At what point do the lines of First Amendment speech and decorum blur?

Question

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Just so everyone is clear, I am in no way condoning the website or the actions of the people from this church. I think their actions are deplorable and totally uncooth. It's too bad that they haven't been taught how to have respect for others. People are burying their children and they feel like they have a right to do what they're doing. It makes me very sad.

Answer 1

Rights ALWAYS go hand-in-hand with Responsibilities. If some numbnut decides to abdicate their responsibility (say, to engage in civil discourse and not impinge on the rights of others) should we take away their rights?

It's a valid question to debate. My opinion is you shouldn't take away rights just because responsibilities have been neglected. But public pressure OUGHT to come to bear. If someone - as a member of society - is misusing their rights, then society ought to be clear how they feel about it, and call these people out. In this case, we ought to say in no uncertain terms that Fred Phelps and these idiots are hateful, vile disgraces to humanity.

Peace to you.

Answer 2

Wow! I see what you mean. However, the thing about freedom of speech (we have this in the UK despite having no constitution and no amendments to anything - just shows you that codifying human rights is not always a good idea - the Gun lobby quoting the constitution for instance, it always works in ways that the writers did not anticipate) . . . is that critics of what is being said have the full right to reply and to put up their own web sites. Frankly the people who have posted the web site you mention are guilty of misrepresenting the Bible at best and are probably not simply going to hell themselves but are most likely already in their own personal version. Sad sad bastards. There, and I have every right to say it!

Answer 3

Unfortunately, there is no clear answer to this. Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

"

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

* Obscenity
* Fighting words
* Defamation (includes libel, slander)
* Child pornography
* Perjury
* Blackmail
* Incitement to imminent lawless action
* True threats
* Solicitations to commit crimes

Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected."

Answer 4

It shouldn't blur. Having the freedom to speak should never cross over the boundaries of propriety, good manners, and good taste. The moral fibers that hold most of us together seem to be able to monitor what comes out of our mouths and where. But there are always bad seeds who do the unthinkable.

Answer 5

The Supreme Court has ruled that 1st Ammendment protection is restricted in some cases, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater; and that "fighting words" are not protected. The trouble is, of course, that "fighting words" mean different things to different people.

Answer 6

The same point that hanging nooses on trees results in hate crime prosecution. There's a whole department of cyberspace crime fighters trolling the blogs and forums looking to see who they may devour, much like the old image of satan as a roaming lion looking to see who he can eat. Hmmmmmm? How do you taste?

Answer 7

Well from what I understand God created everything, and everything is within his control. He created heaven and hell and the devil. So if that's the case didn't he also create gay people. I'm just saying since ya know Christians believe he created everything. If its so wrong did he do it to contradict himself. Umm funny seems like a very human thing to do for being god.

-Ty

And FYI God hates people who are bigots and throw stones in glass houses. Funny because God is the first person to smite them. Makes you think huh?

Answer 8

I will defend anyone's right in this country to say what they want to. However, using the 1st Amendment to spew hate, intolerance and vitriol against anyone is not, I am sure, what the Framers meant by it.

Answer 9

I don't think the founding fathers ever thought this country would become a third world cesspool needing a nanny state censorship program.

Answer 10

It blurs easily, but is clear again when one must pay 10.9 million in a lawsuit judgment.