tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post3314163378932606912..comments2023-05-24T06:02:06.480-05:00Comments on Chuck's Chatter: What does “Freedom of Speech” mean to you?Chuck Doswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-62777811126438733472011-03-02T11:13:29.521-06:002011-03-02T11:13:29.521-06:00Update: 2 March 2011
The Supreme Court has rule...<b>Update</b>: 2 March 2011 <br />The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of WBC - they have the right to do what they're doing. No matter how much we hold them in contempt for their despicable protests, the freedom of speech is a most important right to protect. Although I despise WBC and everything they seem to stand for, this was the right ruling.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-50904228855527115072010-07-11T16:40:23.411-05:002010-07-11T16:40:23.411-05:00I'll persist because I'm not sure I'm ...I'll persist because I'm not sure I'm getting my point across successfully.<br /><br />The law I'm proposing would be a blanket ban on any sort of harassment or disturbance at a funeral. I would expect and demand that it be applied across the board. It wouldn't be aimed at any specific points of view, or even at protests in general.<br /><br />Westboro protesters at military funerals, Jewish protesters at Nazi funerals, and guys parked 20 yards away with their car stereo cranked up to 11 would all be in violation of the law. I'd be in favor of such a law even if funeral protests never happened.<br /><br />The slippery slope argument is always easy to bring up, but what I propose is akin to a city noise ordinance - Westboro can't march up and down the street screaming at 3AM either, and that has nothing to do with their point of view. I'm having a hard time envisioning how what I propose would precipitate a slide into totalitarianism. (I mean other than the one that's already occurring).<br /><br />I don't think anyone should have to suffer the insult of being harassed and intimidated at a loved one's funeral, and I think this is a way to accomplish that without imposing any even remotely burdensome restriction on anyone's freedom of speech.<br /><br />In any case, I certainly agree in general with your main point that the offensiveness of Westboro's point of view should never be used as a reason to silence them.Brian Guppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05155645438149372233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-34750206107503362552010-07-10T23:06:45.537-05:002010-07-10T23:06:45.537-05:00I don't like the WBC crowd and what they'r...I don't like the WBC crowd and what they're doing, either ... but ... such a law could and should be challenged on the basis of violation of their right to free speech.<br /><br />Just because we find it incredibly offensive to do what they do is no reason to restrict their right to do it. The Bill of Rights isn't just applicable to people and deeds we like. If we start restricting the right to do things we decide we find offensive, that's a big step down the proverbial slippery slope.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-76440237062315819302010-07-10T22:06:43.170-05:002010-07-10T22:06:43.170-05:00"(without violating an existing law, such as ..."(without violating an existing law, such as trespassing)"<br /><br />I'm suggesting that if there isn't an existing law that protects funeral mourners from interference and harassment, there should be one. The Westboro Church's actions would almost certainly be in violation of any such law.<br /><br />We already have other special legal protections for funeral mourners (in most states, for example, cars in a funeral procession are allowed to run red lights in order to keep the procession together if the light was green when the lead car went through). I don't think what I'm asking is too much of a stretch.<br /><br />Westboro can protest somewhere else, or even at the cemetery 10 minutes after the last mourner leaves, but let people bury their dead in peace and with dignity. I don't think that's violating anyone's freedom of speech.Brian Guppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05155645438149372233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-17619534970020502432010-07-10T14:49:48.341-05:002010-07-10T14:49:48.341-05:00Is it necessary to voice their opinion at a funera...Is it <b>necessary</b> to voice their opinion at a funeral? No. But their right to free speech isn't limited to what is strictly necessary. Any law that prevented them from the exercise of their free speech (without violating an existing law, such as trespassing) would be a violation of their constitutionally-guaranteed right.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-57703275647967975842010-07-10T00:07:27.620-05:002010-07-10T00:07:27.620-05:00I certainly agree with your support of the Westbor...I certainly agree with your support of the Westboro Baptist Church's right to express its noxious viewpoints, but I question whether it is necessary to allow them to protest AT a funeral.<br /><br />I think it's reasonable to have laws (I don't know whether they exist) that protect funeral mourners from harassment whether they are on public or private property, and whether the harassers are hate-spewing bigots or just kids throwing rocks.<br /><br />You don't need to be physically present at an event in order to protest it - during Vietnam many people were able to protest the war without having to go to Saigon or even Washington.Brian Guppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05155645438149372233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-12130723532120377322010-06-03T13:06:11.019-05:002010-06-03T13:06:11.019-05:00Nowhere in the Bill of Rights will you find the &q...Nowhere in the Bill of Rights will you find the "right to not be offended."Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-33717367634075795662010-05-20T23:47:13.522-05:002010-05-20T23:47:13.522-05:00We may not want to see/hear dissenting opinions bu...We may not want to see/hear dissenting opinions but we NEED to. It is only through the free exchange of ideas, no matter how bizarre, we can advance debate for greater knowledge. Even when nothing is learned we at the very least reiterate our beliefs or "truths" when we disagree with an alternative viewpoint. How can you be in the "right" when there is no "wrong"? Galileo was persecuted for what amounted to religious hate speech. His heliocentric view was unpopular yet proved to be correct. Some 400 years late, the Catholic Church recognized Galileo's achievements. It's tough getting your paradigm challenged. -Justin TurcotteUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09801577186965425460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-2142061671820882742010-05-04T23:47:06.820-05:002010-05-04T23:47:06.820-05:00Matt:
You said: "However, IF the Westboro B...Matt:<br /><br />You said: "However, IF the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to show up uninvited at funerals to "picket" a country that supports homosexuality, then I think it is only fair that homosexuals should be allowed to show up uninvited and perform public displays of affection (or even sexuality) as a "picket" against the Westboro Baptist Church's regular services. If you're going to have full freedom of expression, you've got to allow it for BOTH sides of the argument."<br /><br />Actually, that has happened, both in the form of counter-demonstrations and in the form of pickets outside of the WBC. A quick read of the Wikipedia page Chuck linked to discusses this. <br /><br />Freedom of speech is a right that <i>anyone</i> has in this country -- it does not "choose sides" when overseen properly.Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299731959049654407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-82728813919653993912010-05-04T15:00:10.779-05:002010-05-04T15:00:10.779-05:00Well ... let me back off a little. Context is rel...Well ... let me back off a little. Context is relevant - no one has the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. I have the right to say any words I want to say in public, so long as my words don't cause anyone harm. Being offended by my words is your choice, not mine, and you can't argue that I should be muzzled so as not to offend you. The point of the free speech amendment is specifically to allow me to say things that <i>might</i> offend people (if they choose to be offended).Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-54675646037951463942010-05-04T14:53:10.837-05:002010-05-04T14:53:10.837-05:00Perhaps you need your own blog, Matt. Brevity cou...Perhaps you need your own blog, Matt. Brevity counts here. Your comment basically re-iterates everything you said before. And my response remains the same - I disagree.<br /><br />Your porn star example is irrelevant. Being gangbanged in public is illegal. It has nothing to do with freedome of speech.<br /><br />If WBC is on public property when they picket and carry on in their absurd way, then they have that right. On private property, they would be trespassing, which is illegal. Again, nothing to do with free speech.<br /><br />Context is irrelevant to freedom of speech.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-28568539760976751402010-05-04T14:13:27.832-05:002010-05-04T14:13:27.832-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-91733719543670921302010-05-03T17:09:42.932-05:002010-05-03T17:09:42.932-05:00O.K. - so what "freedom of speech" means...O.K. - so what "freedom of speech" means to you is that if it violates your notion of what is "sacred", it shouldn't be allowed. Thanks for the clarification, but we're just going to have to disagree over this one.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-65153960896693647732010-04-30T23:40:49.169-05:002010-04-30T23:40:49.169-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com