Breaking: Westboro Baptist Wins at Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that members of the fundamentalist Westboro church can picket military funerals to protest homosexuality, the Associated Press reports.
The opinion is here (.pdf). Don’t misunderstand what the ruling says. It does not involve a criminal statute and it does not rule that time, place, and manner restrictions on such picketing are unlawful — in fact, it reinforces the time-honored principle that such restrictions can be lawfully imposed. All the Court is saying is that when the protestors stay within legal strictures and are speaking on a public matter, they cannot be sued for a tort like intentional infliction of emotional distress.
While the Westboro people are ghouls, this does not appear to be a bad decision.
crap. simultaneous posting. i just deleted my post because it says even less than you.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:37 amWhich is quite a trick!
Patterico (c218bd) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:42 amThis pretty much puts the kibosh on speech codes.
Kevin M (298030) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:42 amIntellectually, I find myself agreeing with the ruling. Emotionally, I am inclined to hope that entire Congregation/Clan/What-Have-You gets run over by a tanker truck full of raw sewage.
I’m an agnostic, so I’m not clued in on Protestant sectarian politics. Are there any large over-arcing Baptist organizations, and if so have they denounced these swine?
C. S. P. Schofield (71781e) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:45 amAt least Justice Alito noticed that staying 1,000 feet away and carrying signs that are not event specific does NOT preclude the infliction of emotional harm upon those that are burying their loved one.
These maggots carry signs that read “Soldiers Die For Our (Your) Sins”, clearly implying that the particular soldier whose funeral is taking place is paying the price for someone else’s (gays, not the enemy) sins.
Icy Texan (b4bda0) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:45 amWestboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case
I can see what Justice Roberts is trying to say here. In general I’m in favor of a very broad interpretation of the first amendment – and the fact that WBC seriously sets my teeth on edge doesn’t mean the state should deprive them of their rights. But this substantially weakens IIED, and it leaves people who were singled out for no public purpose with no remedy for the harm done to them.
I mean: it’s one thing to picket the funeral of a person who has chosen to put themselves in the public eye. It’s something totally different to pick on, essentially, random people and then hurt them to get on the news. Justice Breyer seems to get that, but he underestimates the harm in this case. :{
aphrael (fe2ce4) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:55 amIt’s just one of those things: to support freedom of speech, you have to support the right of the worst people around to say the most repugnant things.
But, then again, I also support the freedom of expression that might be exercised by some soldiers when one of their friends is being laid to rest and the Westboro folks show up to protest.
The Dana who likes a ruling he hates (3e4784) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:57 amReally, really rooting for Fred Phelps in my dead pool.
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:11 am“In order to have a society in which public issues can beopenly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent.”
Amen Justice Alito
phaedruscj (3da70c) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:12 amWithout thoroughly investigating the nature of the issues, I think you’re probably right.
I am disgusted and offended by what these people are saying and doing, but I will defend to the death their Right To Do It.
Free speech is at the core of modern civilization. The capacity to offend is a central purpose of that:
– Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas –
It seems rather clear that black people would possibly still be slaves, and certainly that both they and women would be “second class citizens”, if it were not for the capacity to speak against the status quo in a manner which certainly offended a large proportion of the body politic at the time.
The power to offend is a key component of the Right To Free Speech.
IgotBupkis (c9dcd8) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:16 am> Emotionally, I am inclined to hope that entire Congregation/Clan/What-Have-You gets run over by a tanker truck full of raw sewage.
LOL, close. I would find it to be karmic justice, or a clear proof of God’s sense of humor, if they got the “Biff” treatment ala Back To The Future.
IgotBupkis (c9dcd8) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:21 amWell this will certainly make for an interesting Sockpuppet Friday.
aunursa (a2a019) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:25 amSo it looks like Alito is outside the mainstream of judicial thought. And isn’t he also the embodiment of judicial activism in his inventing a new right, the right to be free from being (allegedly) harmed by the legal activities of others?
steve (369bc6) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:34 amThis is a boon for SEIU and other groups, like those we have seen in Wisconsin, other people have
narciso (bf58f6) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:35 amthe discretion to know better
#4 – I’m an agnostic, so I’m not clued in on Protestant sectarian politics. Are there any large over-arcing Baptist organizations, and if so have they denounced these swine?
Yes. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Baptist organization, and also one of the most theologically and socially conservative Christian denominations. If any Baptist organizations were to agree with Phelps, you’d expect them to. But this is their official statement on Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church:
If you’re an atheist or agnostic, you may not fully appreciate how strong the language in that paragraph is. “His extreme positions … stand in contrast to God’s Word” is the polite form of “He’s a damned heretic.”
Wikipedia lists dozens and dozens of smaller Baptist organizations and I don’t have the time or desire to check all of them to see if they’ve made statements on Phelps and/or Westboro Baptist Church. But as anecdotal evidence, I travel a lot so I end up visiting many different churches — and every time I’ve heard Phelps mentioned from the pulpit or in private conversation, I hear Christians express disgust with his behavior.
Hope that answers your question to some extent.
Robin Munn (d55aaa) — 3/2/2011 @ 9:08 amWell, the right to free speech means nothing if different rules apply to bottom scum like Phelps and/or his message.
