First Amendment, what does it mean?

[Banrion]

Even if we look outside the US, and go to international standards of Human rights

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

...

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even the UN recognizes that there are times when it is in the best interest of society to limit speech. Essentially, your rights end where mine begin. Using Phelps as an example, he is violating the rights of the mourners because he is not allowing them to congregate peacefully. By going somewhere he knows he is likely to incite anger he is willfully and intentionally preventing a peaceful congregation.

[rahmota]

I think seshat organizes thigns very nicely. there are certian specific legal limitations to ones freedom of speech. Ie the yelling fire in a theator. Inducing to riot. Which would result in a mass panic with injuries and potential deaths.

But there are more protections for a person to say in public whatever they feel like.And the slander and libel laws can be lsid past by stating thigns as your opinion and not real truespeak. More of realspeak. Thats kinda how a lot of these political and social commentators get by with things. Calling the president a lying sack of scum is one thing but sayign he failed to pay child support for his love child is another ballgame entirely.

Ok now for hassment and freedom of speech. Think of it this way. When he sadi it the first time that was freedom of speech. Using your freeom to walk away or tell him to stuff it is ok under the law. Him continuing to challenge you about it is still using his freedom of speech but impinging on your rights and freedoms. So the law has to determine who has had more claim to being infringed upon. You smack him down (no matter how deserved or satisfying) is still jumping things to another level from a legal point of view. Depriving someone of their bodily health weighs higher in the infringement levels than just infringing someone of their peace and quiet.

I think that made sense. Anyhow I'm with Boozy and Seshat on this one.

[Boozy]

By going somewhere he knows he is likely to incite anger he is willfully and intentionally preventing a peaceful congregation.

Making people angry does not prevent them from congregating peacefully. That's a dangerous assertion; that anger completely precludes people from behaving non-violently.

[Banrion]

Making people angry does not prevent them from congregating peacefully. That's a dangerous assertion; that anger completely precludes people from behaving non-violently.

I think you are playing with semantics here. In my mind, simply being angry is not peaceful. No where did I say that violence was required to be non-peaceful.

[Boozy]

I think you are playing with semantics here.

No, I just didn't understand you. Now I think I do...

But do you really feel that freedom of speech should be limited to prevent other people from getting angry?

[rahmota]

That is a dangerous assertion if you're sayign that the freedom of speech should be limited to protect people's feelings. Sad to say the constitution is not there to protect people's feelings just their legal status.

Although I think I see what you're saying. the words spoken by Phelps and his terrorist organization are hateful, hurtful and spiteful and infringing upon the mourner's right to peacefully congregate and assemble. Phelp's 1st amendment (right to speech) usage is infringing upon another's 1st amendment usage (peaceful assembly) which would be a major tangle to unweave as which aspect of the 1st is greater or if they are all equal then how do you protect equal yet opposing ideals?

Or am I just over analyzing things?

[Seshat]

There's a difference.

Me walking up to you and saying 'Your mother wears army boots!' (or something more insulting) is fine.

Me continuing after you've asked me to stop is still legally fine, but starting to come into a grey area of the law.

Me continuing for half an hour during which you've done nothing but politely asked me to stop is harassment.

Me chasing you down the street and screaming abuse at you while you're trying to get away from the madwoman is definitely harassment, and borders on (or is) verbal assault, depending on the law in your area.

Me painting a swastika on your door and writing 'Jews should die' under it is both graffiti/vandalism and harassment. (Not to mention in awful taste and I wouldn't do it. )

I think going to a funeral and insulting the dead is morally reprehensible. It's along the same lines, IMO, as walking into a Christian church and replacing the candles with black ones and turning the crucifix upside down; or walking into a synagogue and spreading creamed beef on the altar; or going to a Baptist church with a mostly black congregation while wearing white robes with pointed hoods.

Except for the ones which are vandalism, these behaviours are technically legal (though they might come under hate speech/harassment laws). However, legal or not, they're morally reprehensible and socially hideous.

[rahmota]

Well yeah I'll agree there is a difference between what is legally permissable and what is socially permissable.

I think going to a funeral and insulting the dead is morally reprehensible.

I'll agree that socially speaking this is morally reprehensible. Legally though as long as the cemetary is a public one (ie owned by the city, state, county or township) and not a private (ie owned by the family, church, or private cemetary company) one they cannot be stopped from coming on the property and saying whatever they want to. As long as they do not come over and directly interefere in the funeral procession.

One of the reasons why the patriot guard's actions are equally legal and more socially acceptable. As long as both sides play legally, then there are no criminal laws that can be brought to bear. It is also a situation where one aspect of the 1st is being weighed against another aspect of the 1st.

Now if its a private owned cemetary then tresspass and all can be definately brought to bear if they come on the property.

