(01-14-2011 12:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You're right, GTS.

The unpleasant side affect of the 1st amendment is any ******* with an opinion. Cost of doing business.

The worst thing you could do to Phelps and his merry crew is to ignore them.

The Phelps crowd needs a serious dose of community ostracism. Denying them the necessities of life by refusing to do business with them on any level would be appropriate. Make their lives a miserable as possible.

(01-14-2011 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You're right, GTS.

The unpleasant side affect of the 1st amendment is any ******* with an opinion. Cost of doing business.

The worst thing you could do to Phelps and his merry crew is to ignore them.

The Phelps crowd needs a serious dose of community ostracism. Denying them the necessities of life by refusing to do business with them on any level would be appropriate. Make their lives a miserable as possible.

I highly doubt they that they aren't capable of pulling off self-sustaining "missions", with the amount of money they get from suing everyone.

(01-14-2011 11:41 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You're right, GTS.

The unpleasant side affect of the 1st amendment is any ******* with an opinion. Cost of doing business.

The worst thing you could do to Phelps and his merry crew is to ignore them.

The Phelps crowd needs a serious dose of community ostracism. Denying them the necessities of life by refusing to do business with them on any level would be appropriate. Make their lives a miserable as possible.

I highly doubt they that they aren't capable of pulling off self-sustaining "missions", with the amount of money they get from suing everyone.

I think people underestimate the power of ostracism. Imagine how horrible life would be if everyone in your community refused to associate with you. I understand that this is not in our current societal paradigm..but..I would love to see us move more towards this type of punishment for aberrant behavior outside of the established norms of society.

(01-15-2011 12:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 11:41 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You're right, GTS.

The unpleasant side affect of the 1st amendment is any ******* with an opinion. Cost of doing business.

The worst thing you could do to Phelps and his merry crew is to ignore them.

The Phelps crowd needs a serious dose of community ostracism. Denying them the necessities of life by refusing to do business with them on any level would be appropriate. Make their lives a miserable as possible.

I highly doubt they that they aren't capable of pulling off self-sustaining "missions", with the amount of money they get from suing everyone.

I think people underestimate the power of ostracism. Imagine how horrible life would be if everyone in your community refused to associate with you. I understand that this is not in our current societal paradigm..but..I would love to see us move more towards this type of punishment for aberrant behavior outside of the established norms of society.

It sounds like they'd be more than happy to just inbreed with themselves, plus buy all their **** online so they don't have to interact with anyone.

(01-15-2011 12:08 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(01-15-2011 12:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 11:41 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You're right, GTS.

The unpleasant side affect of the 1st amendment is any ******* with an opinion. Cost of doing business.

The worst thing you could do to Phelps and his merry crew is to ignore them.

The Phelps crowd needs a serious dose of community ostracism. Denying them the necessities of life by refusing to do business with them on any level would be appropriate. Make their lives a miserable as possible.

I highly doubt they that they aren't capable of pulling off self-sustaining "missions", with the amount of money they get from suing everyone.

I think people underestimate the power of ostracism. Imagine how horrible life would be if everyone in your community refused to associate with you. I understand that this is not in our current societal paradigm..but..I would love to see us move more towards this type of punishment for aberrant behavior outside of the established norms of society.

It sounds like they'd be more than happy to just inbreed with themselves, plus buy all their **** online so they don't have to interact with anyone.

They are indeed a total bunch of nutjobs. I wonder if Phelps could get them to do a "Jim Jones"? One could only hope.

How many disgusting fringe groups are there. PETA, NAMBLA, KKK, John Birch Society, San Fran Gay Parade, Nazi, ACLU, SPLC, Cindy Sheehan ect. To name a few. Oh don't forget the environmentalists an Global Warmers.

They all have the 1st Am. right, to say whatever disgusting thing to get in the news and promote themselves, as anyone else. All we can do is collective dismiss them. Unfortunately you see in the Lame Stream Media more left wing radicals than Conservative radicals. Can't imagine why?

