Westboro nutjobs to protest at 9 year old girl's funeral who died in arizona shooting

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Why does England need Nuclear Bombs, Air Force, and Destroyer Ships?

-John

Good question, I would argue that we don't need nuclear bombs, the only reason we have them is the nuclear deterrent, which is absurd. But comparing a nations nuclear arsenal to an 18 year old moron with an AK47 is absurd.

Air force and Destroyers we need them more for defence than anything else (because other people have them) in a perfect world we wouldn't have them, the same as in a better country we don't have guns.

Please note, the answer to this question is not "Because it's our right"... That's no argument we have a military to defend against other countries that have one, if we could remove all militaries from the world simultaneously, we should.

America is like a petulant child carrying a boiling pot of water, you tell it to put it down and he says no, you ask why and the child replies because I don't want to.
 
Last edited:

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
In America, guns are used for both offensive (Government and Criminals) and defensive (Government, individuals and criminals) purposes.

Our right to bear arms, as individuals, is to protect ourselves from Government, Criminals, and in the case England goes crazy and lights up the Middle East with Nuclear Bombs... we can shoot rabbits for food.

-John
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
In Anerica, guns are used for both offensive (Government and Criminals) and defensive Government, individuals and criminals) purposes.

Our right to bear arms, as individuals, is to protect ourselves from Government, Criminals, and in the case England goes crazy and lights up the Middle East with Nuclear Bombs... we can shoot rabbits.

-John

1) you don't need to defend yourself against against anyone if no one else has guns.
2) You don't need to shoot rabbits with an AK47, you can do it with a shotgun (Which you can own legally in the UK with a licence)
3) You don't need to protect yourself against the government that's crazy mental person thinking.
4) Criminals wouldn't have guns if you had done the right thing and made them illegal.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Protecting ourselves against our Government, is one of the main purposes of the second amendment. You apparently don't understand how Americans do not want to be subservient to Government.

America is an experiment in limited Government (or it was supposed to be), and our Forefathers told Government that they CANNOT take away our right to bear arms... just for the case our Government tried to take away our right to bear arms.

-John
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Protecting ourselves against our Government, is one of the main purposes of the second amendment. You apparently don't understand how Americans do not want to be subservient to Government.

America is an experiment in limited Government (or it was supposed to be), and our Forefathers told Government that they CANNOT take away our right to bear arms... just for the case our Government tried to take away our arms.

-John

OK but you are then saying it's a-ok to be shooting members of the government if you disagree with them?! :rolleyes:
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Hang on, thinking about it. If your sole argument is that you need a gun incase the government come and get you :sneaky: then I have no time to waste with you and I'm going to sleep. Goodnight. It's 8am I need sleep.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Just like they cannot take away our right to Free Speech.

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

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.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [5]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


-John
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Hang on, thinking about it. If your sole argument is that you need a gun incase the government come and get you :sneaky: then I have no time to waste with you and I'm going to sleep. Goodnight. It's 8am I need sleep.
Good night. Nice talking to you.

-John
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
It's because these fundamental rights are under attack.

The right to Free Speech? The right to Bear Arms?

Only a Society that has something to fear from free speech, or, bearing arms, would outlaw them.

Our Forefathers felt strongly, that both Free Speech, and the Right to Bear Arms, were inviolate.

-John


There are two reasons for this:

1) The monarchy that they were running from was never to be questioned or the issues they decided on were not to be debated. The monarchy was without fault in every decision and us mere peasants were never allowed to question that. Thus, when our forefathers left Britain and created this new nation they wanted everyone to be able to voice their opinion, giving birth to the First.

2) The 2nd was put in place because British troops were moving into colonists' houses and basically bullying the American people. Thus, in order to prevent that kind of treatment to our country ever again, they allowed every American to own a gun for protection. Ever wonder why nobody will attack this country? We have a standing army of over 100 million armed civilians, many of which are experienced hunters or have many hours playing shooting simulators (video games :p ). A country would have to be bat shit crazy to try and invade America at this point, all because of our right to bear arms. And I'm sorry if this offends any of you, but I put the 2nd ahead of someone getting shot. Even if it were me I would tell you the 2nd is a necessary "evil" in some respects.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Just like they cannot take away our right to Free Speech.

Wall of text

-John

Your argument appears to be "It can't be made illegal because it can't be made illegal" regardless of the thousands of lives it would save, over here we chose life and logic over tradition.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Although I despise relig-nuts like the Westboro kooks, I applaud today's 8-1 decision by the SCOTUS.

So in the last 3 years both the 1st and 2nd amendments have been re-affirmed. Looks like things are working how they are supposed to.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Although I despise relig-nuts like the Westboro kooks, I applaud today's 8-1 decision by the SCOTUS.

So in the last 3 years both the 1st and 2nd amendments have been re-affirmed. Looks like things are working how they are supposed to.

Agreed although I can't understand WTF Alito was thinking dissenting...
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
Although I despise relig-nuts like the Westboro kooks, I applaud today's 8-1 decision by the SCOTUS.

So in the last 3 years both the 1st and 2nd amendments have been re-affirmed. Looks like things are working how they are supposed to.

Did you not read the entire opinion or just the holding? I did a brief skimming. The holding says the guy cannot collect, the dicta more or less says states can regulate speech as long as it is reasonable. They didn't address the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting protests near funerals because no such law was in existence in the jurisdiction when the case took place, but their dicta indicates they aren't likely to declare them unconstitutional.

