Supreme Court rules for WBC


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 232 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
CourtFool wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:
Promoting hatred against an identifiable group, however, is utterly offensive in any context.

To play Devil's advocate, don't you turn around and do exactly that towards holocaust deniers and the WBC? I certainly detect some hatred in the tone of your comments to 'throw their ass in jail'.

Just sayin'.

Which is why I must protect their right to hate on something, so that I may in turn hate on them. :)


Regarding foreign aid: What is accomplished by these vast sums? Yes, everyone sees the hunger images on TV from Ethiopia in the 80s, but have things actually gotten better, or worse? Has money been donated to feed the population of the needy country, freeing their dictator to spend his money on consolidating his hold on the country? Have the conditions used actually meant cutting the money if not held up? Have the organisations using the money seen to it that the aid money and donations have actually improved things for the receivers, or have they spent the money on their own offices, parties and so on?

Every time one of these questions is researched, the answers are depressing. It seems to me that while foreign aid might have been a good thing during the worst starvation epidemics and so on, it has also removed impetus to improving the receiving country's political and legal system, leading to recurring problems, and a murderous status quo. How much money has been given by the rest of the world to Burma, for instance? What would have happened without that aid?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CourtFool wrote:

Supreme Court rules

for anti-gay church over military funeral protests

As much as I may despise the actions of the WestBoro Baptist Church, scuttling the First Amendment to censure them would have been a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Thus I'm happy with both the majority decision and the dissent.

Sovereign Court

Sissyl wrote:

Regarding foreign aid: What is accomplished by these vast sums? Yes, everyone sees the hunger images on TV from Ethiopia in the 80s, but have things actually gotten better, or worse? Has money been donated to feed the population of the needy country, freeing their dictator to spend his money on consolidating his hold on the country? Have the conditions used actually meant cutting the money if not held up? Have the organisations using the money seen to it that the aid money and donations have actually improved things for the receivers, or have they spent the money on their own offices, parties and so on?

Every time one of these questions is researched, the answers are depressing. It seems to me that while foreign aid might have been a good thing during the worst starvation epidemics and so on, it has also removed impetus to improving the receiving country's political and legal system, leading to recurring problems, and a murderous status quo. How much money has been given by the rest of the world to Burma, for instance? What would have happened without that aid?

You have hit upon the key problem with foreign aid. A lot of foreign aid given by governments usually ends up in the hands of some tin-pot dictator and then into his Swiss bank account. That is why a lot of the private organizations and groups like Doctors without Borders are more effective. They tend to work directly with the people as opposed to giving money to governments. Unfortunately those groups also are the ones that need to be protected, usually by UN or US/Nato troops. Without that protection they are unable to give effective aid.

Liberty's Edge

Everyone seems to be turning this into a matter of what WBC can or cannot say, when in reality, it is more of a case of where WBC can or cannot say something.

They were sued for invasion of privacy (it was a private funeral and they had no business being anywhere near there)...I don't see a problem with the verdict there. Itentional infliction of emotional stress (no brainer)...

I seriously doubt that the father would have cared (as much) had WBC just spewed their hate-speech from their pulpit...I'm certain they wouldn't have been sued.

I am not advocating for limitations on the "what" of speech, but rather sensible limitations on the "where" of speech.


You mean "free speech zones", popularized during the reign of the last president you americans was kind enough to inflict on the world?


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
I am not advocating for limitations on the "what" of speech, but rather sensible limitations on the "where" of speech.

Unfortunately the WBC stages it's protests on public property in sight of private cemetery grounds, not upon them.

These guys have found a fairly effective means of drowning out the WBC at these funerals, though.


Sissyl wrote:
You mean "free speech zones", popularized during the reign of the last president you americans was kind enough to inflict on the world?

No, something more along the lines as the local laws that prevent you from shutting down a local freeway to stage a protest will do.

Liberty's Edge

Moro wrote:
These guys have found a fairly effective means of drowning out the WBC at these funerals, though.

Kudos to them. Great job.


Xpltvdeleted wrote:

Everyone seems to be turning this into a matter of what WBC can or cannot say, when in reality, it is more of a case of where WBC can or cannot say something.