There's a special place in hell reserved for these douchebags.

(01-15-2011 01:19 PM)Rebel Wrote:  There's a special place in hell reserved for these douchebags.

I would hope.

The part of the 1st Amendment that bothers me is that some idiot can scream and yell and make all kinds of noise that I can't tune out and his right is protected and I have no right or ability to not hear it unless I leave and he doesn't follow me.

(01-15-2011 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The part of the 1st Amendment that bothers me is that some idiot can scream and yell and make all kinds of noise that I can't tune out and his right is protected and I have no right or ability to not hear it unless I leave and he doesn't follow me.

They do follow sometimes... this group is that wacko, but only to a point. They do this crap, so they can sue, and get more money.

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

I wonder though, if they weren't protesting at soldier's and high profile funerals... if it were just the funerals of gays, like Matt Shephard, etc... if it would be talked about the same way?

(01-16-2011 01:52 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

I wonder though, if they weren't protesting at soldier's and high profile funerals... if it were just the funerals of gays, like Matt Shephard, etc... if it would be talked about the same way?

It would be from me. I can't speak for any other *******.

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

No, they're not. The first amendment doesn't give you rights at everyone else's expense.

(01-16-2011 01:52 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

I wonder though, if they weren't protesting at soldier's and high profile funerals... if it were just the funerals of gays, like Matt Shephard, etc... if it would be talked about the same way?

I wonder why Matthew Shepherd has to be brought up. That was a big ol' false flag

(01-16-2011 02:17 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

No, they're not. The first amendment doesn't give you rights at everyone else's expense.

You can't take away someones First Amendment rights just because you don't like what they say.

As has already been said they have a right to speak. Issue them a permit for a place and time to protest. Away from the funerals were those people have a right not to be bothered by these hell bound clowns.

If they're just out on a street corner or anywhere else, people aren't a captive audience to them. People are free to walk away and not listen if they so choose, exercising their rights. Not so at a funeral.

(01-16-2011 02:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:52 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

I wonder though, if they weren't protesting at soldier's and high profile funerals... if it were just the funerals of gays, like Matt Shephard, etc... if it would be talked about the same way?

I wonder why Matthew Shepherd has to be brought up. That was a big ol' false flag

It was just something I wondered. Didn't know it'd touch a nerve with ya Torch. And it's STILL a valid question. I think it would change the way people felt about them. I think it's horrible either way, but it is their right to peacefully protest. Away from the actual funeral, if they want to protest, can't the be like a mile away?

(01-16-2011 02:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:52 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.
So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1
They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

I wonder though, if they weren't protesting at soldier's and high profile funerals... if it were just the funerals of gays, like Matt Shephard, etc... if it would be talked about the same way?

I wonder why Matthew Shepherd has to be brought up. That was a big ol' false flag

No, I think it's a legitimate question. I would hope the reaction would be the same, but like CRH, I have my doubts.

I guess what troubles me about this is that yes, they have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, but rights aren't unlimited. With each right is supposed to come a responsibility to exercise it responsibly. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater clearly breaches that responsibility, but it seems to me that intentional infliction of emotional distress (and it's simply not possible to describe this as anything but) also crosses that line. I'm not sure I understand how and why courts have reasoned otherwise.

(01-16-2011 02:28 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 02:17 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:25 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 12:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  The First Amendment does not say you can do those things anytime, anywhere.

So you and GTS have misconstrued the whole thing.

I fail to see how their stupidity matches the litmus test for abuse of the 1st amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Their protests will cause no physical harm to anyone. They are not initiating force.

+1

They are completely in their right to protest regardless of how douchey they are.

No, they're not. The first amendment doesn't give you rights at everyone else's expense.

You can't take away someones First Amendment rights just because you don't like what they say.

No duh.

That's the point. No one is taking away their rights. But as Owl 69 put it, those rights aren't unlimited.

You tell me how telling them to protest across town takes away a single one of their rights.