Right call in Westboro case

What would you have done Mr Editor if it happened at your son's funeral?

I wouldn't want to serve this country with how up its own ass it has gotten anyway. this means nothing.

home of that what wrote:

I wouldn't want to serve this country with how up its own ass it has gotten anyway. this means nothing.

WHAT??????

The Westboro KOOKS were not denyed their freedom of speech, theyw ere there and said what they wanted to do. The judge rulked there was "emotional distress and invasion of privacy." What does that have to do with Freedom of speech? You have the frredom of speech, you do not have the particular freedom of being heard. These kooks forced themselves in this man's privacy and caused emotional distress in the time of his grief!

The decision needs to be looked at from an analytical standpoint, not an emotional one. It is a slippery slope. Awarding damages for emotional distress to person A caused by person B's exercise of their freedom of speech opens up the floodgates for a whole lot of interpretation that I can promise you we do not want. Make no mistake, I despise Westboro and what they do (and despise is not a word I use lightly). But I cannot deny them their right or punish them for exercising their rights without expecting the same in return.

Pasha wrote:

The decision needs to be looked at from an analytical standpoint, not an emotional one. It is a slippery slope. Awarding damages for emotional distress to person A caused by person B's exercise of their freedom of speech opens up the floodgates for a whole lot of interpretation that I can promise you we do not want. Make no mistake, I despise Westboro and what they do (and despise is not a word I use lightly). But I cannot deny them their right or punish them for exercising their rights without expecting the same in return.

Is it Freedom of speech when you impose and force it on somebody. You have the right to speak bu i have never heard of a right to be heard?

Would you have the same feelings of a right to freedom of speech if the soldier had been black and Westboro had used the "N" word in their demonstrations. I think not. So, the debate is not that there should be freedom of speech, but who gets to decide what can be spoken.

I'm arguing the legal merits of the case, not the moral standpoint. Unless you separate the two, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Morally, Westboro is reprehensible. Legally, they have the right to act like the bunch of idiots they are. The decision to overturn the previous ruling was sound.

These a__holes are going to pee on the wrong REDNECK family, and the guns will come out....They may have the right to being idiots, we all have that right, but to disrespect a fallen soldier, or any dead....NO ONE was that right, no matter what you call it