Tough case. Admittedly, it’s hard to celebrate this win for the Constitution, but a win it is.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 9:36 am“So it looks like Alito is outside the mainstream of judicial thought.”
steve – No, he thinks Westboro’s actions meet the test for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, a tort the standards of which are difficult to meet and he lays out a persuasive case for it in his dissent. The rest of the court breezily dismissed the possibility. Alito does not diminish free speech rights at all in his dissent. Read it.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:08 amAt page 8 of the slip opinion, the Court says that the signs, including “God Hates You” and “You’re Going to Hell,” are about “matters of public import,” a consideration weighing heavily in the First-Amendment analysis.
Okay… So if “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You” are matters of public import, what if anything doesn’t involve a matter of public import? What the heck is there left if this is how broadly we’re construing what constitutes a public issue?
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:21 amPalin’s Tweet:
I didn’t know that so much constitutional ignorance could be packed into so few words.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:22 am… and ironically, Palin ignores that the Westboro wackos were invoking God’s name in the public square.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:26 amThe tonedeafness of this court, sometimes amazes, this wasn’t about ‘freedom of speech’ it was closer
narciso (bf58f6) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:34 amto torturing the loved ones of innocents, recall these bastards wanted to picket the funeral of Christina, one of the fallen in Tucson, Alito, brought that detail up in his dissent.
Kman – About those Christmas trees………..
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:37 amI wonder what the Supremes will next identify as a “public issue.” The sex lives of the nation’s dental hygienists? The law clerks’ dental hygiene? The likelihood of married secretaries getting abortions?
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:39 am“I didn’t know that so much constitutional ignorance could be packed into so few words.”
Kman – Neither did I, but you are maintaining your standards today as usual.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:40 amAlan – as much as I detest these people, I think you’re misstating the case. Surely whether God has damned the entire United States because of our tolerance of homosexuality is a matter of public import. If it’s true, it effects everyone.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:48 amAt the risk of agreeing with the Kman, that’s more evidence that Palin should not be tweeting. Yikes. 140 characters of logical fail.
carlitos (01d172) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:49 amaphrael, I see what you did there. 🙂
carlitos (01d172) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:51 amAphrael, I’m not misstating anything. I’m quoting. Again, if saying that X person is going to Hell is a public issue, then what the heck isn’t?
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:52 amKman
> I didn’t know that so much constitutional ignorance could be packed into so few words.
At least she knew which constitution we were talking about. So she’s ahead of you on the issue.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:52 am“If it’s true, it effects everyone.”
About how many issues can you not say that? I can’t think of a single one.
So every issue is a public issue? Why then does the case law make a big deal about whether or not it’s a public issue, if every issue is?
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:53 amYou’re quoting selectively.
“God hates the USA”, “America is Doomed”, “Don’t Pray for the USA”, “Thank God for IEDs”, “American Taliban”, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”, “Fags Doom Nations” => these are, to my mind, clearly (obnoxious) statements about a matter of public import. “Fag Troops”, as well, and “Semper Si Fags”. Not to mention “Pope in Hell”, and “Priests Rape Boys”.
Now, “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You” don’t strike me as being matters of public import. But when you take the entire set of placards as a group, when you look at them as a whole, they’re commenting on matters of public import.
A few bad signs shouldn’t be allowed to trump the dominant thrust of the protest taken as a whole.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2011 @ 10:59 amAlan: If I personally am going to hell, it effects me and the people who care about me. If the entire country has been damned by God, then it effects everyone.
The former isn’t a matter of public import. The latter clearly is.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:00 amI’m very strongly in favor of a strong First Amendment with respect to freedom of speech.
However, I think that the opinion fails to deal with the fact that Westboro Baptist is not about protesting on national issues, but about trying to attract attacks upon themselves to generate litigation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:03 am“A few bad signs shouldn’t be allowed to trump the dominant thrust of the protest taken as a whole.”
aphrael – Read Alito’s dissent.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:05 amAphrael–no, I’m not quoting selectively; the Court did say that “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You” were expressions (not the only expressions, but expressions) on issues of public import. It’s dishonest of you to pretend that the Court wasn’t saying that those two statements weren’t among those described as statements on issues of public import. The phrase “these messages” doesn’t mean “some of these messages”; it means all of them.
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:13 amI’ve heard this before, but I still don’t understand it. Why would they want to generate litigation?
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:14 amSPQR
well, the court can only deal with the issue as it is presented.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:15 am“If I personally am going to hell, it effects me and the people who care about me. If the entire country has been damned by God, then it effects everyone.”
If you think that the Westboro crowd wasn’t referring to Matt Snyder personally when they said “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You,” then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. True, the Westboro lunatics were also saying that the whole country is damned, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were saying Matt Snyder was himself personally damned, raised for Hell, etc.
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:15 amEventually, Westboro Baptist is going to cross the wrong guy and most likely bring down an avalanche of deadly violence on themselves. They’re sure as hell asking for it, and they’ve sure as hell got it coming.
ropelight (518aa9) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:17 am39: Think of it as pest control.
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:17 amkman
> Why would they want to generate litigation?
you are a lawyer and you don’t know that some people engage in bogus lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for profit?
i am not sure it would actually be profitable for them (because it is hard to collect for hated clients), but i can recognize that they might incorrectly believe it to be.
well, thank God you are good as an actor, because then i can say, “DO quit your day job.”
i am not surprised when you don’t know anything about regular business, but to fail to understand the business of law…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:20 amAlan, I think it’s pretty clear that Justice Roberts was taking the entire set of signs as a whole rather than claiming that each individual sign, taken in isolation, was a comment of public import.