It's along the same lines, IMO, as walking into a Christian church and replacing the candles with black ones and turning the crucifix upside down; or walking into a synagogue and spreading creamed beef on the altar;

Yes those actions are both morally/socially reprehensible and legally verboten. Those actions are not protected as they are tresspass and vandalism as you pointed out. A church or synagogue are both private property and as has been pointed out private property rules mostly trump 1st amendment.

or going to a Baptist church with a mostly black congregation while wearing white robes with pointed hoods.

Thing about this one is while it is socially/morally reprehensible it is not illegal to do so. Downright stupid and retarded to do so but still not illegal. As long as all the person does is sit there quietly wearing the robes. Now if they do not leave when told to do so or otherwise causes a scene then at the very least criminal tresspass can be charged. Which in most jursidictions I'm aware of is a misdemeanor which means a fine and maybe overnight stay.

And under the constitution hate speech is still protected speech. I may not agree with hate speech and I may not like hate speech but I would rather deal with hate speech than having someone from the government attempting to decide what is hate speech. That would be a dangerous thing to do. Rightthink would be rewarded then and we would all wind up speaking newspeak and dealing with realhistory instead of truespeak history....

Either that or wind up in the places where there are no shadows.

[Boozy]

The problem with outlawing speech because the average person finds it morally reprehensible is that morals can be subjective.

Abortion and capital punishment are two examples. There are people on both sides of these issues that find the opposing view "morally reprehensible".

Just because the vast majority of people think that Phelps' opinions are wrong doesn't mean that we can limit his right to speak. Majority opinion can't be a factor when talking about civil rights. If it did, where is the cut-off point? If a referendum indicated that 75% of people were pro-choice, should we prevent pro-lifers from speaking out? How about 90%? 51%? There is no magic number - there is freedom of speech for all or for none.

The Westboro group stood on public property and voiced their opinions. 99% of Americans probably think that their opinions are ignorant and vile. But if they don't have the right to voice them than neither have we the right to speak against them.

[Seshat]

Oh, I quite agree. Just because I find my examples morally and socially reprehensible, doesn't mean I think they shouldn't ever happen. Well, except for the cases of vandalism/harassment.

I think the social condemnation for going to a funeral in a public place and protesting (peacefully) is all that really should be applied - and I applaud the bikers who are providing that social condemnation (so long as they continue to apply it peacefully).

There are people in my city who hang around in the city centre, carrying hand-written signs declaring their views. Some of those views are strange, and at least one is incoherent. But I'll defend their right to continue their peaceful declaration.

I find the people who hang around abortion clinics declaring their views to be narrow-minded and weird. But as long as they keep the path to the clinic clear, and don't actively harass people who are trying to go there, I'll defend their right to state their view. And if I lived in a city where such people were, I'd go there and make my own posters and state my contrary view. And probably engage them in peaceful debate.

Unfortunately, if we're going to have free speech, we'll have speech that I personally find reprehensible. And I accept that.

Someone made a quote which goes roughly like: 'if a public library has something in it that offends everyone, it's doing its job.'

I like being disagreed with. It keeps my mind open. I just prefer to be disagreed with by people who can muster coherent arguments and stick to the issues.

[rahmota]

Thought of the Day"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." - Justice Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993) US Supreme Court From a unanimous court opinion (1969)

Just a bit to go with your comments Seshat. From my thought of the day program.

[Seshat]

A good quote, and one which I can completely agree with.

Of course, there are some books I think are in dreadful taste. But I'll defend a person's right to read them if they want to. And to wear pink camo while doing so.

[rahmota]

I thought you'd like it.

Yeah its always struck me funny how these church or other groups will have huge book burnings or otherwise throw such a stink over a book. I mean all its goign to do is give free publicity for the book. And unless they steal the books they have to buy them which just drives up the bestseller list of the book and puts more money in the publisher and author's pockets.

Its not like anyone is forcing a person to go read something (unless you're a student witha class assignment and even then...) so build a bridge, get over it, ignore the book and get on with your life.

[AFPheonix]

I thought you'd like it.

Yeah its always struck me funny how these church or other groups will have huge book burnings or otherwise throw such a stink over a book. I mean all its goign to do is give free publicity for the book. And unless they steal the books they have to buy them which just drives up the bestseller list of the book and puts more money in the publisher and author's pockets.

What's even funnier is that those fundies had to go BUY a copy of those books before they could burn them. Congratulations, you guys helped line the author's pockets! Do it some more!
The Dixie Chicks experienced the same thing with their album that they were touring in support for when the lead singer blabbed about Bush in Europe. They had a good giggle with Terry Gross about that when she was interviewing them.

[Seshat]

Hmmm. What can I write that will certainly piss off the fundies?