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.
Wow, interesting responses. I think freedom of speech should always be respected, regardless of what the speaker says, regardless of how offensive the content may be, BUT, I agree with moonshadow that is does seem selectively applied in practice. If a group of black inner-city kids were at the funerals protesting poor inner-city schools would they be asked to move away? If it was a group of Islamic militants protesting the war, would they be asked to move away? I wonder.
I think that SCOTUS is going to focus pretty narrowly on the specifics in this case. The funeral was private, so I would think that rather than addressing freedom of speech, the justices will address privacy issues.
Who cares? Elections cost the community money; public schools cost the community money; the Fourth of July parade costs the community money. Public demonstrations are as important to a democratic society as elections and public education.
And the money comes from those people paying tax. As far as I'm concerned no pay, no say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
Wow, interesting responses. I think freedom of speech should always be respected, regardless of what the speaker says, regardless of how offensive the content may be, BUT, I agree with moonshadow that is does seem selectively applied in practice. If a group of black inner-city kids were at the funerals protesting poor inner-city schools would they be asked to move away? If it was a group of Islamic militants protesting the war, would they be asked to move away? I wonder.
Yeah that's how I feel too. There's already plenty of evidence to suggest that Freedom Of Speech laws are selectively applied and it does seem to have an awful lot to do with money. SO I'm thinking that eventually it's going to get too costly for communities to keep paying out compensation for allowing this group to protest when it isn't contributing to the financial status of the community. HOPEFULLY that will provide the impetus to move them along in the end. Pay up or shut up. That's my thoughts on this particular matter.
I think that SCOTUS is going to focus pretty narrowly on the specifics in this case. The funeral was private, so I would think that rather than addressing freedom of speech, the justices will address privacy issues.
I hope so because to me that would seem a better way to go.
I think that SCOTUS is going to focus pretty narrowly on the specifics in this case. The funeral was private, so I would think that rather than addressing freedom of speech, the justices will address privacy issues.
I agree.
Freedom of speech is one thing, disturbing private ceremonies and presentations on private property is something entirely different. If allowed, how far are we willing to go? Is it okay for a group of radcials on any given topic to disturb a concert or stage play that the audience has paid good money to see? How about demonstrating at a wedding, a major league sports event, funerals, an operating room?---you name it. When one person's freedom of speech interfears with another person's right to privacy then Houston, we have a problem.
Freedom of speech is one thing, disturbing private ceremonies and presentations on private property is something entirely different. If allowed, how far are we willing to go? Is it okay for a group of radcials on any given topic to disturb a concert or stage play that the audience has paid good money to see? How about demonstrating at a wedding, a major league sports event, funerals, an operating room?---you name it. When one person's freedom of speech interfears with another person's right to privacy then Houston, we have a problem.
I support what you are saying here. Freedom of Speech is certainly different then disturbing private ceremonies and presentations on private property and more. When it does get out of control, just how far are we willing to go? There are plenty of times that freedom of speech does interfear with another person's right, so then what? Or should this be common practice when it does come to freedom of speech. Should this just be accepted, and we go on with our business, many different takes on this subject.
Freedom of speech is one thing, disturbing private ceremonies and presentations on private property is something entirely different. If allowed, how far are we willing to go? Is it okay for a group of radcials on any given topic to disturb a concert or stage play that the audience has paid good money to see? How about demonstrating at a wedding, a major league sports event, funerals, an operating room?---you name it. When one person's freedom of speech interfears with another person's right to privacy then Houston, we have a problem.
There is no right to free speech on private property, so most of your complaints come under the rubric of "strawman." If you are in a public venue, to which the public at large is allowed, you have no legitimate expectation of privacy or protection from speech you find distasteful.
There is no right to free speech on private property, so most of your complaints come under the rubric of "strawman." If you are in a public venue, to which the public at large is allowed, you have no legitimate expectation of privacy or protection from speech you find distasteful.
You are ignoring the fact that many public venues are located on private properties. That's the rub. A funeral may be private, and the cemetery may be privately owned, but a cemetery is still a public venue. Malls and shopping centers are privately owned, and yet because they are public venues, often have less ability to control visitors than a public school, a truly publicly owned enterprise, has over students and visitors.
The SCOTUS will be looking at balancing interests. Are the interests of the people attending a funeral more important than the interests of protesters at that funeral? They have to consider the specifics of this situation, as well as the political implications that some funerals have. They also will look at the actions and intent of the protesters. Are they there to peacefully exercise their freedom of speech, or are they actively disrupting the proceedings? Are their actions intentionally increasing the distress of the bereaved?
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.
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.
