I have to say, the only thing surprising about this case is that it was 8-1. I thought for sure this would be unanimous.
Reader Interactions
102Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.
Eh, that’s media spin. biden’s health is fine and he’s doing a good job.
Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.
This really is a full service blog.
Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.
Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.
Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.
Battle won, war still ongoing.
Peak wingnut was a lie.
Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.
I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.
JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?
The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.
When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.
Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?
Not all heroes wear capes.
The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.
Impressively dumb. Congratulations.
Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.
Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.
Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.
Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.
Good lord, these people are nuts.
geg6
Agree. Much as I hate these fuckers, First Amendment is First Amendment. Better to use citizen actions to drown them out or scare them away than try to shrink freedom of speech through the courts. We’ve lost enough liberties in the last decade without losing any more.
Chris Wolf
Of course, Mark Levine was crying about the Court’s decision.
I hate these “Free speech for me, but not for thee” asshats.
General Stuck
Same here. More evidence that Alito is a fruit loop and who knows what makes him tick. If we didn’t have cretinous religious whackjobs able to speak their diseased minds, then who would? And it is always better to know where they are and what they are up to.
I liked this response to them.
Free speech runs both ways, and sometime has wings.
suzanne
@geg6: Concur. I hate what they say, but I’m glad they have the right to say it.
freelancer
First line of Alito’s dissent:
Uhhhh, that’s exactly what it is, a license to be as big an asshole as you want without facing criminal or civil prosecution for what you say. Sounds like Alito and Palin need to go back to 1st Amendment school.
Free speech isn’t limited to “That hurts my feelings and therefore should be illegal”.
ETA: In case it isn’t obvious, I denounce Stalin, broccoli, and the WBC
dmsilev
@Chris Wolf: Sarah Palin also attacked the decision. About as predictable as the tides, she is.
dms
Joel
If they weren’t free to be sick, pathetic assholes, I wouldn’t be free to call them out on it.
gex
Isn’t their strategy to be as vile as possible, hoping to egg someone on and cause a fracas so they can sue the bejeesus out of people? Is that fee speech or incitement? I want to consider it incitement because I hate their message so much. But I prefer to err on the side of free speech. Let them be assholes. In some way, I think it helps gays. If they become the face of being anti-gay, it will be a lot more uncomfortable being outwardly homophobic. Or I would hope.
stuckinred
@Chris Wolf: What will he say when they uphold HCR?
Martin
I’m not entirely unconvinced by Alito’s argument here. What exactly is Westboro adding to the public debate here, and why in this venue? I don’t have a problem with the decision, but the Westboro protests seem exclusively designed to harm, and not to advance any particular argument or invite discussion.
stuckinred
@gex: And if someone exercises their right to kick the shit out of one or more of them and accept the consequences, go for it!
Arclite
Given that both this and animal cruelty are protected free speech, how are they able to ban child pr0n0graphy?
jeff
One thing I learned from this is that Alito, no matter what else he may be, does have feelings, although I agree with the majority. I was really upset last year when animal torture films that perverts use for sex were deemed protected speech. Alito was the sole dissenter there, too. I think Alito was wrong about Westboro, but I’m sure he was right about the torturing of kittens for profit case, especially since it’s already illegal to torture kittens: a video recording of the same cannot be protected speech if it is part of a for-profit trade in an outlawed practice. The court, I think, was mislead by the fact that the victims (baby animals) are not the sort of entities that have rights.
Anyway, it’s interesting that Alito has such a different take than his colleagues.
nitpicker
Sarah Palin, who apparently thinks it’s a violation of the First Amendment to criticize her, disagrees with the Supremes.
Omnes Omnibus
Reprehensible assholes, of course. Nevertheless, I share Cole’s surprise that this was not unanimous. WTF Alito?
Mark S.