Of course they were referring to Matt Snyder personally when they said “you’re going to hell.” But, as I said before, a few bad apples doesn’t spoil the lot.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:22 amAs a defendant?
You’re quite correct that nobody profits from generating litigation upon themselves. Even if you win the case, you still have to expend time and money, which you may not recover. And if you do recover it, all you’ve done is break even.
So that’s why I asked SPQR the question.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:25 am“…I still don’t understand”.
Holy Jeebus. That might be the 1st time kmart has ever been honest here.
JD (b98cae) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:25 amDaleyrocks: I simply disagree with Alito on the subject. Actionable speech should be immunized when it’s a small part of non-actionable speech because the organizers of a rally can be held accountable for the bad actions of a few trolls.
That’s not what happened here, but I don’t see a practical way to disambiguate.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:30 amKman
You wrote:
OMG, after all this time we thought you were dishonest, it turns out the answer is, “no, kman is really, really dumb.”
Let’s review. SPQR wrote:
You responded by saying:
And now you reveal that you interpreted the term “generate litigation” to mean that you thought they would be attacked and then sued by their attackers?
How about this? They get attacked and then the sue their attackers?
All this time, through nine years of your stalking, I kept thinking, “he’s couldn’t be THAT stupid.” And now the answer is obvious. Yes, you are.
I mean holy s—, you are the Forrest Gump of the legal profession. It’s actually kind of impressive that you are this slow and yet made it this far.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:47 amThere ya go, Aaron.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:51 amBy “we” Gov. Palin was referring to public officials, K-Pax.
Icy Texan (b4bda0) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:51 amat some point many many moons ago I think I became desensitized to the provocations of Westboro Baptists … they’re like the people what wave the graphic fetus posters around in Chicago or the people what like to protest and riot at those events where you have a G followed by a number
At some point it seems a blessing that these wackadoodles are occupied with stuff what is as harmless as these ones are occupied with I think.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/2/2011 @ 11:54 amWell, the alternative interpretation (“They get attacked and then they sue their attackers”) simply makes LESS sense.
Put another way, the WBC spends $200,000 per year on picketing, or, according to this theory, provoking people to punch them. These guys have been around for 20+ years. So where are all these fights taking place? Any Youtube videos? Where are all these lawsuits? Is there any?
And we’re supposed to believe that they’ve pursuing the same non-money making strategy for over 20 years?
Sorry, that’s just plain tin foil hat stuff no matter how you look at it.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:04 pm“Actionable speech should be immunized when it’s a small part of non-actionable speech because the organizers of a rally can be held accountable for the bad actions of a few trolls.”
aphrael – I disagree. The supporters of Westboro can hardly be called a rally when they all literally belong to the same family and the bad actions are coordinated rather than the actions of trolls as you hypothesize. Alito demonstrates how the Westboro people personalized the “rally” to Matthew Snyder and his family. What part of his IIED argument do you find flawed?
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:13 pmaphrael – I’m sure you realize Alito is not suggesting the speech be restricted, but that it should be a tort in this case.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:14 pmThey are an offshoot of a group that has pursued the same non-Jesus-showing-up-again strategy for 2,000 years. Just sayin’.
carlitos (01d172) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:18 pm“you are a lawyer and you don’t know that some people engage in bogus lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for profit?”
See the ACLU.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:18 pmKman
Run, Forrest Run!
> Well, the alternative interpretation (“They get attacked and then they sue their attackers”) simply makes LESS sense.
Really? Let’s see here which business plan makes more sense?
Plan A: Get hit. Get sued by person hitting you. Successfully win the suit. But because we don’t live in a loser pays system, you get nothing for your trouble. But you still might have had to pay for a lawyer (except that a lot of those westboro Baptist morons are lawyers, too). So at best you lose nothing; at worst you pay for damages and your own lawyer.
Plan B: Get hit. Then sue your attacker for battery. Successfully win suit and damages based on the assault. Retire rich with bikini models.
So what is the chance that Plan B will work out as a business plan? I concur with you, that the chances are very low. Let’s say the chances of success are 0.01%.
On the other hand, what are the chances that Plan A will work out as a business plan? None. 0%. Why? Because if you are just a defendant, you can only lose money. As I say to my clients regularly when suing others, “there is no way they will get out of this without losing some money. Either they will pay us, or their lawyers, or both, but they will lose money.”
Now this is the really hard part, Forrest. Which is better? To have a 0.01% chance of making money, or a 0% chance of it? feel free to seek outside help with the answer.
So which business plan makes more sense?
But still, I am really amazed that you could actually be this dumb and be so successful in life.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:20 pmYes.
Usually, THEY are the ones doing the suing over infringement of their civil liberties.
They make a good bit of money at it, since they do all their lawyering in-house (most of the Phelps family are lawyers).
The problem the litigants had in this case was that the father didn’t even see the Phelps crowd at the memorial service. It was only later that he was made aware of the signs and such.
Had he seen them there, I suspect this case might have ended differently.
[Fixed formatting issue. -Aaron]
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:21 pmThanks. I didn’t know this, and it’s a tough topic to google today.
carlitos (01d172) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:23 pmAllow me to introduce you to Rep. Jackson-Lee…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:23 pm@carlitos
Yeah, they spend almost nothing on lawsuits, because they don’t have to hire counsel.
I mean, look at who they had presenting oral arguments to the Supreme Court – Phelp’s Daughter…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:25 pmKman, WBC makes money on attorney fees when they sue local governments that shut down their protests. That this simple fact goes over your head only reinforces your status as a mental midget.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:29 pmI see there’s a bit of chatter here about Alito’s dissent. One regular keeps applauding it and telling his target to “read it.”
Well, I did so even before venturing here. I’d wondered if anyone in this little room would pick up on a certain aspect of Alito’s dissent. Apparently not.
You know how you guys can’t stand those librul judicial activists reaching over the pond to foreign law to bolster their errant work?
It seems Alito did just that today. He cites a decision from a court in England, 111 years ago, concerning a barfly whose practical joke, falsely telling a woman her husband had been seriously injured at the racetrack, led to considerable emotional distress. From Alito’s dissent:
“It is well established that a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress can be satisfied by speech. Indeed, what has been described as “[t]he leading case” recognizing this tort involved speech. Prosser and Keeton, supra, §12, at 60 (citing Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q. B. 57); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts §46, illustration 1. And although this Court has not decided the question, I think it is clear that the First Amendment does not entirely preclude liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by means of speech.”
For that matter, earlier this year in the Ransom bankruptcy decision, Scalia’s dissent was built on another case over that way, citing a House of Lord’s opinion.
I expect that in this forum, for conservative justices it’s a matter of doing what ya gotta do; but if a librul dares do same, it’s judicial activism by contortion.
I’m just saying.
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:30 pmThat got it, Aaron. Thanks.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:33 pmOh, I got it…
It’s just that he LOST this argument, and thus his point is unimportant.
As Scalia once said, in the lower courts you write dissents to point out issues you hope will be picked up by a higher court, but at the Supreme Court you are pretty much writing for law school students.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:35 pmYou are kind of an idiot, Larry. And it is no surprise you are a JournoList.
JD (b98cae) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:37 pmNo, Aaron.
There are other possibilities. WBC could get sued, and countersue for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc (it differs from state to state). That’s how, in many jurisdictions, you can get around the fact that “we don’t live in a loser pays system”.
That of course, is ALSO a dumb “business plan” for its own reasons, but in any event, that’s why I initially asked the question.
Of course, once you accept that the “business plan”, whatever it is, employs the underpants gnome theory of making profit, it really make no sense to argue which version of the underpants gnome theory makes “more sense” and which is “stupider”. You can have that argument with yourself, if you want.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:40 pmThe fact that Britain is a “common law” legal system and that there are common roots in the tort doctrines between the United States and Britain goes over Larry’s head.
Not that that is a lot of altitude.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:40 pmDid anyone really expect Kman to have the courage and intellectual honesty required to admit he made a mistake on this issue?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:45 pmYeah, IF they win, and IF the court grants those fees. But they don’t sue or win enough to cover the costs of their protests.
That’s an urban legend and it has been around for years. Yet nobody has been able to show that Phelps’ church has won massive amounts of money over the years (these lawsuits would be a matter of public record) — certainly not enough to sustain itself.
Feel free to show me the proof, and I’ll readily change my mind.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:46 pmKman/Forrest
> There are other possibilities.
And they are all just as dumb. It is ALWAYS easier to recover for being battered than for “abuse of process” or any of that. give me a break.
> it really make no sense to arguewhich version of the underpants gnome theory makes “more sense”
Then why did you argue that your idiotic interpretation made more sense than the obvious one?
Just run. Run, Forrest Run.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:55 pmSome
no, but its fun to watch him twist and turn, trying to avoid admitting he is a moron. Its like that br’er rabbit story. yeah, that story is really offensive these days but its a perfect metaphor. the harder he fights, the more stuck he is.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:57 pmI’ll readily change my mind.
Which is a goal that motivates my very existence.
Uh, not. Piss off.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/2/2011 @ 12:58 pmSince the Ransom bankruptcy decision earlier this year didn’t involve a tort, then apparently spqr believes it’s OK to lift law from other countries as long as they are English speaking, and, perhaps, if the lifter is Scalia.
Scalia’s dissent in Ransom conveniently was the one vote to keep Kagan’s very first opinion from being unanimous. And to do so, he dipped into an English court’s opinion to push out of the way one in 2002 by our own Supreme Court:
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:05 pm……The Court believes, however, that unless the IRS’s Collection Financial Standards are imported into the Local Standards, the word “applicable” would do no work,violating the principle that “‘we must give effect to every word of a statute wherever possible.’” Ante, at 8 (quoting Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 12 (2004)). I disagree…… A House of Lords opinion holds, for example, that in the phrase “‘in addition to and not in derogation of’” the last part adds nothing but emphasis. Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries, Ltd., [1942] A. C. 601, 607.
“it’s judicial activism by contortion.”
Larry Reilly – No moron, all Alito is saying is that you’ve got free speech, but if you take certain actions with respect to private citizens, there might be consequences. No activism, just his minority interpretation.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:07 pmAllow me to introduce you to the concept of “settlements”, where two parties involves in a lawsuit agree to a payment of a sum of money to prevent further litigation.
