have to hand it to them, their method of voting is a lot more organized.
The law has no real reason to deal with moral disputes.
I agree with the ruling, even if I don't agree with what the WBC does. To rule otherwise would be to impose moral obligations on people, and I don't think that people are or should be morally obligated to do anything.
The WBC is protesting within the confines of the 1st amendment, sadly.
I agree with the ruling, even if I don't agree with what the WBC does. To rule otherwise would be to impose moral obligations on people, and I don't think that people are or should be morally obligated to do anything.
The WBC is protesting within the confines of the 1st amendment, sadly.
^^They're not thinking about the actual people it affects..
And that's the point: They're targeting individuals.. not any actual government policy or institution.
It's harassing hate speech in the name of religion.
And that's the point: They're targeting individuals.. not any actual government policy or institution.
It's harassing hate speech in the name of religion.
I just don't understand how anyone can be in favour of something that does harm to another group of people. Not to mention that these are primarily people who have faught and died for their country, no matter what your beliefs, you should respect that.
but as an outsider I just don't understand how people can just use this so-called constitution to back up everything. It's basically like saying, this document protects what our ancestors always did so we can always do it forever and ever until the end of time, even if it does mean we have a massive crime rate etc.
It's almost as stupid as the majority of Swiss males owning a gun, because it's cultural damn it! and they wonder why their murder/suicide rate is so high for such a little country?
but as an outsider I just don't understand how people can just use this so-called constitution to back up everything. It's basically like saying, this document protects what our ancestors always did so we can always do it forever and ever until the end of time, even if it does mean we have a massive crime rate etc.
It's almost as stupid as the majority of Swiss males owning a gun, because it's cultural damn it! and they wonder why their murder/suicide rate is so high for such a little country?