- #71
zomgwtf
- 66
- 2
Anyways would I be within my fundamental rights, if I were American of course, to burn down their church if they were to cause this type of distress throughout my family?
zomgwtf said:... the same thing as flat out agreeing with what they are doing. You are defending the wrong side, by far. If any of these fallen heroes could come back and you were to ask them, did you die for this form of freedom? I highly doubt they will tell you, yes, yes I did die for nutcases to cause my family distress for raising me as a Catholic.
It hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet.Cyrus said:Is all the shouting in this thread really necessary? Yes, the American legal system has its down sides. Welcome to the real world. The people on the Supreme Court know the law better than you people posting here, so if they ruled in favor of the Church there was a reason why.
elect_eng said:Again, this is misrepresenting my position. I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them. I am not defending their side. I am defending my side which says that freedom of speech is too important to water down. I think fallen heroes would say they did die for this form of freedom. Clearly they would not say they died for nutcases to cause their family distress. This is the unfortunate downside for having the freedom of speech.
I'd like to see these people stopped by legal means, but not by watering down freedom to protest and speak our minds, nor by killing them in cold blood. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how this can be done, but it is starting to sound like a fraud or scam case could eventually be built up over time. However, I'm just speculating based on random statements that have been made in this thread. Are these people expressing a real concern they have, however misguided, or are they trying to profit from harassing people? There is a big difference between the two situations.
This debate about the double-edged-sword nature of free speech has been going on for centuries. The US founding fathers debated this issue and came down on the side that the benefits outweigh the problems. They had first hand experience with what can happen when basic freedoms are denied. When people join the military, they swear to defend these freedoms. If they die in service, they die defending these ideals. I'm not about to try and second guess what they might say if they could be raised from the dead, but it's clear what they said before they died. They said it in words and they said it in deeds.
Cyrus said:My mistake, I misread someones post. Anyways, the point is this: a court does not rule in favor of what is popular. It rules based on what the law says. In this case, it's unfortunate for the family, but that does not mean the court is wrong, or that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. The SC will only make sure the law was followed, that is its purpose.
BoomBoom said:I think they should schedule a Gay Pride parade in front of this church leader's house everday!
zomgwtf said:Which court? The court which originally said it was illegal or the Court o Appeal which overturned that vedict (even though it knows the Supreme Court is going to look into the matter and they overturned it prior to this)?
I guess that means that all that time that the judicial system was ruling in favour of hatred in America they were never wrong once huh? Just doing their job protecting the laws, instead of the people.
Cyrus said:The job of the court is to uphold the law, the job of the legislature is to make them. Please take a class in civics.
As a side note, you only need to use one question mark when you ask a question. Unless you're hard of hearing?
zomgwtf said:This wouldn't be a simple matter of class in civics it would require a class in law. Your are mistaken in your thoughts, it's not that simple.
The job of the court also involves setting precedent which involves how the laws are interpreted and how the are applied. They don't write the law but it is definitely part of the system that they interpret it in certain situations, this being one of them and that is why the Supreme Court has agreed to accept this case.
Alas, that's not what this case is about though. It all has to do with the intent of the church and their comments, were they intentionally just trying to harm the grieving family?
Also you can keep your snide remarks to yourself about whatever posting etiquette I have that you dislike, that or just report me (I'm pretty sure you already have actually). There's no need to try and make people look or feel stupid but from reading the majority of your posts that seems to be one main reason you continue to come here.
Hear, hear! Freedom of speech is not about protecting the rights of people with whom one agrees. It is about protecting the rights of those one deems most loathsome. And these people are indeed most loathsome. I know! Those bastards decided the publicity was right and protested right in front of NASA's main gate with vile, vile placards following the Columbia disaster. I (remotely) knew one of the astronauts who died on the Columbia.elect_eng said:I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them.
Says Cyrus, the ultimate supreme post-response mucky-muck.Cyrus said:That's because the majority of people that respond to me don't spend the time reading what I write, and then try to misrepresent my statements. If you so choose to do that, don't expect me to be nice to you in response: I have no more patience for it. FYI: you should reevaluate how you respond to my posts.
Darned! Don't people have the right to threaten to murder someone? What'd the world coming to?Tobias Funke said:Wasn't it derailed when somebody threatened to brutally murder someone? These last few pages are an embarrassment to the site.