You wanna stand up and tell me that "Hooray! American soldiers are dying because God hates fags!" ISN'T hatred and bigotry?
Let me clarify my position here:
If he wants to stand on the Washington Mall and holler through a megaphone at random passers-by that God hates fags, that's first-amendment protected speech, and he may be a shit-gargling excuse for a drunkard's by-blow, but he still has a right to say it. If he goes and pickets some poor bastard's funeral to say that said poor bastard died because God hates fags, he is intruding without invitation or welcome on a private and very personal ceremony that happens, pretty much by necessity, to be happening in a public place temporarily borrowed for the purpose, and that is IMHO not protected free speech, any more than it would be protected free speech for him and his inbred little clan to gatecrash a wedding and march through the middle of the ceremony chanting "NIGGER-LOVING WHORE, NIGGER-LOVING WHORE."
But we would allow someone to stand 1000' away on a public street and do so, which is what happened in this case. That you don't like these guys in no way changes that their speech is almost certainly protected. Heck, the MD law that this case inspired only requires such protesters stay 300' away from a funeral.
As usual, tho, this is why people refuse to see much difference between Libertarians and Republicans. Freedom of speech is a grand thing until the people *I* don't like use it.
It is hardly the job of the government to restrict what you think is 'hatred and bigotry'. As I said before, this basically puts you in league with the radfems and the religious right who don't want people saying things that they don't like.
Someone else made the point that what Phelps' crowd do is harassment, and harassment is not protected free speech. If they want to get their message across, they could go to the town hall steps, or to a mall.
you said, however, "IMHO, picketing some random SOB's funeral to spread a message of hate and bigotry fairly clearly crosses it."
Thus *you* are completely in the realm of regulating content that you don't like. And they're clearly not targeting 'some random SOB'. They're targeting specific funerals for specific reasons. You just don't like that reason. This is clearly political speech.
As for harassment, you've also continued to completely ignore the actual facts of this case. The plaintiff actually testified that he didn't see the content of the signs at the funeral. The protests were 1000' away. How exactly is this harassment, except that you don't like the message and are all bent out of shape about it?
If this case actually happened as you've consistently tried to portray it, with Phelp's gang of loons dancing on the guy's casket, you'd have a point, but this isn't what happened.
Also, please explain how this protest was completely legal under the new MD law that this case inspired? They *could* have been 700' closer than they were and still be legal under the law designed to stop this kind of thing.
It is way more fun to argue again the actions of an insane mob that over ran the funeral site, but that isn't what happened. Ignoring this fact won't make it what happened either. Basically, this is your 'porn causes rape' and why people think 'Libertarians are just Republicans who like porn.'
Hint: you'll do better ignoring the funeral and focusing on the web postings.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Congrats...you're now in the realm of regulating content of political speech. You can now be a proper Democrat or Republican.
no subject
Let me clarify my position here:
If he wants to stand on the Washington Mall and holler through a megaphone at random passers-by that God hates fags, that's first-amendment protected speech, and he may be a shit-gargling excuse for a drunkard's by-blow, but he still has a right to say it. If he goes and pickets some poor bastard's funeral to say that said poor bastard died because God hates fags, he is intruding without invitation or welcome on a private and very personal ceremony that happens, pretty much by necessity, to be happening in a public place temporarily borrowed for the purpose, and that is IMHO not protected free speech, any more than it would be protected free speech for him and his inbred little clan to gatecrash a wedding and march through the middle of the ceremony chanting "NIGGER-LOVING WHORE, NIGGER-LOVING WHORE."
no subject
As usual, tho, this is why people refuse to see much difference between Libertarians and Republicans. Freedom of speech is a grand thing until the people *I* don't like use it.
It is hardly the job of the government to restrict what you think is 'hatred and bigotry'. As I said before, this basically puts you in league with the radfems and the religious right who don't want people saying things that they don't like.
no subject
no subject
Thus *you* are completely in the realm of regulating content that you don't like. And they're clearly not targeting 'some random SOB'. They're targeting specific funerals for specific reasons. You just don't like that reason. This is clearly political speech.
As for harassment, you've also continued to completely ignore the actual facts of this case. The plaintiff actually testified that he didn't see the content of the signs at the funeral. The protests were 1000' away. How exactly is this harassment, except that you don't like the message and are all bent out of shape about it?
If this case actually happened as you've consistently tried to portray it, with Phelp's gang of loons dancing on the guy's casket, you'd have a point, but this isn't what happened.
Also, please explain how this protest was completely legal under the new MD law that this case inspired? They *could* have been 700' closer than they were and still be legal under the law designed to stop this kind of thing.
It is way more fun to argue again the actions of an insane mob that over ran the funeral site, but that isn't what happened. Ignoring this fact won't make it what happened either. Basically, this is your 'porn causes rape' and why people think 'Libertarians are just Republicans who like porn.'
Hint: you'll do better ignoring the funeral and focusing on the web postings.