The difference between free speech and trolling

[takenoko]

So I was dismayed to read this headline: "Supreme Court: Anti-gay funeral picketers allowed"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_ ... l_protests

For context, I've taken library courses and had debates about the nature of different points of view and the importance of neutrality and impartiality when dealing with issues. But I strongly feel that there's a difference between a library containing Nazi documents and materials talking about how this group hated Jews and whatnot versus a Neo Nazi website that says the same thing.

I definitely feel like the Supreme Courts went on the more lofty, overly detached route and missed the nitty gritty details of the matter. Only one judge seemed to fully grasp the matter:

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to "bury his son in peace." Instead, Alito said, the protesters "brutally attacked" Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

Our laws exist so that we don't stifle the debate. I understand that it's not up to the law to decide what opinions people should have. However, I don't believe they exist so that people can use them to obviously go out and be hurtful to others. I don't know anyone who wouldn't go "They're crazy!" or "They want to picket a 9 year old girl's funeral? That's fucked up!". This isn't mob mentality. I'm not saying everyone should go and shout those people down. I'm just saying, deep down, people know that what they're doing is intrinsically wrong.

John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

The reasoning that what they're doing is constitutional as to not stifle debate is kind of bullshit. They could express their views anywhere. Why does it have to be at a funeral? The end user of the law is a human being. A person who has feelings, important feelings. Maybe what they're doing is legal in every sense of the law. Well then, fuck the law. As a judge, you're supposed to be making decisions on how to be enforce the law, but you also have a duty to your people. You're supposed to make a decision showing that you understand the consequences of your actions and how it affects the people. You're supposed to show that you understand the specific circumstances of the case. And sometimes exceptions need to be made, for the big picture.

The Westboro Church can believe whatever they want. But showing up at the funerals of people to force their hurtful message upon others is trolling. They can say that it's for their cause, whatever. There's no way they don't understand that they're completely disregarding the delicate feelings of those involved. They're capitalizing on the shock value of it, and that's really kind of disgusting. And our judges have basically said that what they're doing is okay. Let me end by asking, where is the justice for all the victims of these hateful people? Why weren't their rights protected?

[remolay]

You know, I'm pretty sure that is perfectly illegal. I seem to remember hearing that hate speech is illegal. Where I heard that, My social studies classes at school. Because, you know, You aren't allowed to use your right to free speech to impede on the rights of others.

This is reason number I-lost-count-years-ago why I don't like people.

[Ceighk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 898972.stm
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland may have its flaws, but one thing I do like about my country is the anti-hate speech laws. There is a difference between voicing an opinion, and preaching that anyone who disagrees with the opinion should burn eternally.

[Chaosleader0]

Currently thank a hacker named Jester ALL of the WBC sites are down and have been down for over a week now. Also read this article on the WBC and Anon. It has a nice video with it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... -Talk-Show

The Anonymous member says right in there that they have no problem with them spouting their bullshit but since they are for freedom of speech they will not do anything against them. Or at least up until around the 8 Minute mark.

Its a slippery slope for this ruling since it went in favor of the WBC it means that other people could start popping up which I highly doubt since there are kids that LEAVE the WBC because they hate it and are taken care of by the rest of the community. I will have to find that article about that again it was a while ago I read that.
But if they found against the WBC a lot of other people could start falling into the same catagory of law suit that the WBC was in.

I do not find it right at all but there is no way that we can legally stop them from doing what they are doing.

They are quite literally Real Life Trolls because they protest to get a response hopefully a violent one so that they can be sue and get some money from the people.

[Chaosleader0]

You know, I'm pretty sure that is perfectly illegal. I seem to remember hearing that hate speech is illegal. Where I heard that, My social studies classes at school. Because, you know, You aren't allowed to use your right to free speech to impede on the rights of others.

This is reason number I-lost-count-years-ago why I don't like people.

As the law stands Hate speech is NOT illegal if done by a group or person. It is HIGHLY frowned upon but is by no means illegal. The KKK are still around after all. The part that is ILLEGAL is not getting a job because of who/what you are race/ethnicity/religion/orientation. What is also ILLEGAL is for a COMPANY or the GOVERNMENT to have hateful speech. Also a bunch of Radio Talk Show personalities would be out of a job and in jail if it was truly illegal to say hateful things.

[DrowningFishy]

Someone can troll someone on facebook leading to their suicide and they get in trouble. Someone can protest a military families funeral and lead to the anquish of the family and no one cares. As far as I gather the guy had nothing to do with being gay or done anything wrong. It is down right DISRESPECTFUL to do that to someone who died for their country. DIED for THEIR rights, sure this is not WWI, WWII, Vietnam, or any other big skirmishish we've been in but still. First admendment or not, if someone dies protecting this duty to no fault of their wrong doing they should be allowed to be laid to rest in peace. It was the person on facebooks right to post what ever they want. Why do they get in trouble?

What do we need for someone to stand up for someones rights one of the family members of the dead soldiers to commit suicide over this before this stops? Yes everyone has a right to free speach, but everyone has a right not to be bullied. Do we not already have a no tollerance bully policy at schools? Well guess that is against the bullies first admendment cause they have right to say what they want to other students.

The only time I see this type of protest legal is at political events. Elections, voting, community meetings, capital buildings (WI) and so on.

Here deaths caused on facebook and people charged:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1
http://opinionmatters.flatoday.net/2011 ... leads.html
and the list goes on.

[DrTupacShakurPHD]

I agree with the Supreme Courts decision. Me being an originalist on matters of constitutional law, I usually am in line with the judicial views of Justices Scalia and Thomas, and this case is no exception. I recommend you read the actual ruling (raw data), and not buy into the entertaining good vs evil story the media is feeding you. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Here's why I support the Supreme Court's ruling:

Where most of us will agree:
Forget the aspect of the protesting at the funeral for a second. It's very relevant, but let's focus for a quick second on the groups beliefs and their right to express their beliefs. I'm sure 95% of us agree with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In regards to the speech and beliefs, we can therefore agree that this religious group in question has every right to believe in what they believe in, and express their beliefs publicly. Yes the speech of this religious group is offensive, outragious, hateful, and disgusting. It hurts people's feelings. But pretty much all of us will agree that they have every right to express this belief. We believe as Americans in their freedom to do so, even if we disagree, because we do not want some asshole politician one day telling us what we can and can not say.

Where we may start to disagree:
So we can generally agree with these people have the right to express these crazy beliefs, correct? But how about demonstrating these beliefs at the funerals of dead soldiers? This is where most of us will draw the line, including me. The images in our minds that the mainstream sensationalist media give us, is this crazy religious group going to these funerals and disrupting the ceremonies. As human beings we understand this: that our rights as men end when the rights of another are violated. If this religious group was harassing these families at these funerals, the government would at that point no longer be concerned about protecting Group A's right to free speech, but concerned with protecting Group B's rights to hold an uninterupted funeral for their dead loved one. With me?

If what I just described were true, I would be in total disagreement with the Supreme Court's ruling. No group, no matter how precious the right to free speech is, has the right to harass others, especially in disrupting a ceremony as sacred as a funeral.

However the religious group in question did NOT disrupt the funeral in question. READ THE FACTS OF THE CASE. If you read the facts of the case, the protests of the religious groups were FAR away from the actual ceremony (pg 3 of the decision "Westboro stayed well away from the ceremony"). Maryland has since made stricter more reasonable laws to regulate where such protests can occur, so that the protests will be even farther away in the future, but those laws were not in place at the time, so no violation of the law occurred. Furthermore, the protests were SO FAR AWAY and SO UNDISRUPTIVE that Snyder (the father of the soldier) only saw the group driving to the ceremony, but he did not know what they were protesting. He didnt see the group again until he was home, turned on the TV, and saw the news report. He DIDNT even know what they were protesting when he drove by!!! He was understandably upset when he later saw the news report and sued the religious group for millions of dollars. I don't blame him, I'd be pissed too! The protests were not directly aimed at Synder as a private citizen, but were very public in nature, so this was not personally directed at the Synders (so those facebook suicide cases are not a good analogy), it was political, not personal. As much as I sympathize with this guys situation, I sympathize with the U.S. Constitution more, and Supreme Court made the RIGHT call even if it will be unpopular due to the groups controversial views. The media lied to you, it isnt the first time, American journalists are like fuckin Jerry Springer, they're more concerned with entertaining you than informing you. Its a great GOOD GUY vs BAD GUY story, I admit, but in the end we have to look at cases like this more seriously, we have the right to be free from harassment, but we do not have the right to be free from getting our feelings hurt.

[DrowningFishy]

I think the line was hugely drawn in inapproprate with teh signs that read "Thank God for dead soldiers." "Thank God for 9/11" and "You're going to hell." If it did not attack the dead soldier or any other person passed I wouldn't have much to say about it since they wern't outside the church directly. However they crossed the line. Funerals are sacred and the last chance to say good-bye. I'm sorry I have a grandfather who faught for his country and lost his soul fighting for this country. My friend Christ (a fag) is fighting for this country, if he would die in the line of duty and this would happen within a mile of his funeral and any signs attack him or other dead I would open a case of whoop-ass.

"Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that assailed Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son."

Unless the person has done some horrible deed unspeakable to anyone attacking someone who is dead and gone is just wrong. Those people can no longer protect themselves. If your protesting agaist fags your attacking a whole group, attacking the United states it's a whole group, attack dead soldiers it's each and ever person laid down their life for this country.

Unless it's a politian don't make your attacks personal.

[remolay]

Frankly, I am a pacifist and I would have punched everyone who did that in the face.

Normally I'm all for free speech and against censorship, but attacks on another human being simply for existing grind my gears. Hell, attacks themselves grind my gears. Protests, Fine if you have a good reason. "This person is gay/black/Asian/whatever race, gender, or sexual preference they are" is never a good reason.

[Joe_Mello]

Unless it's a politician don't make your attacks personal.

Even then...

I think the core argument here is defining each type of "speech." If the Supreme Court feels that any type of speech that is not an active call to violence is protected under the 1st Amendment, then so be it. AFAIK, the Church is inflammatory but doesn't actually call for violence.

Of course, the current Supreme Court is incredibly partial and is so out-of-touch with reality that it's practically a joke. If it were me and my family, I'd say a frivolous lawsuit is in the works.

[DrowningFishy]

Unless it's a politician don't make your attacks personal.

Even then...

I think the core argument here is defining each type of "speech." If the Supreme Court feels that any type of speech that is not an active call to violence is protected under the 1st Amendment, then so be it. AFAIK, the Church is inflammatory but doesn't actually call for violence.

Of course, the current Supreme Court is incredibly partial and is so out-of-touch with reality that it's practically a joke. If it were me and my family, I'd say a frivolous lawsuit is in the works.

Couldn't this be considered sladerous? Anyways teh ONE time in our country in which a lawsuit ACTUALLY makes sense is the time the courts think not really. Like I said over and over, we stop bullying in schools, why not bullying in this type. This chruch has lost the fact funerals especially of all those who died in the line of duty from soldiers, policeman, fireman, and so on is especially horrible.

BTW if my fired Christ died in the line of duty and they'd picket his funeral he'd come back as a ghost and do things to their husbands. I'll keep what he means up to all of you.

I really can't say much more for this. To much of protecting one persons right has violated another persons right. If this was a wedding I wouldn't have cared, or a baby shower. We should have our right to say good-bye protected from morons.

[Favine]

The WBC, let me think. I believe i first heard of them when they protested a military funeral.... I had just lost a buddy from basic training killed on his deployment. Freedom of Speech is good. it's really good, but you should not be able to protest a funeral of someone that died protecting your freedom.

Would it be wrong for me to walk over there and beat the shit out of them if they ever protested the death of one of my close buddy's?
i don't want to go on, but there's a biker gang of Vets that now line the roads showing there respect and keeping the crazy's out.

[erikhol]

They are simply evil people, doing their best to ruin the peace and dignity a family deserves for a funeral. Wether the courts protect this as free speech or not, you're right - these people have to instinctively know what they are doing is wrong.

That said, I can see why the court may have ruled this way - but I also would disagree with the ruling. Aren't there laws, when the President is visiting, that Protesters have a seperate area, away from the President, to protest. Why can't the same be applied to a funeral? Plus - not to diminish the real reason for the funeral - but those people are paying for a service in a cemetary, I would hope whoever is in charge of the funeral grounds could force protesters out. It's simply not right what those people are doing.

[Joe_Mello]

Couldn't this be considered sladerous? Anyways teh ONE time in our country in which a lawsuit ACTUALLY makes sense is the time the courts think not really.

I'd consider it to be defamation and harassment, at the very least. The ruling is that they're allowed to assemble and demonstrate. What they do during that assembly and demonstration can be left to a civil court to sort through.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.

[semi_master83]

now i will let u know, i'm all about free speech and i do follow Christian views, BUT what these "Christian" ppl r saying is not very Christian. Christian's r not suppost to be hateful like that to others, whither they r Christian themselves or not. the Bible tells us to be kind to one another, treat others the way we want to be treated, not to hate and be disrespectful. these type of ppl need to know the simple rule that God gave us: Free Will. i know that not everyone will agree with what i say on subjects but i at least HOPE that they respect my views cause i will respect theirs. everyone has there own choice in life, its not my choice to force them to think otherwise.