Frequently this is done simply to remove the hassle of legal proceedings. The amount of money is less than what could have been awarded in court, but is available far sooner. It is often covered by legal insurance, and may in fact be cheaper than fighting the case in court and winning…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:08 pmOf course they were referring to Matt Snyder personally when they said “you’re going to hell.” But, as I said before, a few bad apples doesn’t spoil the lot.
So, hypothetically speaking, if I give a speech that’s, say, 80 percent constitutionally protected and 20 percent miscellaneous, I get a free pass for the whole speech?
Alan (83c355) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:12 pmYeah, but this is the Westboro Baptist Church. The fact that they sued, and settled, in so many jurisdictions, would certainly make the news, right? It would be a matter of public record.
So where are all these cases — settled or otherwise?
Is there actual proof of this, or are people gullible to the same chain email that’s been floating around for years?
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:12 pmWhich of your fellow JournoListers gave you your talking points, Larry?
JD (29e1cd) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:12 pm“But they don’t sue or win enough to cover the costs of their protests.”
Proof of assertion please.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:13 pmI was not aware that you had to file suit to make a claim, or to reach a settlement. Kmart teaches us something new every day.
JD (29e1cd) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:16 pmOy.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:21 pmat the Supreme Court you are pretty much writing for law school students.
or, perhaps, future generations of Supreme Court Justices. I think on some level this is often what Justice Thomas is doing.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:24 pmRobin Munn,
Thank you for answering my question. I should have looked it up myself, I admit, but it’s been one hell of a week …. and it’s only Wed..
I didn’t think that any organized group of mainstream Christians would support the WBC swine, but I was afraid that either there was no over-arcing organization or if there was one they might have failed to understand the necessity of distancing themselves from these creeps.
C. S. P. Schofield (71781e) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:34 pmOy? It was your assertion, kmart. Rather than admitting that you were wrong, you are now running around with the goalposts screaming BUNNIES at the top of your lungs. Were you not dishonest, you would have said “my mistake” and moved on.
JD (d56362) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:35 pmAW – I do not find the story of Brer Rabbit offnsive. What am I missing?
JD (0d2ffc) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:37 pmOy.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:40 pmbunny!
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:41 pmhappyfeet wins.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:44 pmLarry
America has a common law system descended from the English common law system. We have a relationship to them, sort of like father to son.
For instance, go look up the English Bill of Rights and recognize that it was written about a hundred years before either the American Declaration of Independence and the American Bill of Rights. It will open your eyes.
All scalia did in the ransom case was mention how a common canon of statutory construction, that applies both to America and England well before this decision, was used in one illustrative case. He didn’t cite it to alter how the law in America applied, but rather to show a normal application in the nation we got our legal system from.
You are making something out of nothing.
Yes, the effect of this is that we favor legal principles from one particular nation over others. We have done this for 200 years and I don’t see what is wrong with it. The English common law system is part of why England was relatively free while its rival france was a tyranny until very recently. It is better suited for a free people.
Not all countries or legal cultures are created equal. England’s culture has borne the imprint of the relative freedom they have enjoyed throughout history. By comparison, China has been a tyranny in virtually all of its existence. We should not treat their legal traditions equally.
But should we also adopt the blasphemy law in Pakistan while we are at it?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:52 pmJD
I’ll forward you an email i sent to dustin explaining some of the history behind those stories.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:53 pmThen, kmart, by all means, explain why. Oy is not a position.
JD (822109) — 3/2/2011 @ 1:55 pmIf they are suing a municipality (for, say, violating their First Amendment rights), they would pretty much have to file a claim as a matter of law in most jurisdictions. You can’t just show up at City Hall with a gripe and walk out with money; there’s a public process.
As a practical matter, WBC would probably end up filing lawsuits anyway, even against a private individual, because I don’t know many defendants who would quake at a demand letter from them, seeing as how they would reasonably hold title to “the world’s most unsympathetic plaintiff”. If Fred Phelps wants to sue me for punching his face, I’m going to make him sue me in court, because even if I did, I’d give myself a decent chance of winning over a jury.
So, as I said earlier, there would be public records of these lawsuits, and certainly news coverage.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:05 pmThe Westboro people are like a hypothetical construct out of a semi-deranged con-law professor’s final exam.
Or maybe the exams of just a semi-deranged part-time instructor in constitutional law.
Study tip: All passing exam answers must include the phrases “cognitive dissonance,” “social justice,” and “anal sex.”
Seriously, though, it’s like someone’s imaginary impossible organization that simultaneously outrages all observers along a pair of axes at 90-degree angles to one another. It’s like, “What if God took the rock he made that’s too heavy for even Him to lift and he chucked it down from heaven to smite baby seal puppies who were rallying against global warming.”
Beldar (d162eb) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:05 pmJD
actually, i’ll cut and paste what i said to dustin here. its rough, but it captures most of it.
so some slaves told stories about br’er rabbit and a tar baby and white people thought it was too funny to call black people that. so what started innocent, as something black people made up, became a racial slur. at least that is how i understood the story.
And that wasn’t the only time. today to call a black person an uncle tom is an insult. how screwed up is that? make whatever criticisms you want of that book, but it if was not for Ms. Stowe slavery might not have ended as quickly as it did. and to turn that title into an insult is just disrespectful of the good thing she did.
back at the core, original meaning of the br’er rabbit story, there was nothing offensive. and it is still a great metaphor. but its tied, sadly, to that ugliness.
