A Small Victory

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

A Small Victory

Postby Tractor » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:27 pm UTC

Linky

A small victory against the assholes protesting at soldiers funerals.

Related: Even more pleasing for me to learn from my link exploration after reading this was the existence of the Patriot Guard.
9 x 6 = 42

Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Gunfingers » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:43 pm UTC

And also against free speech?

Arguable. We all know limitations are placed on free speech when it inhibits the liberties of others. Protesting a funeral at the funeral seems like something that would qualify. But then, i remember reading about several state legislatures trying to pass laws banning protests within x distance from a funeral, all of which were struck down. Am i wrong?

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:50 pm UTC

While no doubt those protesters are wrong and deserve quite the beating, the solution (IMO) is a violation of free speech.
They have a right to say those things. No matter how ignorant.
SecondTalon wrote:
So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Gunfingers » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:54 pm UTC

Well the question isn't whether they have a right to say it, but whether they have a right to say it at the funeral.

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:56 pm UTC

Freedom of assembly? Based on my limited knowledge of the constitution, doesn't that one say we can assemble where we want to?
SecondTalon wrote:

So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby ZeroSum » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:05 pm UTC

Reuters, Kansas church liable in Marine funeral protest wrote:The federal jury determined the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, and three of its principals invaded the privacy of the dead man's family and inflicted emotional distress.
Harassment and invasion of privacy are illegal and are not protected speech.

Also, some invasion of privacy information.

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:19 pm UTC

Harassment agreed.
From what I gathered from that link, an invasion of privacy happens in a pivate residence of some sort or personal storage thing. Is a cemetary considered a private place? Certainly solemn, but I always thought of them as somewhat public spaces.
SecondTalon wrote:

So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby ZeroSum » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:22 pm UTC

I think the in-the-home part is only an example, the more important part being: "It consists solely of an intentional interference with his interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his person or as to his private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable man."

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:24 pm UTC

I concede the point.
Though I still feel they have the right to say it.
SecondTalon wrote:

So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Belial » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:29 pm UTC

Sure, they can say it. And should be able to.

Somewhere else.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby oxoiron » Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:01 pm UTC

I'm curious as to whether this will be overturned. Since this was a jury trial, the plaintiff was almost sure to win, because everybody thinks these people are assholes. However, during the appeals process, the case will be reviewed by judges who are not (supposed to be) swayed by emotion and will interpret the law as they read it. Because of this, the ruling could go the other way.

On the other hand, if I were attending a funeral of a family member and beat the living shit out of one of these people, I would be entitled to a trial by jury if the prosecutor even bothered to bring assault charges. In a worst case scenario I would end up with a hung jury and the prosecutor would have to decide if it was worth retrying. In most instances, I think I would be acquitted and that would be the end of the criminal proceedings.

I could be sued in civil court, but again, this would be decided by a jury, almost assuredly resulting in a loss for the plaintiffs. They could appeal, and eventually a group of judges might find me culpable. However, in this case the only thing it would cost me is money and I bet people all over the country would be happy to chip in to pay for it. Even if they weren't, it would probably still be worth it.

The upshot is that the satisfaction obtained from crippling one of those fuckers might cost you most of your material possessions, but you would never spend a day in prison. Also, the rest of them might think twice about their program, because there are likely other people who would be willing to spend some money to maim another one. When a co-"protestor" is spending the rest of his life blind in one eye, in a wheelchair and eating through a straw, even the most devout church-goer will have second thoughts about bothering people at funerals.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby lorenith » Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:07 pm UTC

malarkie wrote:I concede the point.
Though I still feel they have the right to say it.


These people aren't being prosecuted because of the picketing directly. They're being prosecuted for "defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

People have the freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't damage other people/property, when that happens the person exercising this "right of speech" the person is in a way giving up their right to it, since they can't even respect the rights of others. (That's the way I see it anyway).

I'm not sure how the courts would handle this if it was appealed, but I don't think it should end up overturned. In the long run to me this affair is really weak in the fact that they're basically saying "It's my right to harass and hurt people under the first amendment." Which it is not.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:42 pm UTC

People are allowed to say what they want.. as long as they don't impinge on other's ability to avoid it.

As long as someone can change the channel, or turn off the radio, or move to another seat they can do it.