They were sued for invasion of privacy (it was a private funeral and they had no business being anywhere near there)...I don't see a problem with the verdict there. Itentional infliction of emotional stress (no brainer)...

I seriously doubt that the father would have cared (as much) had WBC just spewed their hate-speech from their pulpit...I'm certain they wouldn't have been sued.

I am not advocating for limitations on the "what" of speech, but rather sensible limitations on the "where" of speech.

As Moro said...they do it on public land within sight of a funral...for now it is leagle. If you want to change it...write your lawmakers...and get other people to write their law makers.

I don't ever see the need to even tastefuly( if that is even possible) protest at a graveyard. I don't care what the issue is there are things more important.

And before Sissly goes into trading freedoms for x...there are things I agree with...and others are just the price for greater freedom.

There is no such thingas a total free society. We trade our freedoms from the first time we form civilzations. It is not a bad thing...the trick is in balancing them and knowing what you are giving up.


"Balancing" freedoms is newspeak for removing them altogether. The balancing of privacy against the surveillance desires of the securitocracy gave the full go-ahead to warrantless wiretapping, entirely secret.

Good "balance" they found there, eh?


Sissyl wrote:

"Balancing" freedoms is newspeak for removing them altogether. The balancing of privacy against the surveillance desires of the securitocracy gave the full go-ahead to warrantless wiretapping, entirely secret.

Good "balance" they found there, eh?

While the news and goverment may use the truth I spoke of for their own ends does not mean it is not the truth.

Freedom is not neccesarily a good thing. In a society without laws becomes as bad as any tyranntical state you care to mention. Because than the strong will rule the weak. It is human nature to either follow or lead. So we do have to sacrfice some freedoms to protect other freedoms.

As I said just because goverment use it for corrupt gains does not mean it is not true.

Freedom as to be tempered with respect and responsibility...and really I think sany protest at a funeral is very disrespectful.


WBC! Wow, just thinking about them gives me plenty of motivation....

SPLOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRTCH!!!


John Kretzer wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

"Balancing" freedoms is newspeak for removing them altogether. The balancing of privacy against the surveillance desires of the securitocracy gave the full go-ahead to warrantless wiretapping, entirely secret.

Good "balance" they found there, eh?

While the news and goverment may use the truth I spoke of for their own ends does not mean it is not the truth.

Freedom is not neccesarily a good thing. In a society without laws becomes as bad as any tyranntical state you care to mention. Because than the strong will rule the weak. It is human nature to either follow or lead. So we do have to sacrfice some freedoms to protect other freedoms.

As I said just because goverment use it for corrupt gains does not mean it is not true.

Freedom as to be tempered with respect and responsibility...and really I think sany protest at a funeral is very disrespectful.

Remember what I said about WARRANTLESS in the statement above? I am not categorically against every invasion of privacy. I just understand that every way the government has available to mess up people's lives will become tyranny unless tightly regulated. THAT is the job of a constitution, which details what the GOVERNMENT may not do, as opposed to other laws, which details what the individual may not do.

I am with you in that a society without laws would be terrible. I am just saying that we've got laws enough to last us several lifetimes. That is certainly not a lack today. What IS a problem is that with a weakened constitution, there is a lack of constitutional limits to what the government may do to us. That is a state of things that is usually called, yeah, tyranny.

You pretend that the choice is between total surveillance and utter anarchy. The real choice is between a functioning legal system with constitutional limits and a total surveillance society.


Sissyl wrote:
You pretend that the choice is between total surveillance and utter anarchy. The real choice is between a functioning legal system with constitutional limits and a total surveillance society.

Actualy I have not pretended anything of the sort. I was speaking on topic.

This is off topic.

As for security act you speaking of...yes it needs to regulated...but how much is completely debatable. The reason it was past is because the bad guys knows what the FBI and CIA and other law enforcements limits are...and can work around it. So we had to in a sense loosen them up for a bit or we would have been hit again. The goverment job is to protect it's citizens after all.

This issue is alot more complex than you make it out to be...and entirely off topic for this thread...if you wish to start a new one I would be gald to continue this discusion there...so we are clear what we are talking about.


George Orwell's '1984' should be required reading in all high schools...

Blame those who want to kill you for the need for intrusive surveillance...

Blaming the government for loss of rights is, IMO, misguided. You get the government you elect. Judges are the bigger problem, since the public doesn't place them in power or revoke their authority...


No, it is not completely debatable. The limits are in the constitution. Those limits are necessary for a functioning, non-tyrannical, society, and if you "loosen them up for a bit", they are gone.

Blaming the "bad guys" doesn't work either, America has certainly weathered other bad times without scrapping the constitutional limits of government power.

And of course, I much prefer taking the risk some moron blows himself up next to me or my loved ones to living in a tyranny. Freedom doesn't come cheaply, and that risk is one of those prices.


Sissyl wrote:

No, it is not completely debatable. The limits are in the constitution. Those limits are necessary for a functioning, non-tyrannical, society, and if you "loosen them up for a bit", they are gone.

Blaming the "bad guys" doesn't work either, America has certainly weathered other bad times without scrapping the constitutional limits of government power.

And of course, I much prefer taking the risk some moron blows himself up next to me or my loved ones to living in a tyranny. Freedom doesn't come cheaply, and that risk is one of those prices.

Of course it is debatable otherwise you would be infringing on my free speech. ;)

If somebody jabs you in the face...you have to respond to keep them from doing it again. There are safeguards in that act. Rather it is abused or not is nothing to do with if it is necessary.

I did not mind it passing again...I would have minded if they expanded it's powers as some would have it done. And would love to see that it was more regulated.

Also I am for looking at the constitution...but it is outdated....and does need to be a living document. Otherwise slavery would still exist...only white males who own property would be allowed to vote etc. But it did not have in mind terroist attacks...when written.

It is a tough line to draw between freedom and safety...while you might not mind being blown up...I don't mind my conversation being monitored as long it is kept secret to getting blown up.

as I said...it is a balancing act...not in the way the goverment use it...but it is true.

Sovereign Court

Sissyl wrote:

No, it is not completely debatable. The limits are in the constitution. Those limits are necessary for a functioning, non-tyrannical, society, and if you "loosen them up for a bit", they are gone.

Blaming the "bad guys" doesn't work either, America has certainly weathered other bad times without scrapping the constitutional limits of government power.

And of course, I much prefer taking the risk some moron blows himself up next to me or my loved ones to living in a tyranny. Freedom doesn't come cheaply, and that risk is one of those prices.

Actually, the Constitution is mute on the privacy notion, despite what certain courts (mainly the Warren SC) have said. Also, that term warrantless wiretaps keeps coming up even though there was no such thing. Monitoring incoming calls from non-citizens on open air frequencies is in no way a violation of the Constitution. If instead you are talking about the listening on outgoing calls from US citizens, then you are incorrect that they were warrantless as they had set up a special judiciary council for preapproval on each.

Sovereign Court

John Kretzer wrote:

Also I am for looking at the constitution...but it is outdated....and does need to be a living document. Otherwise slavery would still exist...only white males who own property would be allowed to vote etc. But it did not have in mind terroist attacks...when written.

Actually the Constitution is not a "living" document, but an amendable one. The things you mentioned were changed by amendments, not by any reinterpretation. And I would not call it outdated.


Galahad0430 wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

Also I am for looking at the constitution...but it is outdated....and does need to be a living document. Otherwise slavery would still exist...only white males who own property would be allowed to vote etc. But it did not have in mind terroist attacks...when written.

Actually the Constitution is not a "living" document, but an amendable one. The things you mentioned were changed by amendments, not by any reinterpretation. And I would not call it outdated.

The fact that it is amendable mean living' to me. But I agree with you.

As to out dated...I might have used the wrong word. It is not the be all and end all of everything. All of concepts in it are valid still..but we can't read and just close our eyes to modern realities.


