U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-28-2019, 06:16 AM
 
19,668 posts, read 12,400,539 times
Reputation: 10843

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
While disgraceful behavior, the only investigation should be into whether the students are the cause of the bullet holes in the sign. Every other aspect of their behavior, while disgraceful, is protected by the First Amendment.


Agreed- the liberal thought police are in full swing here. Something that is in poor taste is not illegal and is protected by the first Amendment.


As liberals hate the Constitution, it is no wonder that they are perpetually assaulting freedom of speech through intimidation and violence.


I wonder why the "beheading of Trump" and his hanging in effigy are not "investigated"?




Also, why is not damaging and tearing down Confederate monuments treated in the same manner?

 
Old 07-28-2019, 06:17 AM
 
Location: *
8,152 posts, read 2,458,637 times
Reputation: 2239
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Justice Alito's dissent was heartfelt and moving, but there is a reason why it is, as you note, the lone dissent. The Snyder v. Phelps case was decided 8-1, which meant that it united both conservatives and liberals on the Court to hold, in essence, that hate speech is fully protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

As much respect that I have for Justice Alito, if his position was to be adopted, I fear we'd be going down a slippery slope that would lead to the stifling of speech that we don't happen to like.
Plessy v. Ferguson is routinely cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter from the majority's decision there.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...-all-time.html

Back to Justice Alito's dissent:

Quote:
... One final comment about the opinion of the Court is in order. The Court suggests that the wounds inflicted by vicious verbal assaults at funerals will be prevented or at least mitigated in the future by new laws that restrict picketing within a specified distance of a funeral. See ante, at 1011. It is apparent, however, that the enactment of these laws is no substitute for the protection provided by the established IIED tort; according to the Court, the verbal attacks that severely wounded petitioner in this case complied with the new Maryland law regulating funeral picketing. See ante, at 11, n. 5. And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Congress and the state legislatures, in enacting these laws, intended them to displace the protection provided by the well-established IIED tort.
Not sure if this one'll show up on 'worst SCOTUS decisions of all time' lists in the future' ...
 
Old 07-28-2019, 06:21 AM
 
Location: sumter
8,790 posts, read 5,471,187 times
Reputation: 6694

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V6ffUUEvaM


Just a reminder to those who don't know.
 
Old 07-28-2019, 06:25 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,191 posts, read 6,444,107 times
Reputation: 11904
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Plessy v. Ferguson is routinely cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter from the majority's decision there.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...-all-time.html

Back to Justice Alito's dissent:



Not sure if this one'll show up on 'worst SCOTUS decisions of all time' lists in the future' ...
To be fair, Plessy v. Furguson went against the spirit and text of the 14th Amendment. As the Court noted in Brown v. Board of Education, apart from the fact that separate but equal rarely (if ever) meant equal (accommodations provided to blacks were largely inferior to the accommodations provided to whites, as an example), there is a psychological aspect of things as well.

Also, I don't know how similar the ideologies were of the justices that approved made up the majority in Plessy; the Court makeup for the Phelps case is unique not only by the vote count, but because it brought together justices of varying judicial ideologies (the conservatives and the liberals).

On the contrary, the First Amendment--as has been reaffirmed time and time again by the Supreme Court--was enacted precisely to protect against government regulation of speech that some find to be offensive/distasteful. This is because government wouldn't be trying to regulate speech that it agrees with, so its really offensive speech that is at issue.
 
Old 07-28-2019, 06:36 AM
 
Location: *
8,152 posts, read 2,458,637 times
Reputation: 2239
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
To be fair, Plessy v. Furguson went against the spirit and text of the 14th Amendment. As the Court noted in Brown v. Board of Education, apart from the fact that separate but equal rarely (if ever) meant equal (accommodations provided to blacks were largely inferior to the accommodations provided to whites, as an example), there is a psychological aspect of things as well.

Also, I don't know how similar the ideologies were of the justices that approved made up the majority in Plessy; the Court makeup for the Phelps case is unique not only by the vote count, but because it brought together justices of varying judicial ideologies (the conservatives and the liberals).

On the contrary, the First Amendment--as has been reaffirmed time and time again by the Supreme Court--was enacted precisely to protect against government regulation of speech that some find to be offensive/distasteful. This is because government wouldn't be trying to regulate speech that it agrees with, so its really offensive speech that is at issue.
Protecting against government regulation of speech is one thing, intending to displace the protection provided by well-established IIED tort is another.
 
Old 07-28-2019, 06:45 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,191 posts, read 6,444,107 times
Reputation: 11904
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Protecting against government regulation of speech is one thing, intending to displace the protection provided by well-established IIED tort is another.
Not when the basis for a claimed IIED tort is pure speech that government happens to dislike. IIED was meant to cover emotional distress caused by violence, threats of violence, and/or assaults. Not mere speech.
 
Old 07-28-2019, 07:10 AM
 
9,533 posts, read 10,260,975 times
Reputation: 7223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"to never come into contact with a Black or White person who is not repulsed by that picture."

And who gave you permission to speak for EVERYBODY?
Your allusions of grander are greatly exaggerated!
So you think for the rest of their life every person they come into contact with will be patting them on the back and taking selfies with them over that picture? I don't think racist are universally loved as much you might think. David Duke has been unemployable most of his life.
 
Old 07-28-2019, 07:27 AM
 
Location: *
8,152 posts, read 2,458,637 times
Reputation: 2239
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Not when the basis for a claimed IIED tort is pure speech that government happens to dislike. IIED was meant to cover emotional distress caused by violence, threats of violence, and/or assaults. Not mere speech.
Quote:
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage)[1] is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way.[2] Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.[1]

IIED was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form of assault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when a threat of battery was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault, but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred from compensation under the common law form.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inte...ional_distress

This is my last post re: Westboro Baptist Church case; it'd be better to get back to the topic.
 
Old 07-28-2019, 07:46 AM
 
Location: SGV
25,186 posts, read 9,820,552 times
Reputation: 9815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I doubt anyone is going to investigate this further but regardless it is despicable behavior by these students. They aren't alone in their thoughts there are plenty of others in that area who feel that posing like this and minimizing Till's murder and torture is some sort of sport.
Well, this and a dime gets you a phone call.

Per the article the Department of Justice (or as I call it the Department of Injustice) is weighing an investigation into the matter.

Why? Who had their natural rights violated? Where is the victim? Was there a complaint?
 
Old 07-28-2019, 07:48 AM
 
30,017 posts, read 15,663,200 times
Reputation: 20275
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Well, this and a dime gets you a phone call.

Per the article the Department of Justice (or as I call it the Department of Injustice) is weighing an investigation into the matter.

Why? Who had their natural rights violated? Where is the victim? Was there a complaint?
Many liberals believe there should be laws for hurting other people's feelings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top