I’m surprised it wasn’t 9-0 as well. If you want proof that oral arguments don’t make much difference the vast majority of the time, read this summary of the argument in this case. One of Fred’s daughters made just about every stupid argument one could make and still won.
ed g
Margie Phelps stated that is pleased to get to be the mouth of God. If God has one orifice, they He must have others. I think Margie P. is confused on which end of God she is representing.
Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel)
Fuckin’ Illinois Nazis. What can you do?
ed g
Margie Phelps stated that she is pleased to get to be the mouth of God. If God has one orifice, they He must have others. I think Margie P. is confused on which end of God she is representing.
jeff
@Arclite:
Animal cruelty is NOT protected; only profit and sales resulting from animal cruelty are protected. If it’s fun to watch, it’s ok. God knows what this precedent portends for possible future R v. W challenges.
Martin
Heh. Sully posted another one of my dissents. No way am I checking in on him at the Daily Beast, though. I won’t give Huffington the page views either.
nitpicker
@Parallel 5ths (Jewish Steel): I hate Illinois Nazis.
Arclite
@jeff: Right, animal cruelty is not legal, but animal cruelty vids are, right? But both s4x with children and child pr0n0graphy are illegal. I’m trying to understand where the boundary is. I would have thought the same logic would apply to animal cruelty videos as child pr0n making both illegal.
General Stuck
The term harm, is so open to individual definition, I support not defining it further, outside physical harm, or incitement thereof. It is too easy to conflate the word “harm” with “offensive” and that would be a very slippery slope. The decision on videos of animal cruelty was a tough one for me to support, though the actual acts of cruelty, were, and remain illegal, where do you draw the line. Would it then be illegal for PETA or others to do undercover filming in commercial venues like with poultry farms, or slaughterhouses?
Based on some tenuous definition of good or ill intent.
Omnes Omnibus
@Martin: One problem with that take on this issue is that one must judge the content of the speech in order to decide what speech has value. Once one begins doing that and permitting or not permitting speech based on that judgment, one is regulating the content of speech and punishing speech one does not like. Further, in answer to the question of what does the WBC bring to the conversation? Vileness and hatred. Few would dispute that. Nevertheless, I would argue that there still is value in have that speech be heard.
Arclite
@General Stuck:
I agree, but if I surreptitiously film someone banging a child and use that vid to have them prosecuted, will I be guilty of making child pr9n? Meaning can’t motivation be used as a determining factor of illegality? Tricky I agree, and I don’t know the law at all in these cases, so I’m asking how it works.
Redshift
@gex: That’s what everyone believes their strategy is, but it isn’t what they say it is. And incitement, as I understand it, means directly inciting people to violence, not just doing stuff that pisses people off so much that they get violent. Otherwise much of the Civil Rights movement would be considered incitement.
Martin
Aw. David Lynch (neo-Nazi, not filmmaker) was believed killed today. I’m evaluating whether I have a tear to spare for him. I suspect not.
freelancer
@Arclite:
I’d be asking why you’re choosing to film it instead of button-mashing your phone in a mad effort to dial 911.
General Stuck
@Arclite:
Well, since it is the law that any knowledge of child abuse, must be reported by anyone who has evidence of such, I don’t know about filming it for evidence. It could be looked at as wasting time when you should have been reporting it, or stopping it. Well above my legal paygrade, which is barely more than a few cents, and likely less in a recession.
jeff
@Arclite:
I think the same logic does in fact apply, contrary to the Court last year. I think there were a bunch of second-order concerns in the animal case…for example, if the cruelty video law were upheld, then hunting videos might plausibly be outlawed, when the activity (hunting) is legal–and so on.
Anti-cruelty laws are just barely fitting in with precedent as it is, and I think there was a danger that if animal welfare groups push too hard, we could set ourselves up for losing existing legislation.
Curiously, the protected videos can and will be used in criminal cases against the cruelty profiteers and evil perverts; though the transmission of those videos is legal, the creation of them is illegal.
I’m no lawyer, so I won’t say this makes sense. And, if I ever know who does that shit to animals, I’m not going to waste any time on the law.