However going to your son's funeral isn't exactly a choice - thus this is harassment.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Pai » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:18 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:People are allowed to say what they want.. as long as they don't impinge on other's ability to avoid it.


Basically.

Right to freedom of speech =/ Right to be listened to.

You have people screaming hateful things at bereaved families. I think that's pretty obviously not something that anyone believes should be protected by the law. Maybe some nitwit judge can twist logic around to say it is, but I think just about everyone but the people being asshats would agree that they're being incredibly out of line.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

User avatar
Keroppi
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:37 am UTC
Location: Chi-town/EP, TX
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Keroppi » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:23 pm UTC

Whether or not their actions are covered by free speech or not is why, after countless funerals, they've never gotten happy.

And, although I was always happy that their right to free speech was always 'respected' before, I'm very happy that these horrible, horrible people have finally had to pay for their actions.

...that is, if the decision isn't eventually repealed or whatever.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: A Small Victory

Postby 22/7 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:24 am UTC

This is really weird, because I *just* now heard about these guys and now I'm seeing this thread posted. Anyway, the thing that's really surprising to me is that no none has hauled off and hit this guy at a funeral yet. Course, hopefully this guy will never be able to do this again.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Pai » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:08 am UTC

22/7 wrote:This is really weird, because I *just* now heard about these guys and now I'm seeing this thread posted. Anyway, the thing that's really surprising to me is that no none has hauled off and hit this guy at a funeral yet. Course, hopefully this guy will never be able to do this again.


They're pretty famous. If you ever see a pic of people holding 'God Hates Fags' signs and generally being asshats, it's these guys. They travel all over the country doing it.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Chocceh » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:17 am UTC

Pai wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:People are allowed to say what they want.. as long as they don't impinge on other's ability to avoid it.


Basically.

Right to freedom of speech =/ Right to be listened to.

You have people screaming hateful things at bereaved families. I think that's pretty obviously not something that anyone believes should be protected by the law. Maybe some nitwit judge can twist logic around to say it is, but I think just about everyone but the people being asshats would agree that they're being incredibly out of line.


This, and I don't think you should be allowed to give instructions for, say, a pipe bomb. Being restricted from telling someone how to build a pipe bomb is not infringing on your freedom of speech.

Actually, it is, but you have to rethink your priorities if you think it's more important that you have the right to give those instructions than to be able to live in a country where people don't make pipe bombs.
Okay

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:09 am UTC

lorenith wrote:
malarkie wrote:I concede the point.
Though I still feel they have the right to say it.


These people aren't being prosecuted because of the picketing directly. They're being prosecuted for "defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

People have the freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't damage other people/property, when that happens the person exercising this "right of speech" the person is in a way giving up their right to it, since they can't even respect the rights of others. (That's the way I see it anyway).

I'm not sure how the courts would handle this if it was appealed, but I don't think it should end up overturned. In the long run to me this affair is really weak in the fact that they're basically saying "It's my right to harass and hurt people under the first amendment." Which it is not.

I believe that putting qualifiers on freedom of speech is wrong. If you believe that someone is to dumb to censure themself, that does not give you the right to censure them for them. I don't believe anything they say, so I am just going to ignore them.
I agree with them being removed from earshot, but they can still say whatever it is they are saying.
SecondTalon wrote:

So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: A Small Victory

Postby podbaydoor » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:05 am UTC

Which is...basically what he's saying?
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:31 am UTC

Yes, I know. I just feel obligated to respond when people qoute me.
I was also clarifying what I had conceded.
SecondTalon wrote:

So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby lorenith » Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:07 am UTC

malarkie wrote:I believe that putting qualifiers on freedom of speech is wrong. If you believe that someone is to dumb to censure themself, that does not give you the right to censure them for them. I don't believe anything they say, so I am just going to ignore them.
I agree with them being removed from earshot, but they can still say whatever it is they are saying.


We're in agreement on the second part.

Now for the first part you posted. Guess what, we all have liberties and rights, no one has the right to snuff MY rights out under ANY circumstances. People have freedom of speech, they do NOT have freedom however to violate MY rights in order to exercise that freedom of speech.

I'm allowed to burn a flag, but if I catch something else on fire, or start harassing people I'm probably going to end up in a courtroom being tried for arson and causing emotional distress (but not for burning the flag I'm allowed to do that).