Currently under the state law of most states, even after today, people are prohibited from protesting within a certain distance of a funeral. Westboro won the battle but it looks like they may/will lose the war. It will be up to the states to push the boundaries of what is a reasonable distance. Hopefully the media just stops covering the sorry excuses of human beings.
 
Last edited:

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Did you not read the entire opinion or just the holding? I did a brief skimming. The holding says the guy cannot collect, the dicta more or less says states can regulate speech as long as it is reasonable. They didn't address the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting protests near funerals, but their dicta indicates they aren't likely to declare them unconstitutional.

Currently under the state law of most states, people are now prohibited from protesting within a certain distance of a funeral. They won the battle but may be losing the war.

Yes part of the majority opinion stated that they were outside of the set "zone" (I think it was 1000 yards or something).

I am sure states will play with the limits, just as they do with gun rights, abortion rights, etc. But this ruling is going to be used to invalidate any further encroachment of 1st amendment/protest rights.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
Yes part of the majority opinion stated that they were outside of the set "zone" (I think it was 1000 yards or something).

I am sure states will play with the limits, just as they do with gun rights, abortion rights, etc. But this ruling is going to be used to invalidate any further encroachment of 1st amendment/protest rights.

No. The holding is not that broad. Plus, the opinion plainly states government can regulate when and where speech can be conducted as long as it is reasonable. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issues of regulating speech. This does nothing to change that. Nor does it stop states from regulating speech like this.

The 38 or so states that filed amicus briefs got what they wanted, atleast for now, and likely forever, and that is to regulate speech like this in a "reasonable" manner.

The reason it was 8-1 is largely because they didn't address the constitutionality of the state laws(and they shouldnt have really, as it wasnt about them). If they had there would have been split and plurality opinions.
 
Last edited:

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
No. The holding is not that broad. Plus, the opinion plainly states government can regulate when and where speech can be conducted as long as it is reasonable. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the issues of regulating speech. This does nothing to change that. Nor does it stop states from regulating speech like this.

The 38 or so states that filed amicus briefs got what they wanted, atleast for now, and likely forever, and that is to regulate speech like this in a "reasonable" manner.

The reason it was 8-1 is largely because they didn't address the constitutionality of the state laws(and they shouldnt have really, as it wasnt about them). There would have been a big time split plurality in judgement but not in reasoning if they delved into the constitutionality of states regulating free speech. They side stepped the issue for another day, so states are free to regulate speech like this so long as it is reasonable.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

I think you misread what I was saying. The court acknowledged the laws that the states have enacted, including requiring protests to be a certain distance from the funerals.

But what else can be done to stop them? This ruling made it very clear they cannot be sued for "emotional damage" or any of that garbage.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, movethem to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stiflepublic debate. That choice requires that we shield West-boro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

I think you misread what I was saying. The court acknowledged the laws that the states have enacted, including requiring protests to be a certain distance from the funerals.

But what else can be done to stop them? This ruling made it very clear they cannot be sued for "emotional damage" or any of that garbage.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, movethem to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stiflepublic debate. That choice requires that we shield West-boro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

They also cited, a previous ruling that allowed government to regulate speech so long as it is reasonable. Then they danced around the state laws in question because it wasnt an issue at hand in the current case.

This bars them from tort liability, but a state can put a restriction on protesting a funeral. Not just the church but funeral homes, cemetaries, and the processional. This ruling allows them to do that, until the court specifically address the constitutionality of state laws. And since they have already ruled and even stated in this opinion, government can regulate when and where speech can be conducted, so long as the regulation is reasonable, my bet if Westboro challenges state laws there will be a 5-4 split.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,524
126
In the last half century or so there has been a somewhat increasing recognition of a tort liability commonly known as intentional inflction of emotional distress-something that has always conflicted with First Amendment rights. I wonder if this decision will be interpreted as absolutely closing the door on that tort in the USA? (It could be construed from Roberts' comments that the plaintiffs didn't factually prove their case, whereas Alito apparently concluded they did). There should be some very interesting scholarly articles in the next few weeks about this.

The limits of free speech is always one of the more interesting areas of American jurisprudence.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
In the last half century or so there has been a somewhat increasing recognition of a tort liability commonly known as intentional inflction of emotional distress-something that has always conflicted with First Amendment rights. I wonder if this decision will be interpreted as absolutely closing the door on that tort in the USA? (It could be construed from Roberts' comments that the plaintiffs didn't factually prove their case, whereas Alito apparently concluded they did). There should be some very interesting scholarly articles in the next few weeks about this.

The limits of free speech is always one of the more interesting areas of American jurisprudence.


Yes this hopefully will put a dent in any sort of "Hate speech" bullshit. There is no right to not be offended in this country.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,524
126
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress really has nothing to do with hate speech, they are two completely different things. And hate speech prohibitions are hardly about any right not to be offended. Generally put hate speech provisions are something like a sentence enhancer where a regular crime carries an increased penalty because of the prepetrator's expressed motivations.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
My comment about the recent SCOTUS decision that used general first amendments rights to permit the rights of the WBC to be idiots may in fact empower the overall rights of WBC counter protesters.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Although I despise relig-nuts like the Westboro kooks, I applaud today's 8-1 decision by the SCOTUS.

So in the last 3 years both the 1st and 2nd amendments have been re-affirmed. Looks like things are working how they are supposed to.

doesn't the family have the right to bury their son in peace?