PIGL
I am astonished that Alito is not a one-dimensional caricature of evil. More shocked that I agree with him…in the one (1) single instance. But then, unlike most here, I am not a free-speech absolutist. And, yes, I think firearms should be restricted, too.
Redshift
@freelancer: Well, assume you’ve already called 911, and want to have evidence in case the perps leave before they get there.
Slowbama
@gex: Yes, it is clearly incitement, as Alito pointed out. If there ever was a time when a constitutional amendment was in order, this might be it. If they can push one banning flag-burning, surely an amendment addressing graveside harassment would be able to pass overwhelmingly. Even the Neanderthals practiced quiet, decent burial of their loved ones. If the Constitution doesn’t allow for that act of simple decency, it’s essentially toilet paper.
Marc McKenzie
@geg6: Agreed. I personally hate the s**t out of those bastards, but I do not want their right to speak taken away. It’s just something we have to live with.
I do not like Limbaugh or Beck, but I would defend their right to free speech the same as I would defend Howard Stern’s.
stuckinred
Stupid conversation.
Litlebritdifrnt
@nitpicker:
ain’t it real fun when these eejigts quote the constitution and its amendments and yet have absolutely no clue what they say? Clue Sarah, I can say you are a harridan c#nt all day long and twice on Sundays and there ain’t a constitutional amendment in the world that will stop me. Live with it beeeeeoch.
Martin
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t disagree to the nature of the speech, but surely the venue has to matter as well. What you say matters depending on setting and if Westboro was standing in Times Square with their posters, I don’t think anyone would care. The problem is that the message carries a different meaning and intent when delivered at a soldier’s funeral.
Like I said, I’m okay with the ruling because there’s a very large grey area around freedom of speech, and I’m perfectly okay erring on the side of liberties. But what if the KKK was wanting to boycott a black soldiers funeral with signs that said ‘God hates niggers’? I suspect that would qualify as fighting words and not be protected. It’s not a very long trip from the one to the other.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@suzanne: Ditto.
I think if I ever hear of a planned Westboro appearance near me, I may well hit the streets with the folks who work to block them. It’s the only reasonable response.
Oh, and the media could fucking stop covering them. That would be good, too.
Citizen Alan
While I grudgingly agree with the opinion, I will say this: When that filthy pig Fred Phelps finally dies and goes to the Hell that’s been prepared for him, I hope a half a million people descend on Westboro, Kansas to protest his funeral. I hope there are week-long celebrations on every street corner of that blasted hell-town to commemorate his demise. Oh, and gay pride parades lasting for miles. Let’s turn his funeral into Mardi Gras.
jeff
@Martin:
Well, I think that may be their next placard. Actually, with this ruling on the record, “God hates X” is in every case protected, with the possible exception of “X” being a proper name.
Gustopher
I believe Alito’s test is: Are they so vile and so offensive and so intrusive that a reasonable person would beat the living shit out of them?
I believe that his dissent relies upon creating a right to not have douchebags interrupting the funeral of a non-public figure. It relies on finding a constitutional right to privacy, which traditionally the right says doesn’t exist, and than balancing that right against the douchebags’ rights.
I think I’m with Alito on this — there’s a difference between protesting a public event and a personal, private event (keeping in mind that corporations and the like don’t have a personal privacy right).
The Westboro Hate Club should be free to protest at public events, and even at private, non-family events (outside the Airport where bodies of dead GIs are being unloaded), but not at a personal, private event for non-public figures.
When Dan Choi eventually dies, if the Westboro Hate Club is still active, they would likely be able to protest his funeral by this standard, since he is a public figure.
Quaker in a Basement
My guess: It was not unanimous because the justices agreed amongst themselves that a dissent needed to be written, just to send the Westboro loonies a big F.U.
James E Powell
@Martin:
The first amendment provides that the government does not get to ask or require an answer to those questions.
Mark S.
@Citizen Alan:
I like your thinking.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
Same here. Oh well.
@Martin: Were wetsuits involved?
Triassic Sands
Alito’s mistake is that he allows his personal distaste for certain speech to influence his voting. This should outrage strict constructionists.
If we allowed Alito a year as the sole arbiter of public discourse, by the end of the year we’d be living in Vaticanland.
freelancer
@Gustopher:
The Phelps adults are all lawyers. They are acutely aware of protesting on only on public property.
Gustopher
@Citizen Alan: Don’t turn Phelp’s funeral into a big gay Mardi Gras, turn his birthday into one. Every year, until the old bastard finally dies, bare-assed boys in chaps getting spanked in front of his house and his church.
If you wait until his funeral, he won’t know.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
I’m surprised no one else pointed out that the first case referenced in the decision was Falwell v. Hustler. I will have Larry Flynt and the Phelps clan linked in a gruesome embrace for the rest of time as a result. It is every bit as glorious as it sounds.
cathyx
@Triassic Sands: Well said.
Rpx
Alito centered his dissent on a long-standing exception to free speech requirements. It’s arguable whether the “fighting words” exception applies, but given the circumstances of the case not some crazy idea. Breyer’s concurrence does an okay job of explaining why the fighting words exception doesn’t apply, but he focused on positioning of the protesters. Phelps and his group weren’t actually in sight of the family during the funeral, and they were in a spot designated from picketing by the police. It’s not clear it would have been 8-1 if Phelps had walked up next to the family and started shouting the shit they like to shout.
freelancer
OT – Tom Coburn puts some steel toed boots on and stomps all over Reagan’s First Commandment:
Popcorn futures, going up!
Pococurante
I will feel the appropriate amount of shock, pain, anguish and concern trolling when they and their children are firebombed by a lone madman acting out of complete isolated insanity.
The Glenn Beck script writes itself.
trollhattan
Speaking of conflicted feelings, I haz them about this:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2011/03/police-investig-17.html
Pococurante
@freelancer: Yes. We’re lost, impotent. There is no remedy.
eemom
Dunno how this happened to escape the attention of the legal scholars on this blog who believe the Justices are going to “vote along party lines” on the ACA, because the conservatives on the Court are all pro-corporatist whores who don’t give a shit about precedent and will do whatever they need to do
to get reelected— oh, whatever the fuck ever they need to do it for……but just yesterday the Court ruled unanimously that corporations don’t have privacy rights that would enable them “to prevent disclosure of federal government records about them.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110301/tc_nm/us_att_privacy
And whaddaya know, the opinion was authored by none other than Chief Corporatist Fuck-Precedent Whore Roberts.
I await the incisive commentary of the Nine Vote Prognosticators.
cathyx
Of course, if we could just end these stupid wars, we wouldn’t have dead soldier’s funerals to hold protests at.
Omnes Omnibus
@Gustopher: This is a great twist on what was already a great idea. It is not like the WBC will have much of a legal leg to stand upon if they challenge it in court.
Cacti
@cathyx:
Then they’d just go back to aids victims.
Angry Black Lady
@Citizen Alan: I can get behind this idea.
Chris Wolf
@stuckinred:
Don’t know, but he compared a funeral to a classroom today.
You know, if they’re not lawfully allowed to disrupt a classroom, how is a funeral different? He’s not a well man.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
@eemom: This is the same group that decided Citizens United, yes? I think they’re capable of holding whatever positions best suit them at the time as regards corporate personhood.
Now it’s completely possible that they’ll uphold ACA and be doing it because they’re corporatist whores–after all, Big Medicine and Big Pharma like this deal more than they’re saying right now because it gives them access to a boatload of money and they were worried they’d get shut out of it if a public option or worse, universal health care had gone through. If there’s the slightest chance something bad will happen to ACA, I’m betting the CEOs pull some powerful Congressfolks aside and give them a Ned-Beatty-in-Network come to Jesus talk real quick.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: The WBC would then choose children’s funerals or those of harmless and beloved grannies.