That's basically whats going on here, only replace burning the flag with picketing, and catching things on fire/arson with defamation and invasion of privacy.

Also I eagerly await hearing about what happens when those biker dudes come and essentially protest the picketers. If the picketers want to play the freedom of speech card than they better be ready to accept it from other people, that aren't being asinine or disturbing others with it.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Gunfingers » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:09 pm UTC

Chocceh wrote:This, and I don't think you should be allowed to give instructions for, say, a pipe bomb. Being restricted from telling someone how to build a pipe bomb is not infringing on your freedom of speech.

Actually, it is, but you have to rethink your priorities if you think it's more important that you have the right to give those instructions than to be able to live in a country where people don't make pipe bombs.


Telling someone how to make a pipe bomb/coil gun/whatever is not wrong legally (to the best of my knowledge. I know i've found instructions on the internet) or (in my opinion) morally. It's when you tell someone to use it that you've crossed the line.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby ZeroSum » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:55 pm UTC

I know that people hate it and scream "gun nut" and "tinfoil hat" when people say stuff like this but: It's important that the people have a certain amount of knowledge that could be useful in an armed revolution as a check against the government.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: A Small Victory

Postby 22/7 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:43 pm UTC

Totally agreed.
Gunfingers wrote:
Chocceh wrote:This, and I don't think you should be allowed to give instructions for, say, a pipe bomb. Being restricted from telling someone how to build a pipe bomb is not infringing on your freedom of speech.

Actually, it is, but you have to rethink your priorities if you think it's more important that you have the right to give those instructions than to be able to live in a country where people don't make pipe bombs.


Telling someone how to make a pipe bomb/coil gun/whatever is not wrong legally (to the best of my knowledge. I know i've found instructions on the internet) or (in my opinion) morally. It's when you tell someone to use it that you've crossed the line.


You're absolutely right that teaching someone to make a pipe bomb, etc. is not illegal. But I kind of disagree with you in a general sense on the second part. *ASSUMING* (that's an important word here, so I made it big) that the person who is actually learning how to make the pipe bomb (and/or actually *making* the pipe bomb) is of at least average intelligence, does not have a disability which makes them extremely suggestible, and is not under your direct control for some reason (examples: parent, older brother, very good friend) to the point where if you told them to do something they would, then even saying something like "you should put one of these under the bleachers at the next football game," while not morally in the clear, I believe is still legal, as it is still the responsibility of the person who actually makes the thing to decide what he's going to do with it. Here's where we go back to the *ASSUMING* bit. Because if any of those (and possibly some others that I haven't thought of yet) aren't true, you've got a situation where you're probably going to be pretty culpable legally.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Gunfingers » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:51 pm UTC

Let's go with "They should be treated as responsibly as any other deadly weapon."

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: A Small Victory

Postby 22/7 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:54 pm UTC

Oh certainly. I was just outlining (to the best of my ability) the actual legal restrictions that are placed on such an item.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby ZeroSum » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:57 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:*ASSUMING* (that's an important word here, so I made it big) that the person who is actually learning how to make the pipe bomb (and/or actually *making* the pipe bomb) is of at least average intelligence, does not have a disability which makes them extremely suggestible, and is not under your direct control for some reason (examples: parent, older brother, very good friend) to the point where if you told them to do something they would, then even saying something like "you should put one of these under the bleachers at the next football game," while not morally in the clear, I believe is still legal, as it is still the responsibility of the person who actually makes the thing to decide what he's going to do with it. Here's where we go back to the *ASSUMING* bit. Because if any of those (and possibly some others that I haven't thought of yet) aren't true, you've got a situation where you're probably going to be pretty culpable legally.
Inciting violence through direct command is illegal in the US. Telling people to kill someone, assuming that it's viable for the recipient to carry out the order, is assault and you would be legally culpable if that someone is murdered by someone you instructed to kill him. However, saying that someone is a horrible person, so long as it's not slanderous speech, is entirely legal and you are not legally culpable if someone kills that someone because you said he was horrible.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Chocceh » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:40 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:Telling someone how to make a pipe bomb/coil gun/whatever is not wrong legally (to the best of my knowledge. I know i've found instructions on the internet) or (in my opinion) morally. It's when you tell someone to use it that you've crossed the line.


