Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?

  1. Oct 9, 2010 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I am on the side of the family. There is no reason, IMO, for these people to be doing this to this family. Perhaps this should be considered when a person or group plans to engage in the harrassment of private individuals. I don't see why the First Amendment needs to allow for harrasment and stalking of private citizens going about their private, personal, lawful activities. I don't think this type of personal harrassment was intended to be protected when the First Ammendment was written.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101007/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests [Broken]

    This next article goes into more detail of what the Supreme Court is faced with.

    http://www.ydr.com/ci_14667129 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 9, 2010 #2
    public place=is constitutionally protected
     
  4. Oct 9, 2010 #3
    These people make me sick. I wonder how they'd react if a hundred atheist's set up camp outside their homes and started preaching how God and the Bible is BS?

    Oh but that's right, they can picket people's funerals and be covered by the freedom of speech, but if we try to picket them, suddenly freedom of religion comes into it and we're still in the wrong.

    If they tried that where I lived they'd have a rather significant number of 'family' showing them the 'error of their ways'!

    I don't think it's a case of violating free speech, but more a case of people being so ignorant and insensitive towards others and not respecting them at such a distressing time.

    I may disagree with what someone says or does, but I have enough respect for them to know when I should and shouldn't voice my opinion.
     
  5. Oct 9, 2010 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That isn't true. Speech in public places is restricted all the time. Even if the content itself is protected, there are many of reasons why speech might not be. In this case, one group interfering with the rights of another (at the very least, this is harassment) seems like a good reason to me to make them express their opinion somewhere else.
     
  6. Oct 9, 2010 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Recall that Bush had free-speech zones penned off at a distance, at his rallies. Even a woman wearing an Obama shirt was ejected from a rally.
     
  7. Oct 9, 2010 #6
    So me shouting racist slurs in a public place would be constitutionally protected?
     
  8. Oct 9, 2010 #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I recommend people read the 4th circuit court of appeals' decision on this. It includes a number of interesting and possibly relevant facts:

     
  9. Oct 9, 2010 #8

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Harrassment is not protected by the First Amendment. It's one of those matters left to the States, which do have legal sanctions/laws against harassment. Snyder would have to demonstrate that Phelps et al violated the state or local statute regarding harrassment.

    Most criminal matters at the local level are handled by local or state authorities and judicial systems, unless the criminal violation is against the nation or Federal Government, or persons employed or otherwise serving in the Federal Government.
     
  10. Oct 9, 2010 #9
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130379867

    this is a pure speech case. it's not about harassment. for all our sake, the protesters had better win this case.
     
  11. Oct 9, 2010 #10
    yep, to an extent

    has to be peaceful, remember
     
  12. Oct 9, 2010 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    If Phelps and his followers posted their garbage at PF, their posts would be deleted and they would be banned!

    His 'speech' is hateful, and it has no redeeming social value.

    His group went out its way to protest at the funeral, and that is essentially harassment. If Phelps et al want to protest the government and/or its policy, then let them go to the steps of Congress or the White House and protest there. Phelps and his group should leave the families of dead soldiers alone, since they do not decide policy.
     
  13. Oct 9, 2010 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But the issue now is that The US Supreme Court has voted to take on the appeal.
     
  14. Oct 9, 2010 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From your article

     
  15. Oct 9, 2010 #14
    yes, all bets are off. anything goes depending on the mood of the court, and apparently, Summers is a compleat idiot.
     
  16. Oct 9, 2010 #15
    Evo starts thread:
    jarednjames responds to 'religion':
    russ_watters doesn't differentiate between 'fire' and 'you're a ****':
    Ivan Seeking brings in Bush for no reason:
    jarednjames implies that those opinions are wrong, or relevant to the thread:
    Astronuc implies that a private forum is the gold standard of conduct for public free speech:

    Proton Soup knows how to read and reserve judgment:

    seriously guys, UMAD

    learn to respond to the action, not the content

    'he hit me' instead of 'he hit me while wearing a blue shirt! i hate blue!'
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  17. Oct 9, 2010 #16
    we'll see, she's just one judge. but this isn't about some ordinary citizen, it is political speech aimed at an agent of the US government.
     
  18. Oct 9, 2010 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    With signs aimed at the mourners at the funeral saying "god hates your tears' that's hate speech directed at the private mourners.
     
  19. Oct 9, 2010 #18
    >implying hate speech is real, and not just a way to limit free speech

    >implying that it is illegal to hate another person

    >implying that if one person commits a true crime against another, the specific details of the victim matter, when the person committing the crime should be charged regardless of who or what the victim is
     
  20. Oct 9, 2010 #19
    Uh, the article is about a church protesting a funeral, my post was to point out the discrimination shown to non-religious folks by the laws put in place to protect the religious. These religions can protest under the cover of freedom of speech, but if I protest them, I'm infringing their religious rights.

    Are you saying racist remarks shouted in public aren't wrong? Why is it not relevant, your first post implies that no matter what is said in public it is protected. That is pure BS, go stand on your street corner and try shouting racist slurs at passers by and see how long you remain there.
     
  21. Oct 9, 2010 #20
    look at the details before responding

    shouting? no. walking up to people and calling them racial slurs? yes.

    probably won't make too many friends, as it's a silly thing to do with your time, and makes you look like an idiot, but yep, is permissible.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook