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.
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?
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.
... 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 10–11. 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' ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