This reminds me of the Pirate Bay topic - just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good. That's the reason new laws are constantly being made.

When it comes time for a revolution, then perhaps pipe bombs will be needed. Until then, I don't think so.

My take on free speech is that your rights end where mine begin - if your free speech affects me in any way, you should not have the right to do so.
Okay

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: A Small Victory

Postby 22/7 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:42 pm UTC

ZeroSum wrote:Telling people to kill someone, assuming that it's viable for the recipient to carry out the order, is assault and you would be legally culpable if that someone is murdered by someone you instructed to kill him.

Gotcha.

Chocceh wrote:When it comes time for a revolution, then perhaps pipe bombs will be needed. Until then, I don't think so.

And what do we do when the revolution comes and no one knows *how* to make a pipe bomb when they're needed?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Chocceh » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:33 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:And what do we do when the revolution comes and no one knows *how* to make a pipe bomb when they're needed?


I'm sure there would be enough people who have the knowledge lying dormant.

But assuming there aren't, I'd rather have knowledge kept away from the public (I don't mean just the government knows, I mean everyone).

Would you still support free speech when someone is on a street corner handing out your credit card numbers?
Okay

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:30 pm UTC

Well, no.
But that is not speech. Nor is it trying to convey a message. Therefore, it's not protected.
SecondTalon wrote:

So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

Rysto
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Rysto » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:58 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:This is really weird, because I *just* now heard about these guys and now I'm seeing this thread posted. Anyway, the thing that's really surprising to me is that no none has hauled off and hit this guy at a funeral yet.

Supposedly they're funded by suing people who do just this.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Chocceh » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:27 am UTC

malarkie wrote:Well, no.
But that is not speech. Nor is it trying to convey a message. Therefore, it's not protected.


Disregard what the law covers (just for this post) - as far as free speech (as a concept) is concerned, it's communication. My point was that people should be able to communicate only until it affects other people. There should definitely be limits on what you can communicate; otherwise, it would be legal to stand on that street corner and give away my credit card number.
Okay

malarkie
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Cloud 8

Re: A Small Victory

Postby malarkie » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:38 am UTC

Most communications affects other people. Advertising for instance.
Speech that does not affect someone is done by yourself or too quiet to be heard.
SecondTalon wrote:

So long as it's sticky and goes well with a taco.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Chocceh » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:29 am UTC

malarkie wrote:Most communications affects other people. Advertising for instance.
Speech that does not affect someone is done by yourself or too quiet to be heard.


Let me clarify - affect someone in a negative way (more than an insult).
Okay

User avatar
ElvisTCB
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:57 am UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby ElvisTCB » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:44 am UTC

malarkie wrote:I concede the point.
Though I still feel they have the right to say it.



Everyone's right!

What makes America so great is that they DO have the right to say it (even if it's horribly inappropriate and deserving of eternal damnation).

And in America - you have the right to sue!

If I am in that grave I would be tickled pink to know that my passing (and the sick, twisted SOB's who came out to protest it) would provide my family with a new car, house and financial security.

Speech is free, slander costs money.
so there I was

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Pai » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:54 am UTC

ElvisTCB wrote:
malarkie wrote:I concede the point.
Though I still feel they have the right to say it.


Speech is free, slander costs money.


Yep, 'freedom to say whatever you want' does not mean 'freedom from any bad repercussions from your (stupid) statements'. It's not censorship to tell someone to STFU and GTFO from your personal space... only if you then go out of your way to actually stifle them from being able to express their views at all, anywhere. And normal citizens don't really have that kind of all-encompassing authority or power. Which is why the First Amendment is about blocking government-supported interference of free speech.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Umlaut » Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:18 pm UTC

Why couldn't the DC sniper stop off at a couple funerals and help some soldier's families out? What a dick.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: A Small Victory

Postby Gunfingers » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:21 pm UTC

ElvisTCB wrote:
malarkie wrote:I concede the point.
Though I still feel they have the right to say it.

If I am in that grave I would be tickled pink to know that my passing (and the sick, twisted SOB's who came out to protest it) would provide my family with a new car, house and financial security.


Serviceman's Group Life Insurance already paid his family $400k. Did they really need the extra 10.9 mil?


No, but it's still awesome that they got it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests