Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tango on April 27, 2011, 10:09:48 PM
-
See Rule #14
-
Locked soon. But I do hate these people....RIP all soldiers that have lost their lives!!!
:salute
-BigBOBCH
-
:salute Staff Sgt Jason Rogers :pray
-
As disgusting as this group is, they do have a Constitutional right to do what they do.
ack-ack
-
I wonder Akak, isn't a funeral a private affair?
-
Not so long as it's in view of the general public. Which sucks sometimes.
There's a major difference between protesting for a cause and causing undue emotional pain for headlines.
On a personal note before we all get rule numbered I wouldn't mind going Trunkmonkey on those jerks.
-
Not so long as it's in view of the general public. Which sucks sometimes.
There's a major difference between protesting for a cause and causing undue emotional pain for headlines.
On a personal note before we all get rule numbered I wouldn't mind going Trunkmonkey on those jerks.
Didn't see anything in that article that stopped them from protesting. They just weren't able to do it at the funeral.
-
Believe me, I'm happy as I can be that they were thwarted.
-
I have to handed to the people of the south. They are true patriot. They still have it in their blood even after being defeated in the American Civil War. :salute
-
They've got 71 members. That's nothing. AKAK has more people in his fan club than 71. It's just such a small insignificant number I can't believe they garner any publicity at all.
-
As disgusting as this group is, they do have a Constitutional right to do what they do.
ack-ack
No, they don't. A funeral during process is a private affair, and considered private property, (as the plot holder has paid for that property). The WB church can protest, but not to the extent that it would interfere with any activities that happen on (or causing a disturbance on) that property.
Their "right" to do this BS will be overturned. They can also be charged with disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct by most state laws.
-
No, they don't. A funeral during process is a private affair, and considered private property, (as the plot holder has paid for that property). The WBB church can protest, but not to the extent that it would interfere with any activities that happen on (or causing a disturbance on) that property.
Their "right" to do this BS will be overturned.
I think the supreme court just ruled that they do have the right to do this BS.
I have family in the Army. If they were to show up at funeral for someone I love that would be the last thing they ever did.
-
I think the supreme court just ruled that they do have the right to do this BS.
I have family in the Army. If they were to show up at funeral for someone I love that would be the last thing they ever did.
It's pending appeal. It will be overturned. There was a technicality that they used that can only be overridden by appelate court.
EDIT: Also, the state laws vary, so it'll be a tricky process. I would bet that it'll be a non issue before too long.
EDIT2: I shouldn't have used the term "appelate court". Sorry if that misled anyone.
-
It's pending appeal. It will be overturned. There was a technicality that they used that can only be overridden by appelate court.
Oh, I didn't know you could appeal a ruling from the supreme court.
-
Oh, I didn't know you could appeal a ruling from the supreme court.
Sure can. Why do ya think Roe vs. Wade is still being argued? There's a process to appeal almost any decision.
EDIT: It wouldn't be easy, but with an issue like this... It'll get done.
I'll clarify it just a bit...
No single entity, whether it be the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government. However (here's the kicker), if the Supreme Court strikes down a federal law, Congress can always modify the law until it is such that the Supreme Court does not consider it to violate the Constitution, then pass it again.
The other way is to pass and ratify a Constitutional Amendment, which the Supreme Court would then have to abide by.
The Supreme court can also overrule its own previous rulings.
Again, difficult but not out of reach.
-
Their "right" to do this BS will be overturned.
Anyone who's willing to chip away at the first amendment to silence a few whack jobs is more of a problem than the whack jobs them selves.
-
Anyone who's willing to chip away at the first amendment to silence a few whack jobs is more of a problem than the whack jobs them selves.
Apparently you have no concept of personal rights, or law as it pertains to those rights for that matter. You may want to re-read freedom of speech, as you have it wrong.
Here's a little for ya...
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom.
Now, let's talk about the harm principle for a minute.
If in fact the offense is profound enough to allow for prohibition...
"If pornographers engaged in the same behavior, parading through neighborhoods where they were likely to meet great resistance and cause profound offense, they too should be prevented from doing so. It is clear, therefore, that the crucial component of the offense principle is the avoidability of the offensive material. For the argument to be consistent, it must follow that many forms of hate speech should still be allowed if the offense is easily avoidable."
Have you ever wondered why porn can't be sold within 1000 yds of a school, or why nudity can't be shown on basic cable??? It's called avoidability.
In layman's terms. If you want to spew that crap.... Do it at home... NOT at a soldier's funeral.
-
Apparently you have no concept of personal rights, or law as it pertains to those rights for that matter.
Well, I am far from a lawyer, if I wanted to be a potato I'd just go stand on the corner and save my self from the mind numbing hell that must be reading encyclopedic amounts of case law.
Here's a little for ya...
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
That's a nice quote, but being unfamiliar with it I decided to see where it came from. Quite a surprise to find out that it comes not from an American work but from a French document "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen". We're discussing the Constitution of the United States of America here and how it pertains to Americans on American soil, not the finer points of the French revolution so I will respond with a quote I find appropriate.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, let's go into Mill's Harm Principle for a minute.
"If in fact the offense is profound enough to allow for prohibition...
If pornographers engaged in the same behavior, parading through neighborhoods where they were likely to meet great resistance and cause profound offense, they too should be prevented from doing so. It is clear, therefore, that the crucial component of the offense principle is the avoidability of the offensive material. For the argument to be consistent, it must follow that many forms of hate speech should still be allowed if the offense is easily avoidable."
That's actually some pretty good stuff, I enjoyed the bit of reading up on it I did. But has it ever been used in the context we are talking here?
Lets look at freedom of assembly for a moment. "The government may place restrictions on the right to assemble that will maintain law and order, facilitate traffic, protect private property and reduce noise congestion. The courts allow these restrictions, as long as the restrictions are not aimed at squelching a particular group's free speech because it is unpopular or not liked."
The bold part is the important part. Any restrictions that you would put in place to try and silence one group has to be applied to others. Maybe a sly way around it would be to call an emergency city council meeting and ram an ordinance through that restores full property rights over sidewalks to the owners of said property, and then revert the law back once the storm has passed. In the end though I think the best way to shut these people up is with counter protest.
NOT at a soldier's funeral.
Couldn't agree with you more, what these people do is the pinnacle of tastelessness and disrespect. That said I am proud to live in a country where people are free to protest openly and express their views no matter how unpopular, and others are free to show up 200 deep on their Harleys and drown them out with a thunderous roar. The people of WBC are nothing more than the worlds greatest IRL trolls looking for reactions and headlines. Don't give them the satisfaction, just give them the finger and keep on trucking.
P.S. When old man Phelps kicks the bucket anyone wanna make some "Thank god for dead Fred" signs and take a roadtrip with me?
-
I'm curious if Mr Phelps Intention is not to harass the poor families but to destroy the 1st amendment itself. What better way for the people to accept the curtailment of rights than to do it for the protection of others. Compile this with the media and government's new obsession with bullying and you might see what I am getting at.
-
Yep and the citizens of Rankin county Mississippi had every right to do just what the did to prevent these ding dongs from creating a problem.
-
Yeah, locked soon. Similar post by someone earier. Watch out for the ban hammer.
IN
<S> Oz
-
OUT :banana: