ext_97971 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
enders-shadow.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-05-21 01:06 pm
enders-shadow.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-05-21 01:06 pm
Entry tags:
Fighting Words
So this link was given by someone in a thread in this comm a bit back. I stumbled upon it, thought it was interesting and read it. It's not terribly long. Go ahead, read it. I'll wait.
Awesome, now I have a question.
How come Fred Phelps and his WBC aren't subject to this? I mean, isn't his whole shpeel that he pisses people off so they hit him, he files a civil suit and uses the $$ earned to go to the next place and piss off more people with his hate filled speech.
From SCOTUS:
It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality
I do not like censorship, and I am against it the majority of the times. Yet Phelps and WBC serves *no social value* [IMO] and if it has even a shred of social value, it is outweighed by the infliction of injury and the inciting of a breach of the peace.
this is a bit tired and treaded, sorry, but the link rekindled my interest in the topic.
~Namaste
Awesome, now I have a question.
How come Fred Phelps and his WBC aren't subject to this? I mean, isn't his whole shpeel that he pisses people off so they hit him, he files a civil suit and uses the $$ earned to go to the next place and piss off more people with his hate filled speech.
From SCOTUS:
It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality
I do not like censorship, and I am against it the majority of the times. Yet Phelps and WBC serves *no social value* [IMO] and if it has even a shred of social value, it is outweighed by the infliction of injury and the inciting of a breach of the peace.
this is a bit tired and treaded, sorry, but the link rekindled my interest in the topic.
~Namaste
no subject
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=140446
I think I remember a discussion previously regarding protests at funeral/memorial services. While I can understand the freedom of speech part, it's still extremely distasteful. Especially when there's no reason for it, other than hate.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject