Well, that's not political speech.

"As far as I understand, no one's been going after these people for damages. "

Then you don't know anything about the Supreme Court case that dealt with Phelps's "church". The Snyder v. Phelps case dealt with an individual family who wanted to sue Phelps for emotional distress for his so-called "speech". But hey, let's not let the facts of the case get in the way of your demagoguery about threats to free speech.

"Well, that's not political speech."

Neither is what Phelps does political speech. It's personal attacks for the purpose of causing emotional distress. But here we have you claiming that nobody can possibly make the determination over what speech is ok, and now you're saying that inducing a depressed person to commit suicide is not political speech. Whatever.

I won't be lectured to by a Stalinist about freedom of speech. These people are smarmy goons and ought to be mocked and vilified, but the government has no right to limit what individuals are able to say. This is what a liberal society looks like, and we shouldn't want it any other way.

Lectured? No, you got basic facts wrong. But it's easy to shout *Stalinist* and dodge the inconvenient fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Continue to raise the specter of "government limiting speech" all you want, you apparently don't believe people have any recourse whatsoever to punish those who heckle families with hate, families who simply want to bury their dead without being attacked. If you have to put up with that crap in order to have a 'liberal society', then it isn't worth having. Once again we're giving a false choice by the liberals, we're too dumb to draw lines between authentic political opinion and barbarism.

...I actually sort of agree with Putin on this one. When discussing constitutional jurisprudence people tend to ignore an important point which is the matter off interpretation. and a lot of countries have found that "hate speech" is not protected speech, and there is recourse to prevent it or punish people who engage in it. I suppose the question is why the WBC's antics aren't considered hate speech.

Err, that wasn't a very good post. The connection between constitutional interpretation and hate speech is that people when arguing based on this tend to argue strictly by reading the constitution itself, but the laws, as written on the books are only a part of constitutional law. The rest involves precedent and previous decisions which interpret the constitution. And even the most liberal of liberal democracies do not allow for hate speech.

That being said, I don't think the WBC should be disappeared by the government. That's obviously a very scary idea.

"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."

I'm not going to second guess the Founders or the Supreme Court on this one. No matter how foul the speech may be, the government cannot restrict it simply because it hurts somebody's feelings. Second guess this all you want, but it's the best thing about this country and those who want to tamper with it should be careful what they wish for.

See. That's exactly my point. You just went to it and quoted the constitution. But, when you're discussing constitutional jurisprudence, you can't just ignore precedent. And that's exactly what you're doing!

"And even the most liberal of liberal democracies do not allow for hate speech."

Obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words are the only limits on speech in the United States, as established by precedent. Hate speech is more a societal construct than a legal one in America. This is a terrific thing.

At least as important to precedence is the original text. I spent all of last summer reading court cases (albeit considerably dryer than this) so I realize taking a chunk out of the Constitution does not do much on its own. However, you cannot escape the plain wording of the document on protecting the freedom of speech established there, and precedent has overwhelmingly upheld that freedom.

Actually you're right about that. I was in fact mistaken, the US has come down less on hate speech than any other western democracy. That said since you quoted the wikipedia article on hate speech, allow me to do the same:
"There is a strong international consensus that hate speech is incompatible with free speech, but the United States is perhaps unique among much of the developed world in that under law hate speech regulation is incompatible with free speech."
Once again the US stands alone on this issue amongst the developed world.

To be clear, I used wikipedia since I couldn't remember defamation.

America's position on freedom of speech is the greatest thing about this country. We should cherish it, particularly as it is whittled away with the best of intentions all over the world.

Actually most other countries have their constitutions worded so that absolute freedom of speech never existed in the first place. For instance Section 1 of the Canadian constitution has freedoms subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The American approach to the issue is one one I find that protects majority privilege. It protects the rights of members of the majority groups to spread hate about minorities above the rights of minorities not to have large sections of society riled up against them.

Like I've said many times, leftists aren't protected by the 1st amendment. People are rounded up and put before secretive grand juries for simply organizing on behalf of groups being killed overseas by paramilitaries who get money form the US government. So "be careful what we wish for", communists are prohibited from leading unions in this country. Communists have been rounded up on multiple occasions with two red scares.
Apparently the absolutists only wring their hands about this sort of thing when it applies to the most vile bigots and hatemongers in this country. When it comes to anyone on the left, we have them cheerleading for shoot-to-kill orders against protesters.

Two of the leading founders of this country - Washington and Adams, supported the Alien and Sedition Acts. To say that they envisioned the 1st amendment protecting the Fred Phelps of the world is ludicrous.

The best thing for this country isn't to have innocent families harassed and attacked by the boils on the ass of humanity, for no purpose other than to hurt people. Apparently emotional distress of grieving families is not much of a concern to the civil libertarians of the world. After all, it's "simply hurt feelings".

And once again, the *government* isn't restricting anything in this case, nobody proposed the government restricting the speech of bigots like Phelps (even though anti-war speech is/was/and continues to be restricted all over the place). What *is* being restricted is the ability of grieving families to bring torts against thugs like Fred Phelps for emotional distress. But even that, I guess, is too much to ask in a civilized country.

The Constitution is not a straight jacket that prohibits us from maintaining basic decency. This kind of thinking is a very recent development that is out of sync with court precedent. For whatever reason the Supreme Court is able to use its ability to reason and render decisions which pragmatically limit the protections of other amendments in the Bill of Rights. For example - the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has almost gone out of its way to find loopholes by which this protection can be limited. But the 1st amendment is a different story, at least for some people.

And no worries about quoting Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with that, in a pinch. I just thought it was funny that I read that section of the article and then saw you post it a few seconds later.

So I guess the question is, are all those liberal societies who make distinctions between legitimate speech and hate speech totalitarian dictatorships? Are they run by tyrannical governments? Are people being rounded up for legitimate speech? Are all the slippery slope predictions that civil libertarians bleat on about coming true?

yep

"Are all the slippery slope predictions that civil libertarians bleat on about coming true?" As usual when American civil libertarians claim stuff like that, nope that is not at all the case.

@Inv - Ah right sorry. I didn't follow your link, although I did read the thread yes.

"Are all the slippery slope predictions that civil libertarians bleat on about coming true?"

Well, you had David Irving serve a year in an Austrian prison in 2006 for a speech from 1989 which mentioned denying the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz, a claim he had since turned against. You have Muslim organizations in the UN and other international bodies pushing for a world blasphemy treaty criminalizing all criticism of religion. You have loving, willing couples in the UK being denied the ability to adopt a child because they would not raise the kid to think homosexuality was equally as legitimate as a heterosexual lifestyle. You have South Korea forcing internet posters to use their real name and prosecuting those who make gloomy economic predictions. You have Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn over an article he wrote that was critical of Islam. The list goes on.

It's not quite so bad as, say, China, and most of the cases involve rather unpleasant protagonists and uncomfortable or downright wicked subjects. But absent the protections which exist in the United States protecting the freedom of speech you DO have governments prosecuting their people for thoughtcrime. I'll tolerate some vile cultists squalking if it means the government can't imprison people for having an idea.

While the WBC give me a laugh sometimes (they're a freak show), going go funerals and abusing the families of dead soldiers is too much. Isn't there some way of making that illegal without impinging on free speech? I don't mind them making YouTube videos - they can believe/preach whatever they want, but there is a line between free speech and being a public nuisance.

@ goldfinger

Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia article on infinity.

spyman + 1

All our freedoms are essentially prioritized and the right to mourn in private and be able to show respect should be prioritized under free speech, especially when that speech is especially disruptive. One could argue they have the right to assemble, but even that is specifically spelled out as the right to peaceably assemble. What the WBC does is hardly peaceable.

Wrong term, "should be prioritized *above* free speech". Brain fart I guess cause I'm not on my phone.

Draugnar + 1

"Once again the US stands alone on this issue amongst the developed world. "

'cuz we're awesome

"What the WBC does is hardly peaceable."

Now, I'm no professional, but as I understand it, peaceable is meant to apply to physical violence, destruction of property, etc. It's not in any way illegal for peaceful protesters to shout, make noise, hold banners, etc. And as far as I know the WBC hasn't committed violence of any sort. So that's not really applicable.

Spyman of course has the ideal solution, but the question is how do you frame such a law? Can you safely interpret such a disturbance as a "disturbance of the peace," without that turning into a whole new set of precedence that'll be a problem? I don't think you can really run that course.

I honestly think that the vigilante-ish justice is the best way to handle it. Other, more normaller protesters show up and protest the protest. No law involved, message is clear, nobody can hear the WBC anyway. Simple.

Putin, your last post seems a little divided. You talk about how 1st amendment rights aren't really protected, but then you conclude by saying that they are. Well, except for some people. Feels like you tacked that on. Feels like you've gotta reconcile the difference between the beginning of the post and the end of the post a little earlier than the very last sentence. I also can't seem to find evidence indicating that Washington did, in fact, support the Alien and Sedition acts. If you can provide, that'd be appreciated. I also can't find anything for the anti-war speech suppression. Admittedly it's late and I only did a fast Google, but I'd think that'd turn up SOMETHING, anything.

There is another side of the spectrum from what the WBC is doing. While the WBC is being intentionally repugnant for the mere act of receiving extra-sour limelight. Several on the forum seem to work with college students. How about the scenario of a student needing in the neighborhood of two weeks out of classes to mourn a cousin or uncle (this was recent - a pet)? It is a more innocent cause, but the effect is governing bodies debating putting rules and limitations around protecting and/or limiting human mourning.

@SirBayer - Please see the Webster definition of peaceable below. This is similar to all the other online dictionaries I found. The WBC is most definitely *not* peaceable.

peace·able adj \ˈpē-sə-bəl\
Definition of PEACEABLE
1a : disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome b : quietly behaved
2: free from strife or disorder