Lolis
@freelancer:
That is the smartest guy Coburn has ever met? WTF.
M-Pop
@trollhattan: Interesting last quote:
I wonder why white supremacists don’t have charisma? I also wonder if he was involved in some way with the MLK day bomb threat in Spokane?
freelancer
@Lolis:
My first thought was, “Whew! Tom Coburn needs to get out more. Do some networking.”
Angry Black Lady
@eemom: Whaaaaa?? How does that square with “Corporations are totally persons, y’all!” ??
I need to read it, but I’m going to hazard a guess: We’re fucked.
cathyx
@Cacti: @Omnes Omnibus: These are still no reasons to not end these stupid wars.
General Stuck
@eemom:
The ACA, or it’s undoing is not about corporations, at least not to my thinking. It is about politics and more specifically electoral politics into the future, as did CU.
They see liberal power at the ballot box as related to anything like a New Deal social contract as threatening their existence to get power by democratic means. And CU was just the flip side of that to give them more advantage where they are strongest. Money. Corporate money.
You may be right in the end, but who ever thought cash would get free speech protection from regulation by the legislature that wingers are always crowing about being what we should be governed by.
Omnes Omnibus
@cathyx: I didn’t say that it was a reason not to end the wars; I said ending the wars would not stop the WBC from being assholes.
60th Street
@dmsilev: Howdamoongetdair!?
Sentient Puddle
Added Ginsburg, “In short, freedom of speech means the freedom of fucking speech, you ignorant cocksuckers.”
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
@Angry Black Lady: I think you can sum it up as “corporations are persons when we find it is convenient for our allies that they be considered such, and are not when it is not.”
Shoemaker-Levy 9
You and me both, but something that puzzled me this evening was the NBC Nightly News, which ran this as the top story. Brian Williams made it abundantly clear that he considers the Westboro bunch to be disgusting and a hate group. But why? How does he know that they aren’t correct? More importantly, what standard does he use to report on a group as being vile haters vs. a legitimate point of view?
eemom
Mea stupida.
I can’t BELIEVE I actually thought a dose of reality would persuade any of the armchair law professors on this blog to rethink their uninformed CW.
And I purport to be the most cynical person I know. Damn but I am slipping in my old age.
Please — don’t tell anyone.
PIGL
@Gustopher: That would make good common law, I think. In fact, it probably is allready, what with provocation and all. The disinction between private and public individuals and events is also crucial. Pity the “it’s free speech cocksuckers” can’t process distinctions and ambiguity.
eemom
….and none of you geniuses has explained how the Court’s ruling of yesterday would IN ANY FUCKING WAY serve Corporatist interests. Sorry, but “because we CAN” just doesn’t cut it.
eemom
@Brian S (formerly Incertus):
IOW, how and why does yesterday’s ruling “best suits” the interests as to corporate personhood of which these guys are the unabashed shills? Huh?
Because as far as I can tell, what it does it make it much, much easier to hold corporations accountable for their actions.
There was also a unanimous ruling yesterday upholding the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. What do the BJ legal minds think about that one?
Oh, *I* know — Roberts et al are trying to lull us all into a false sense of security. So we won’t have them impeached before they have the chance to gut ACA. Or something.
PIGL
@eemom: could you be a little specific about which geniuses need to join your parade, and how much sack-cloth and ashes would be required?
I for one followed your link, and am very pleasantly astonished by the ruling…so far as one can make a judgement on their findings and consequences based on a Yahoo page.
Villago Delenda Est
You can’t legislate good taste, which is what this case was all about.
WBC has none. They are vermin. But, they’re allowed to be.
Chuck Butcher
Those real surprised by the CU decision seem to be willing to forget that people choose to associate (freely) for any number of reasons, including making money and that the choice of association doesn’t bar speech and distribution of speech costs money.
I don’t disagree that the immediate outcomes are damned unfortunate and give an even bigger hammer to those with the biggest one already. Calling it political inspiration ignores the actual issue. No, IANAL and don’t even play one on a blog.
eemom, you put up a lot of shit that is way outside your fucking law degree and get pretty shitty when you get kicked for being stupid. You are frequently stupid, law degree and all. The above is what I kept telling my political allies when they spent time, money, and energy on stricter campaign finance rather than focusing on methods to raise money and impact. All thanks to my degree in nail banging gained well in advance of the CU decision.
You don’t like being called stupid, knock it off with this shit.
Omnes Omnibus
@PIGL: Actually, since the WBC folk are careful to stay on public land, they are private individuals exercising their rights to free speech. How is using a mechanism of the state to stop them from doing so not a First Amendment violation?
MikeJ
@Martin:
Sorry to jump in late, but the case wasn’t a time and place restriction case. The father of the dead soldier sued over the content of the speach, not when or where.
Fuck ’em. WBC is right, about this very, very, narrow issue. It’s a pity they’re assholes, but they have a right to be.
Jebediah
Are the WBC ass-pimples pure trolls, just doing this stuff to gin up grounds for lawsuits, or are they at least partially sincere in their beliefs? I really like the idea of flamboyantly protesting the shitball’s birthday – but if he is only trollin’, it won’t really bother him too much. If they are at least partially sincere in their homophobia, then I would guess that it will bother them enough to make it worth it.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@General Stuck: “The term harm, is so open to individual definition, I support not defining it further, outside physical harm, or incitement thereof.”
How about banning the WBC protests because they incite people to violence? When I hear these what these assholes are chanting and read the signs they are carrying, I know that I sure as hell want to kick their asses.
See, they are inciting people to violence! :)
This was the only decision that was right, as much as I detest them and their choosing to express themselves the way they do. Though in all seriousness, they do incite people to go after them. This is so they can sue them blue and keep their gravy train chugging along.
That is all Phelps and their clan are, people who have found a way to profit from misery. That is why I smile when I hear someone has nailed them in some way and they are unable to find out who did it.
There’s no money in that for them and that’s just fine with me.
Reader of the Most Depressing Blog Evah, Formerly Known as Chad N Freude
@Angry Black Lady: It’s a preemptive strike against a future suit demanding that corporations pay personal income tax.
Reader of the Most Depressing Blog Evah, Formerly Known as Chad N Freude
@Omnes Omnibus:
You’ve got to be kidding. That’s like saying that ending the wars would stop Angry Black Lady from being Angry, Black, and/or a Lady.
eemom
@Chuck Butcher:
GFY, you boorish, obnoxious, ignorant, presumptious asshole.
Since you know jack shit about what is “outside my fucking law degree,” I’ll just go all out and opine with authority that, from all indications on this blog, you are a case of arrested development approximately two evolutions before homo erectus.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@freelancer:
From that link:
He’s looking for a cow. It’s soft (and big!), wide-eyed open (no intelligence behind them eyes either!), stable (with four legs? Ubetcha!) and learned (a cow knows how to be a cow better than anyone though some Republicans do give them a run for their milk!) and is going to consistently bring them together (for good WHITE milk!) rather than alienate them (except for those evil lactose-intolerant cow haters!).
I hope they get a downer. :)
burnspbesq
@PIGL:
I dont agree with you, but i get you. All of Con Law is in essence a line-drawing exercise, and there is plenty of room for reasoned disagreement over where the lines should be drawn.
The reason why the Alito/PIGL position is wrong in this case is that in order for the speech clause to have any meaning, any regulation of speech has to be content-neutral. The right to spew vile, despicable lies has to be protected. The cure for bad speech is good speech. I have more cliches if anyone is interested.
burnspbesq
@eemom:
Shame on you, e. That’s both a cheap shot and a misrepresentation of what the case is about.
The case is simply about figuring out the appropriate meaning to attach to a word in a statute when the word is not specifically defined in the statute. The subtext is that agencies routinely try to withhold too much stuff when they respond to FOIA requests, and need to be slapped around periodically by the courts.
The AT&T decision has nothing to do with whether corporations are persons. They are. That issue was settled four centuries ago. Anyone who thinks that the Southern Pacific case established that principle needs to go read Blackstone. The Framers were familiar with the English common law, and there can be no doubt that they would have understood that corporations were persons.
eemom
@burnspbesq:
well, it’s no shame, I suppose, but it appears your unbridled pomposity has finally gotten the better of you, burns.esq, if you seriously suppose I don’t know that corporations are “persons” within the meaning of the common law, or was misrepresenting that fact.
And if you seriously think that there was no Citizens United “subtext” in this decision, and all that discussion about the distinction between flesh and corporate “persons” had absolutely nothing to do with the 800 pound elephant in the room — perhaps you ought to stick to your area of expertise, such as it is.
Origuy
The Westboro folks are planning to be in San Jose on Friday to picket at Gunderson High School, which is putting on a production of The Laramie Project, a play about the murder of Michael Shepard. At least it’s not a funeral.
jon
The question comes down to what the point is where hateful speech (legal) becomes hate speech (illegal). Some crossburning case from years ago made the case that an act against an individual can also be an act against a group (Clarence Thomas might have spoken up about this) when it’s an obvious message of “Niggers get out” or something similar. So rather than a littering charge, someone who leaves a burning cross in someone’s front yard can get hate crime prosecution.
The Phelps assholes certainly muddy the line between hateful and hate speech, but aside from yelling, holding signs, and just being heartless assholes who certainly deserve to all be spanked vigorously using mining equipment, are protesting in public spaces and exercising their right to be complete assholes.
I just want to know why “Bong Hits for Jesus” is so awful. If “Your Son is in Hell” is protected, why not a fucking joke? Sixteen-year-olds aren’t entitled to be assholes? I guess they need congregations to be that way.
Ija
@eemom:
Wow, I didn’t know Justice Roberts’ girlfriend is a commenter here. Anything else you want to defend him about? Gutting Brown v/s Board of Education perhaps?
novum
called.
eemom
@Ija:
I’m not defending Justice Roberts. I’m pointing out that Supreme Court jurisprudence is a tad more complicated than represented by a proudly ignorant mob here a few weeks back when Doug was taking bets about the final score in Corporate Whore Justices vs. The American People, ACA Edition.
Ding Ding
@eemom: It’s pretty awesome how you don’t need to know any of the nuances of constitutional law nor have read the previous threads on the subject to see that eemom is kind of stupid. but entertainingly so.
sparky
why? because someone has to do it and none of the big law brains here have explained the painfully obvious.
@eemom: i confess i have no idea as to why you think this is an important case for the purposes of limiting corporate power. it is a statutory construction case, in which ATT made a silly argument conflating personal with person so as to avoid having documents submitted to the FCC be available under FOIA requests. specifically, ATT argued that it was exempt from disclosure because the statutory exclusion of “personal privacy” should be understood to include corporations.
all the court did was point out that “personal” does not mean the same thing as “person” for purposes of an exception to a statute. the case says nothing at all about the rights of corporations, nor does it limit the reach of the idea that corporations are persons.
eemom
@sparky:
The point is that if everyone here was right about the Supreme Court’s voracious “corporatist” agenda, law be damned, the Court could have seized on this opportunity to shield corporations from FOIA disclosures with very little difficulty, but it did not — and in fact kind of went out of its way to draw a distinction between flesh persons and paper persons.
And if you don’t think this case, narrow or not, WILL be cited in future disputes about corporate “personhood,” you don’t know very much about advocacy.
Brighton
They should pay taxes. Seriously. My 2 cents here.