114 replies to this topic

[MeOmYo]

if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The assumption is that if a person or group chooses to protest a funeral, they are choosing to be disruptive, and therefore the assembly is NOT peaceful. Therefore, it is not protected by the constitution.

Anyone has the right to say anything they want, but just like anything in life there are certain parameters. You don't have the right to say it anywhere you want.

The discussion is if it should continue to be legal, not if it is legal. If it weren't legal, surely members of a Baptist church wouldn't commit such an act, at least without being arrested for their illegal actions.

[Tooozday]

Is being able to protest at a funeral really a right worth fighting over?

Well, I think it is.

[Joker]

The discussion is if it should continue to be legal, not if it is legal. If it weren't legal, surely members of a Baptist church wouldn't commit such an act, at least without being arrested for their illegal actions.

You and your damn "facts"

[PeaceFrog]

so you both think that they are peacefully protesting?

[PeaceFrog]

because hateful assembly is not protected by the constitution.

[Tim the Beek]

Actually, it is.

See National Socialist Party of America et al. v. Village of Skokie.

[PeaceFrog]

Actually, it is.

See National Socialist Party of America et al. v. Village of Skokie.

That court case does not permit hateful assembly. It permits the use of the swastika during a march.

I'm not a judge or anything... but there seems to be a big difference between hateful assembly and the use of offensive symbols in a peaceful assembly.

The issue here is whether or not a protest should be allowed in close proximity to a burial place during a religious ceremony, and I think it's just common sense and decency to reserve that time and space for those who are grieving, not those who are seeking dissension.

What exactly is being protested that needs to be done right then and there? Why can't they make their point in a more appropriate setting?

[TakeAStepBack]

National Socialist Party of America et al. v. Village of Skokie comprehension fail.

[PeaceFrog]

National Socialist Party of America et al. v. Village of Skokie comprehension fail.

you are the biggest hypocrite on this message board because I hadn't been anything other than civil in this discourse, and this is the answer you give me rather than explaining your interpretation.

you're only reiterating what I've observed in the past, and that is that you are not here to educate others. Your attempts to "explain" do nothing other than baffle people with bullshit.

Why not prove me wrong, and explain where I've miscomprehended instead of making your peanut gallery quips of condescension?

[TakeAStepBack]

With any other member, I would.

[PeaceFrog]

no offense, but that seems like a very small minded attitude since I'm probably not the only one who interpreted the court case the way in which I did.

[Joker]

With any other member, I would.

[Java Time]

Actually, it is.

See National Socialist Party of America et al. v. Village of Skokie.

is there a site that explains the findings for simpletons (not wikipedia)...I can't understand the legal shit in the cornell site...or any other site I checked using my awesome powers of research


to me it looks like the commies had to go to the supreme court to file a stay which I think repeals skokies original injuction of not allowing uniforms ans swat-stickers?


I don't understand the final verdict of this...they won but because of insurance costs they didn't march or marched somewhere else?

Edited by Java Time, 17 August 2012 - 10:54 PM.

[Tooozday]

I think it's just common sense and decency to reserve that time and space for those who are grieving, not those who are seeking dissension.

And that is a valid point. But common sense is not something that I trust to courts and legislation, and "decency" changes from person to person. Along with others, I think that the protesting group is gross and their message is disgusting. But I support their right to say these distasteful and hurtful things. My views may be distasteful (or lacking in common sense or decency) to others, and I don't wish to be forced into silence.

[PeaceFrog]

nobody is trying to force you or anyone else into complete silence. it's already a law that you can't protest at a national memorial. this law is a variation of that one. There are certain places that are off limits to protesting... it's just a law regardless of the reason for protest.

As reasonable human beings, I'm confident that we're able to understand and accept these terms without "slipping off the slope."