Supreme court rules in favor of Protesters

[pcgizzmo]

I don't necessarily believe in hel* but if there is a hel* I think there is a special place for these people there. In fact I think their should be a special kind of he*l just for them.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Consider the intent of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech:

Majority speech on any topic will always be protected by the sheer majority
of people who hold those views.

Freedom of speech allows those who hold minority opinions to state their views
without fear of imprisonment for sedition/treason, etc.

Since even unpopular opinions may be voiced by anyone, Americans are free to
discuss the pros and cons of all sides. No one's speech is shut off due to some
governmental edict.

America has a history of lively debate on all issues. Even unpopular people like
the morons of the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to spout their foolishness.

SIA

[surprise_i'm_armed]

The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet.
It requires a certain relish for confusion.
Molly Ivins, Texas journalist, 1944-2007

AndyC:
Do we HAVE to listen to someone else's disturbing speech?
We shouldn't have to, but anyone who is not a hermit living out in the boonies
will tend to come into contact with people with whom they do not agree.

Yes, the Supremes' decision was kind of simplistic.

But I don't think any Constitutional concept allows the complete separation of
two opposing parties. It's not in the document.

I don't like Westboro Baptist Church any better than most folks, but there is
not a way I'm aware that they can be banned. And if there WAS a way to be
banned from congregating near fellow Americans, what person/group would
the next ban apply to?

SIA

[terryg]

I do not agree that SCOTUS ruled in favor of the protesters, they ruled in favor of the 1st amendment, this obnoxious & fake church just happened to be the people filing the suit. We cannot change the Constitution because of people like this, if we could where do you think the 2nd Amendment would end up? Personally I do not want to see and find out just when we are starting to get our rights back a step at a time.

Very well spoken indeed.

[puma guy]

Andy C, I read your post and I think I know where you're coming from. Reading your comments on this forum I think you are a wise and gifted fellow with great skills and knowledge and most of all a gentleman. I know you would never subject another person either in tone or rhetoric to anything like the vitriol spewed by this group calling themselves Christians. However, ask yourself this question; exactly which words and phrases would you like the government to prevent you yourself from saying? I can only imagine the the emotional torment the poor folks go through who are subjected to Westboro's exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It must be horrible. But I think SCOTUS was correct to decide they have that right.

[G26ster]

How does the decision by SCOTUS square with this?

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

[surprise_i'm_armed]

I'm saying that their right to freedom of speech should not be allowed to supercede someone else's right not to be forced to listen to it - otherwise our society will just become like a Communist re-education camp, with someone blaring their propaganda/point-of-view at a helpless, captive audience using the excuse of freedom of speech.

This is kind of a richochet comment on our ongoing discussion but Andy's use of the word
"blaring" and whether people should have to listen to other people's yelling made me think of this:

Japanese people generally are stereotyped as being polite,reserved, and averse to disagreements.

But during every election season, candidates and their supporters routinely use loudspeaker-equipped
trucks, and cruise them down the streets, exhorting voters with high decibels harangues about why
their candidate should get their vote.

That's rather bizarre that a quiet, reserved society allows dueling sound trucks to ride around and blast
their political rhetoric to the world at large. It gets quite noisy. Are there any off limits hours? I don't know.

But I do know that if someone is an "off shift" worker and needs to be a day or evening sleeper (as opposed
to "night" sleeper) that these trucks would definitely lower the quality of life in their home.

SIA

[puma guy]

I'm saying that their right to freedom of speech should not be allowed to supercede someone else's right not to be forced to listen to it - otherwise our society will just become like a Communist re-education camp, with someone blaring their propaganda/point-of-view at a helpless, captive audience using the excuse of freedom of speech.

This is kind of a richochet comment on our ongoing discussion but Andy's use of the word
"blaring" and whether people should have to listen to other people's yelling made me think of this:

Japanese people generally are stereotyped as being polite,reserved, and averse to disagreements.

But during every election season, candidates and their supporters routinely use loudspeaker-equipped
trucks, and cruise them down the streets, exhorting voters with high decibels harangues about why
their candidate should get their vote.

That's rather bizarre that a quiet, reserved society allows dueling sound trucks to ride around and blast
their political rhetoric to the world at large. It gets quite noisy. Are there any off limits hours? I don't know.

But I do know that if someone is an "off shift" worker and needs to be a day or evening sleeper (as opposed
to "night" sleeper) that these trucks would definitely lower the quality of life in their home.

SIA

SIA - I think you inadvertently left me in the

from Andy C and it appears to be me <puma guy> being quoted.

[puma guy]

How does the decision by SCOTUS square with this?

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

I have no problem prosecuting these people if a court decides it meets that criteria.

[Beiruty]

How does the decision by SCOTUS square with this?

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Maybe if someone filed a suit against TX in regard of this law, it might be found unconstitutional.

[WildBill]

Japanese people generally are stereotyped as being polite,reserved, and averse to disagreements.

But during every election season, candidates and their supporters routinely use loudspeaker-equipped trucks, and cruise them down the streets, exhorting voters with high decibels harangues about why their candidate should get their vote.

That's rather bizarre that a quiet, reserved society allows dueling sound trucks to ride around and blast their political rhetoric to the world at large. It gets quite noisy. Are there any off limits hours? I don't know. SIA

I was in Japan during one of these blitzes. The same thing happened very early one weekend when I was in Penang, but it was a religious group doing the blasting. I literally jumped out of bed. I thought we were being attacked or something like that.

[WildBill]

How does the decision by SCOTUS square with this?

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Maybe if someone filed a suit against TX in regard of this law, it might be found unconstitutional.

This law has been tested in court many times.