How far extends the right to free speech?

For Him wrote:

Tea Partiers and Fred Phelps group = not a whole lot of difference - Loud obnoxious hypocrites

The Dems are not hypocrites?
You are a fool..

Free speech is not picking and choosing.
I disagree with any and all controls on speech period.

People SELF censor now all the time and it is a threat to all speech.

Disraeli wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, but the MSM never really pressed the free speech angle of that story, did they?
Like they would for, say, flag burnings or protests at military funerals.
No authority has told the Iman in NYC he can't build his "cultural center" yet the MSM keeps reporting the first amendment angle of THAT story, don't they?

Not sure who MSM is. But yes, I heard arguments that the preacher had a right to burn the Qurans. The story also noted how dangerous it would be because of the Islam fanatics who would use it as an excuse to kill Americans - military and civilian. Likewise, I've heard the argument that the Imam has a right to build the Islamic community center in the same stories that note it's probably not the wisest place to put it. I must read different newspapers than you do.

Thank Gawd 4 Bush wrote:

Funerals are PRIVATE events, not public. Just as if I were throwing a wedding party, and some people decided to crash it, and act obnoxiously, I would have the right to kick them out.
Same with Phelps and his loony entourage.
Sorry, but I don't believe people have the right to make public protests at private affairs.
If you want to protest the war, homosexuality or anything else, take it to a public forum.

Very few funerals are private events. We announce calling hours and times of funerals in the newspapers inviting people to come and pay their respects. And graveside services in public cemeteries are also open to anyone. But it's a moot point because the Westboro folks are on public streets and sidewalks, not at the gravesides or in the funeral homes. They are disgusting people, but have every right to do what they are doing.

History major wrote:

<quoted text>
Not sure who MSM is. But yes, I heard arguments that the preacher had a right to burn the Qurans. The story also noted how dangerous it would be because of the Islam fanatics who would use it as an excuse to kill Americans - military and civilian. Likewise, I've heard the argument that the Imam has a right to build the Islamic community center in the same stories that note it's probably not the wisest place to put it. I must read different newspapers than you do.

Of the two cases you describe, how prominent was the first amendment angle vs. the negative effects of exercising those same rights?

On the Koran burning, the negative backlash effects were what was stressed in the MSM stories. It almost seemed as if the MSM was condoning such a response as reasonable.

In the "Community center" case, it was the first amendment that was stressed, with any possible backlash being branded as intolerance.

I don't think either case is a responsible use of first amendment rights, and both are deliberately provocative. My original post was a comment on the seeming inability of the MSM to stand behind offensive, yet protected, behavior when it is someone whose world view they don't like or agree with is exercising it.

The protests of Military funerals by Westboro Baptist Church is an egregious act. It is by design intended to inflict great emotional distress at a time when grieving survivors are most vulnerable to extreme reaction. It is just a matter of time until some family member snaps and kills or maims one of these protesters who are at present protected by the "First Amendment".
When such an act occurs , the perpetrator of the act ,(clearly an illegal act), may plead "Not Guilty" and seek "Jury Nullification" of the law by which they are prosecuted, citing the egregious nature of the provocation by members of the Westboro Baptist Church as motive.
The Judge in a criminal case is required to instruct the jury as to how they must find if they are convinced that the defendant in a criminal case committed the offence to which they are charged, but the Jury decides.
He can overturn a guilty verdict, if he finds that the evidence presented, does not support the verdict.
However , the Judge has absolutely no recourse to overturn a Juries '"Not Guilty" verdict, even if the evidence is overwhelming, that the defendant committed the act for which he is charged .
The founders recognized that the Jury has the right to find against the law when the law is wrong!

Former LE wrote:

The protests of Military funerals by Westboro Baptist Church is an egregious act. It is by design intended to inflict great emotional distress at a time when grieving survivors are most vulnerable to extreme reaction. It is just a matter of time until some family member snaps and kills or maims one of these protesters who are at present protected by the "First Amendment".
When such an act occurs , the perpetrator of the act ,(clearly an illegal act), may plead "Not Guilty" and seek "Jury Nullification" of the law by which they are prosecuted, citing the egregious nature of the provocation by members of the Westboro Baptist Church as motive.
The Judge in a criminal case is required to instruct the jury as to how they must find if they are convinced that the defendant in a criminal case committed the offence to which they are charged, but the Jury decides.
He can overturn a guilty verdict, if he finds that the evidence presented, does not support the verdict.
However , the Judge has absolutely no recourse to overturn a Juries '"Not Guilty" verdict, even if the evidence is overwhelming, that the defendant committed the act for which he is charged .
The founders recognized that the Jury has the right to find against the law when the law is wrong!

Did you know that many of this churches members are lawyers?

They are looking to shake down anyone who "interferes" with their protests.

Disraeli wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you know that many of this churches members are lawyers?
They are looking to shake down anyone who "interferes" with their protests.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Disraeli wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you know that many of this churches members are lawyers?
They are looking to shake down anyone who "interferes" with their protests.

Hypothetically speaking, it takes a jury to award money. That Jury has to believe the plaintiff deserves the award. I think that Jury would be hard to find.

Much as I'd like to see the Westboro Baptist Church burn to the ground with its members inside, they DO have free speech rights and protecting those rights protects the rights of the rest of us as well.

The real question is,'are those rights UNLIMITED?' And,'do those holding funerals for family members have rights which are being violated by this "church?" '

Just as free speech doesn't allow you to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater, or publicly slander someone's reputation, I think there may be some limits here. The rights of one person end where those of another begin, they say, and that seems to be applicable to these absurd, bigoted, and vicious protests by the Westboros.

Not sure how they're going to rule, but I look forward to the verdict.

Captain Yesterday wrote:

Much as I'd like to see the Westboro Baptist Church burn to the ground with its members inside, they DO have free speech rights and protecting those rights protects the rights of the rest of us as well.
The real question is,'are those rights UNLIMITED?' And,'do those holding funerals for family members have rights which are being violated by this "church?" '
Just as free speech doesn't allow you to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater, or publicly slander someone's reputation, I think there may be some limits here. The rights of one person end where those of another begin, they say, and that seems to be applicable to these absurd, bigoted, and vicious protests by the Westboros.
Not sure how they're going to rule, but I look forward to the verdict.

Maybe ‘they’ say it, but I don’t know anywhere in any law the phrase “The rights of one person end where those of another begin” is stated. It would likely be that any such conflict in one person’s rights versus another’s would have to be decided on a case by case basis and constitutional issues would abound.

As for yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, what Oliver Wendell Holmes actually said was “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”(Schenck v. U.S., 1919)
‘Falsely’ is the keyword here and is the underpinning of the ‘clear and present danger’ doctrine.

Schenck and the ‘clear and present danger’ notion were weakened in the case of Whitney v. California (1927) in which Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said “Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly…To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one…In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated.”
This has been called the "time to answer" test, which implies that no danger coming from speech can be considered clear and present if there is full opportunity for discussion. By this, Brandeis is saying that while legislatures have a right to curb dangerous expression, they have to clearly define the nature of that danger. Mere fear of unpopular ideas will not suffice.

Whitney was overruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) which Justice William O. Douglas addressed the legitimate role of symbolic speech in First Amendment doctrine, citing examples of destroying a Bible to indicate the abandonment of faith or tearing a copy of the Constitution in order to protest a Supreme Court decision.
He also dealt with the situation of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Explaining why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, he called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In his view, Douglas said that this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.