And needless to say, that disney movie will never see the light of day again. its sad to say this but walt was a bit of a racist. but i don’t think it was all bad. i also think that dumbo was a parable of the value of diversity and the fact it came out in the middle of a war against a nation that very much didn’t like diversity (nazi germany) probably wasn’t a coincidence. i am not sure how one integrates the mind that brought us dumbo with the absolutely racist imagery in song of the south, but well, there it is. i am still puzzling that one out.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:08 pm‘Scuse me, I meant “semi-deranged part-time senior instructor in constitutional law.” Just hypothetically, of course.
Beldar (d162eb) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:08 pmYou just blew my mind.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:09 pmSince it’s Black History Month, and in order to leap into an argument with which I’ve had nothing prior to do, I turned to Wikipedia — heavy lifting does not deter me, no sir or ma’am! — to confirm my recollection, which was congruent with Aaron’s, I think:
Because, you see, a factoid adduced for purposes of promoting Black History Month and the African roots of African-Americans is automatically exempt from racist accusations. Because you’re not calling those tribal elders who told Anansi stories “racists,” are you?!? And how can we not but dishonor them if we do not repeat, and honor and learn from, their stories?
I doubt that I could effectively practice civil trial law without creative and frequent use of the “Briar Patch Principle,” for example. I recognize that it’s politically incorrect to refer to anything, anyhow, anytime as a “Tar Baby” anymore, even though it’s such a wonderfully evocative name precisely because of important qualities other than its color. But don’t you dare call me a racist, or I’ll report you for insulting those tribal elders.
Beldar (d162eb) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:19 pmBlack history month was February. Just sayin’
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:26 pmMeh, AW. That does not makes the story offensive. It makes specific people’s use of it offensive. The story is what it is, a very evocative story, with a rather obvious meaning.
You said it is offensive. I think that is a stretch, some uses may be offensive. It seems to depend on what prism you choose to view it through.
JD (b98cae) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:28 pmThis whole discussion is a tar-baby.
Kmart – you are a lawyer. So, direct me to where the public records are for tort claims filed against municipalities, etc … that were filed with the insurance carrier, and settled before litigation was ever commenced. Names. Amounts.
JD (306f5d) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:32 pmStashui3 (#97): Yes, February in your alternative universe! But what says Stashu2? Stashu37?
Beldar (d162eb) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:33 pmLack of news coverage proves nothing, kmart. You keep throwing that out there, but the MFM does not cover all sorts of things that do not fit their narrative.
JD (b98cae) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:35 pmStash
Well, I do work for the LA Clippers…
https://patterico.com/2011/03/01/black-history-month-celebration-fail/
joking aside, i don’t buy into the whole “black history month” concept. i don’t pay more attention to the subject in February, and i don’t pay less attention in any other month. i think maybe that was justified in the “bad old days” but at some point all racial distinctions need to go away. i think its outlived its valid purpose.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:36 pmit’s like someone’s imaginary impossible organization that simultaneously outrages all observers along a pair of axes at 90-degree angles to one another
Very well put.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:38 pmNo idea Sir… and with that, back to lurking.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/2/2011 @ 2:49 pm“i don’t pay more attention to the subject in February, and i don’t pay less attention in any other month.”
A.W. – Are you down with Kwanzaa?
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 3:13 pmJust don’t refer to atronomical objects so dense that they don’t even let light escape by their shorthand name.
MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2011 @ 3:20 pmSingularities?
Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/2/2011 @ 3:32 pmMachinist- shhhh
MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2011 @ 3:44 pmCome close to the computer: b-l-a-c-k h-o-l-e-s
Daley
hell no.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/2/2011 @ 3:55 pmComment by MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly — 3/2/2011 @ 3:44 pm
I know, I was just suggesting a safer alternative term. It’s a gravitational singularity, what we call the size is the event horizon and the actual size of the “thing” comes out as zero, a point. Once the structure of the neutrons collapse, our physics don’t describe a next “step”.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/2/2011 @ 4:02 pmOnce the structure of the neurons in the universe collapse, will Obamacare reduce the deficit?
Beldar (d162eb) — 3/2/2011 @ 4:21 pmNo, but Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee would finally have a peer group outside those who rode the short bus to school…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 4:29 pmMachinist, I heard that the Russians never used the term “black hole” because it meant something scatological in Russian. They used to prefer the expression “frozen star.”
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/2/2011 @ 4:49 pmMy former future son-in-law wrote:
Racist! I denounce you.
Good thing you never made it into the family.
The relieved Dana (132cf8) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:13 pmBeldar asked:
It’s ObaminableCare which will lead to the collapse of the structure of
The astrophysicist Dana (132cf8) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:15 pmneutronsneurons in the universe.The usual hogwash from the SCOTUS I see.
If I stand on a street corner and say that the judges on the SCOTUS ought to be shot down like dogs (because of the SCOTUS’ 200 year history of twisting and perverting the law), it can get me 20 years in prison.
However, if I go to a private funeral and say U.S. soldiers ought to be shot down like dogs (and burn in hellfire for eternity), that’s A-OK, according to the nine halfwits at the ever-ludicrous SCOTUS.
The federal laws are a joke.
The 1A is a joke.
The SCOTUS is a joke.
Same as it’s ever been.
Dave Surls (3fc11b) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:20 pm“It’s ObaminableCare which will lead to the collapse of the structure of neutrons neurons in the universe.”
The astrophysicist Dana – Dude, don’t worry, Charlie Sheen has got the cure for either of those problems. It’s EPIC!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:20 pmBut, if like WBC, you merely say that you are GLAD that they have died, you’ll be fine.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:32 pmit’s a good decision… we’re not the most freedomy nation on earth so it’s nice when a certain amount of freedom is so lopsidedly validated even at this late date.
It’s not at all unhopeful and it’s the sort of decision you would really really need to see if you want to entertain thoughts that obamarape health cares might be found unconstitutional.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:37 pmif you want to destroy my sweater
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:41 pm“But, if like WBC, you merely say that you are GLAD that they have died, you’ll be fine.”
Not if you say that you’re glad a government official has been murdered.
Just advocating the DESIRABILITY of the assassination of government officials is a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
Same if you advocate the desirability of overthrowing the United States government. Just saying that that would be a good thing can buy you a 20 year prison sentence…and a lot of people have gone to jail over the years, because of that law…and, the SCOTUS has never struck the law down, even though it’s a flagrasnt violation of the 1A…as per their usual practice of blowing off what the law says, when what the law says doesn’t suit their purpose.
The 1A is a complete joke, honored only when the government feels like honoring it.
And, like I said…it’s the same as it’s ever been.
Dave Surls (3fc11b) — 3/2/2011 @ 5:52 pmMachinist-
My apology for not getting it. I thought nuclear physics was kind of interesting, until I got to the point where they described sub-atomic particles as being “charmed” or not, and other terms (was it flavors? colors?) that had no concrete relevance to anything, but since they described mathematical properties beyond physical conception it didn’t make much difference what they called them. Actually the concrete and wood benches behind the physics building in Madison (the part rebuilt after the 1970 bombing) had all these funny symbols painted on them for quarks and mesons and all that.
I protested to my friends in 2nd semester P.Chem that it didn’t make sense for an electron to be in one place 50% of the time and another place 50% of the time, but you could never catch it in the middle going from one to the other, and said it was all voodoo, (tongue firmly in cheek of course) and I would stick with enzyme mechanisms and organic synthesis.
BTW, some time ago I read where a few of the physicists working on that super-atom-smasher in Europe has rechecked their calculations (I tell my daughter to do that too) and think that a mini-gravitational singularity might actually exist long enough to self-propogate and not stay so “mini” after all (at least in terms of what it sucks in). That would be a quick solution to a lot of things.
MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2011 @ 6:01 pmNo, but he’ll have something new to blame for his failure to do so.
I’m betting it won’t, unless you actually plan to shoot the justices. Perhaps you can show me a relatively recent case of someone being jailed for merely speaking such a thing?
Some chump (e84e27) — 3/2/2011 @ 6:04 pmNo, saying you are glad that they are already dead is very, very different from saying that they should be killed.
And it is also different to say that God will strike someone down.
Your ignorance is shocking, but not because it is unexpected.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 6:09 pmNeurons, neutrons … I meant to write neutrons but maybe my neurons knew better. Either way, gonna be hard for the Dems to put lipstick on this pig when they come home.
Beldar (d162eb) — 3/2/2011 @ 6:21 pmC. S. P. Schofield –
You’re welcome. Glad I could help.
Incidentally, it’s mildly amusing that you’re an agnostic, given your name. You share first initials with C.S. Lewis, one of the most-beloved Christian writers of the 20th century, and your last name is almost the same as that of C.I. Scofield, who authored* one of the more famous editions of the Bible in the 20th century (the Scofield Reference Bible, which combined Bible text with commentary on the same page). Just goes to show that you can’t predict someone’s opinions from their name. 🙂
* For clarity: Scofield wrote the commentary, not the Bible text.
Robin Munn (d55aaa) — 3/2/2011 @ 6:30 pm“I’m betting it won’t”
Well, that’s your call, but when it comes to gambling away twenty years of my life…I’m not a gambling man.
“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or”
“Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or”
“Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—”
“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years…”
That’s what the (totally unconstitutional) law says. Hundreds of people have been tried, convicted and jailed, under its various provisions since 1940, when it was signed into law by every “liberal’s” great hero (FDR)…and the SCOTUS has never struck it down, even though it’s a flagrant violation of the 1A, which says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Supreme Law of the land says Congress shall make NO law that abridges the freedom of speech and press…but, they go ahead and do it anyway, and the SCOTUS backs them up (on a case by case basis), which is why the law I cited is still on the books.
The courts don’t rule based on what laws say, they rule on what they think is expedient.
The 1A is a joke.
The SCOTUS is a joke.
It’s just not the kind of joke you want to laugh at too hard, just in case they decide to “interpret” your laughter as some kind of advocation of the overthrow of their precious government.
Dave Surls (3fc11b) — 3/2/2011 @ 6:31 pmToday’s decision, is a sad example of Gresham’s law. Westboro Baptist does no credit to public affairs or true religion, it is the cramped, angry
narciso (bf58f6) — 3/2/2011 @ 7:02 pmthing, that the devil himself would conjure up. There is no mercy, no understanding to them, precious little biblical scholarship, Proverbs 6
for one example.
I like how David is so stupid, he can’t tell the difference between advocating a future act with discernible intent and voicing admiration for a past event or stating a desire for a higher power to do the smiting.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:15 pmComment by Simon Jester — 3/2/2011 @ 4:49 pm
It sounds like it comes out sounding like a chocolate starfish. I guess I don’t blame them for using a different term.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/2/2011 @ 8:59 pmComment by MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly — 3/2/2011 @ 6:01 pm
I don’t see any apology being called for. My attempts at jokes would be less confusing if I had a sense of humor, or so I’m told.
The use of the uncertainty principle to explain Alpha radiation was one of the things that delighted me about physics and actually made me more comfortable about particles, but I was not as well educated as you are, not even close.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/2/2011 @ 9:04 pmMachinist-
MD (from UW-Madison) in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/2/2011 @ 9:35 pmMy wife once stated that I said something funny once, but she can’t remember what it was…
So I feel you pain.
The fact is, Albert Snyder did not know of the protest until he saw it on TV after the funeral.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 3/3/2011 @ 3:29 amThe problem is that everyone is thinking about this wrong: sometimes the law is simply neither an adequate nor appropriate solution to the problem.
The solution to the Phelps clan problem is simple: the next time they show up, the cameras should be turned off and a group of fine young men should just beat their candy asses. No one should see a thing, or be able to identify the young men — who must’ve been from out of town — and after this happens five or six times, the Phelps clan will learn their lesson and just STFU.
The colonial solution of tar and feathers might also work well.
The practical Dana (3e4784) — 3/3/2011 @ 3:48 amScott: the thing I find truly odd about it is that, while our first amendment jurisprudence isn’t perfect, the freedom of speech is more protected here than it is anywhere else in the world; I thought this was something which was generally understood.
Furthermore, I think if you apply Brandenberg to the law, you end up with a situation where mere advocacy, or advocacy with intent, isn’t enough; there has to actually be a likelihood that the advocacy would result in “inciting or producing imminent lawless action”.
Now, this is a relatively new rule, dating to the 1960s, and it’s likely that people were prosecuted for mere advocacy before that. But in the modern world? I would need a reference or a citation to a specific post-Brandenberg case to believe it.
aphrael (9802d6) — 3/3/2011 @ 8:01 amMichael E – that’s certainly true, and it would support a decision that it was impossible, as a matter of fact, for a reasonable jury to find that there had been emotional distress.
But the court didn’t take that (very narrow, easy) way out; it essentially foreclosed IIED claims against protesters whenever the protesters were speaking on matters of public import and complying with TMP regulations. While that’s narrower than many who dislike the ruling are making it out to be, it’s broader than would be justified just by the observation that Snyder wasn’t actually emotionally injured.
aphrael (9802d6) — 3/3/2011 @ 8:06 amAddendum to the unclear comment #153: I was trying to apply Brandenburg to the law that Dave Surls is citing.
aphrael (9802d6) — 3/3/2011 @ 8:06 am“I like how David is so stupid…”
Nothing stupid about it, Simple Simon.
If you advocate the desirability of assassinating politicians, you can go to prison for 20 years. End o’ story.
As a matter of fact if you advocate the desirability of marching into Washington, grabbing the current Congress by the scruff of their collective necks, and tossing them into the Potomac (for a well needed bath), and replacing them with a new Congress, you can go to prison for 20 years just for saying that.
Such is the state of our fabulous legal system.
And, the fact that totally unconstitutional laws like that have been on the books for generations, and the fact that lots of people have been given lengthy prison sentences for violating those totally unconstitutional laws shows what a complete joke the 1A is, and what a complete joke the SCOTUS is.
But, I guess it’s all good as long as worthless turds like Fred Phelps can disrupt funerals and add to the grief and misery of families trying to hold burial services for their dead loved ones, with the full backing of our mighty SCOTUS, in the name of a freedom of speech that exists only when they say it does.
Dave Surls (6a2c64) — 3/3/2011 @ 8:15 amDave: can you find me any case in the last forty years where someone who has gone to prison for advocating the desirability of assassinaitng politicians, without there being evidence of an actual danger that they or their students posed an imminent threat, or that they were engaged in some sort of conspiracy to actually carry out such an assassination?
The reasoning in Brandenburg, which is the controlling precedent in this area, would foreclose the situation you say exists. Maybe you’re right; but it’s an extraordinary claim, requiring evidence.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/3/2011 @ 9:03 am“The reasoning in Brandenburg…”
Yeah, I’m familiar with the “reasoning” of the courts in cases like Brandenburg and Yates.
As long the Dems were using the Smith Act to put people in prison for expressing (or sometimes just holding) certain political beliefs, the 1A took a temporary 12 year vacation, however when the Republcans took control of the White House in 1953, all of a sudden it made a magical reappearance, and not only that, it was cleverly rewritten on the fly so it would say what the liberals on the SCOTUS needed it to say.
Instead of saying:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
Now it says:
“Neither Congress nor the state of Ohio shall make any law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless nine loons in black think that the law in question will prevent speech or writings that incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.
Same old crap…different day.
And, it’s the same old “precedent” too…and that is that the SCOTUS doesn’t decide based on what the law says, they decide based on what is politically expedient, and reword the law accordingly.
Dave Surls (3036b0) — 3/4/2011 @ 1:31 amThey overrode not only Chaplinsky, but in a certain sense, Schenck v. US. for which purpose. To sow discord, to allow for the torment of family members
narciso (bcb6cc) — 3/4/2011 @ 5:01 amat a funeral, what good can come of this,