AT&T did put up the machinery to collect ALL data buzzing through its networks. This was compounded by AT&T getting immunity for this action. This means all that data is out there, somewhere. That judiciary committee? Yeah, it probably handles a case every so often... but the securitocracy gets it ALL, does what they like with it, sell it to whoever they like, for any reasons they feel like, and you will never know it happened. Only, one day, in a totalitarian future... that prosecutor who talked to you about the coke the cop "found" in your car seems to know things about you that you only ever told your mother on the phone...

Furthermore, the intelligence agencies ARE allowed to give data to private companies, thanks to Bush. Consider the consequences of this.

You said that "I don't mind my conversation being monitored as long it is kept secret to getting blown up."

It isn't secret. That is what "ubiquitous surveillance" means.

Liberty's Edge

Sissyl wrote:


This, of course, lets Canadian government people get away with throwing people in jail for all sorts of things, and will be and has been harshly used against rightful protest against government policy.

Really, I did not know that.

Could you please assist me in discovering the identities, facts and circumstances of all of those charged and convicted under the provisions of Canada's Criminal Code in relation to promoting hatred against an identifiable group?

I await with baited breath to discover these hitherto unknown excesses of Canada's inferior legal system and its relentless trampelling of the freedom of speech of its citizenry.

(Or, it could be that you just happen to making crap up because your rhetoric finds the truth to be inconvenient.)


.......


That's right, Frank. It is rather strange.


Sissyl wrote:

AT&T did put up the machinery to collect ALL data buzzing through its networks. This was compounded by AT&T getting immunity for this action. This means all that data is out there, somewhere. That judiciary committee? Yeah, it probably handles a case every so often... but the securitocracy gets it ALL, does what they like with it, sell it to whoever they like, for any reasons they feel like, and you will never know it happened. Only, one day, in a totalitarian future... that prosecutor who talked to you about the coke the cop "found" in your car seems to know things about you that you only ever told your mother on the phone...

Furthermore, the intelligence agencies ARE allowed to give data to private companies, thanks to Bush. Consider the consequences of this.

You said that "I don't mind my conversation being monitored as long it is kept secret to getting blown up."

It isn't secret. That is what "ubiquitous surveillance" means.

Can you point out where this has happened?

Or are you just having a nightmare scenario?

Trust me any cop...secret agent listeing to my phones calls...or read my e-mails...or anything like that is bored out of there heads. I think your problem here is that most people....could not care less about our secrets.

Also do you have any idea how much infomation you are talking about here? Any? All they can humanly do it is scan said data for key words like ...actualy I don't go futher because I know people who do this and really don't want them bored out of their minds from reading this...trust me when I say your fears are a little bit on the alarmist side.

I said before you are right we should be aware what our goverment( and rather it Bush or Ohbma who tried to extend the powers of the act you are talking about) are doing. But really I hate scvare tactic even from people I agree with. Scared people don't think...and bad things happen when people don't think.


Nightmare scenario? Well, I'll give you some homework to do. First: How many companies are actively involved in security analysis? How much money did that sector turn over last year? How many people work with those jobs?

Consider also: Pericles. This is a french system, used to create a "super-dossier" on a person. According to their ads for their new legal toys, the purpose is to gather ALL the data they have on a single person in one place. Location at all times of day through cellphone triangulation and ANPR-systems for traffic monitoring, the contents and traffic data of ALL communications, including financial, tax records, monetary transactions, every homepage visited, every internet search term used, full-scale social network data, criminal records, biometric data, DNA, biometric references to surveillance cameras where the person in question appears, and so on and so forth.

The point of this file, they say, is to "track terrorists". However, given their regard for human rights, I'd say it's more likely that the purpose is a super-dossier on EVERYONE. The collection of data is entirely automatic. They do not need to read anything. Once they have the data, when somebody becomes any sort of problem to them, they can just look through the dossier to find a good enough reason and way to destroy the individual in question.

This is a french system. Do you think America has any less?


Billzabub wrote:
Cuchulainn wrote:
Interesting that it was nearly unanimous (8-1). Alito was the lone dissenting justice.
On what basis could he possibly dissent? I'm going to have to read that . . . .

The question is basically when - and where - a funeral is "private space." No one doubts that WBC could go to Town Square and hold a rally. Likewise, no one doubts that WBC couldn't stand on the edge of Mr. Snyder's lawn and shout vileness 24-7.

Westboro didn't 'crash' the funeral. Instead, they situated themselves in public areas (admittedly, somewhat borderline [i.e a church's sidewalk]), those that made their appearance inevitable to the funeral itself. There's an issue too of whether the funeral is understood to be primarily a funeral, or whether the political aspect of the WBC's protest provides a 1st A. trump.

So, it's not hard to see either the majority or the dissent, primarily based on a line-drawing exercise, (which, in my worthless opinion, is why the SC shouldn't have take the case in the first place - it doesn't add much to the body of law).


Sissyl wrote:
Nightmare scenario? Well, I'll give you some homework to do. First: How many companies are actively involved in security analysis? How much money did that sector turn over last year? How many people work with those jobs?

Ok I see how you are thinking...and you are wrong. Those companies involved in security analysis as to have security clearence and I don't mean they have to pass some company test...they have to pass a goverment test. If they fail they will loose their jobs. If they abuse it and are caught...they will loose their jobs. They can't just do whatever they want with the info.

Sure abuses happen...but that is why we have lawyers...

Again show me some proof...I don't feel like doing your work for you.

Sissyl wrote:
This is a french system. Do you think America has any less?

Maybe they do...maybe they don't...but you are right we should watchhow they use it. But to get rid of it completely...why? If it is not abused it could be a very great help.


Are you serious? I said that we should all be worried about what the government imposes on us, through tentacled masses of security analysis companies, and you say that that is okay, they have all been checked by the government???

I honestly don't see any point in discussing this with you any further. Some people don't understand, and you might help them to do so. Other people don't WANT to understand, and they never will.

Shadow Lodge

John Kretzer wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

No, it is not completely debatable. The limits are in the constitution. Those limits are necessary for a functioning, non-tyrannical, society, and if you "loosen them up for a bit", they are gone.

Blaming the "bad guys" doesn't work either, America has certainly weathered other bad times without scrapping the constitutional limits of government power.

And of course, I much prefer taking the risk some moron blows himself up next to me or my loved ones to living in a tyranny. Freedom doesn't come cheaply, and that risk is one of those prices.

Of course it is debatable otherwise you would be infringing on my free speech. ;)

If somebody jabs you in the face...you have to respond to keep them from doing it again. There are safeguards in that act. Rather it is abused or not is nothing to do with if it is necessary.

I did not mind it passing again...I would have minded if they expanded it's powers as some would have it done. And would love to see that it was more regulated.

Also I am for looking at the constitution...but it is outdated....and does need to be a living document. Otherwise slavery would still exist...only white males who own property would be allowed to vote etc. But it did not have in mind terroist attacks...when written.

It is a tough line to draw between freedom and safety...while you might not mind being blown up...I don't mind my conversation being monitored as long it is kept secret to getting blown up.

as I said...it is a balancing act...not in the way the goverment use it...but it is true.

There are no safeguards in the Patriot act that will prevent you from getting blown up on the street. The Patriot act is a violation of the constitution. I don't want someone listening in on my phone conversations or reading my email, because not only does such activity violate the basic premise of our consitution its a waste of time. If you don't draw the line it will slowly fall back and back until you have no freedom at all in the name of safety. Whats next monitering all my purchases, surgically implanting gps trackers, taking dna at birth? Its bad enough that we have to deal with horrible invasions of privacy to fly on a plane that does nothing to actually make flying on a plane safer.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:


As for security act you speaking of...yes it needs to regulated...but how much is completely debatable. The reason it was past is because the bad guys knows what the FBI and CIA and other law enforcements limits are...and can work around it. So we had to in a sense loosen them up for a bit or we would have been hit again. The goverment job is to protect it's citizens after all.

If you're referring to 9/11 it's more likely that our vulnerability was more of the case of the left hand not talking to the right, and the head not listening to either. It's pretty much a done deal that something was known to be going down, but the critical failures were in communication between branches and a lack of inititative from the Oval Office.

In essence my argument is that the tools for legal surveilance are sufficient to the task, the need is a better process for handling the data gathered.

201 to 232 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Supreme Court rules for WBC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions