Even fruitcakes' free speech guaranteed
Upholding Americans' right to express themselves freely, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of religious weirdos to demonstrate at the funerals of American soldiers. It must be noted, however, that in the case under consideration demonstrating nut jobs got nowhere near the actual service:
Australian barrister Jeremy Sear is aghast at the ruling, however:
It seems that research-averse barrister Jeremy can't be bothered thinking before posting. Either that or he intends to mislead.
The picket was held in a location cordoned off by the police, approximately 1000 feet from the Church, from which it could be neither seen nor heard.Thus the court's decision was, in the circumstances, entirely reasonable.
Australian barrister Jeremy Sear is aghast at the ruling, however:
To begin, I don’t agree with the US Supreme Court that “free speech” protections should include a “right” to harass and intimidate. In the real world there should be – and, for people like the Supreme Court justices, are – obvious limits. I suspect that if I were to stand on a public street next to a Supreme Court judge’s house and loudly broadcast abuse at him and his family over the fence at three in the morning, the police would arrive and promptly take me away. Even though I was technically on “public property”.Standing "next to a Supreme Court judge’s house and loudly broadcast[ing] abuse at him and his family over the fence at three in the morning" is nothing at all like what happened at the funeral where demonstrators could be neither seen nor heard.
It seems that research-averse barrister Jeremy can't be bothered thinking before posting. Either that or he intends to mislead.
posted by Anonymous at 5:19 PM |
3 Comments:
And what does Jeremy Sear think would happen to a barrister who publishes the name and photo of an airport employee with the chilling threat 'instant karma's gonna get you, son'?
I suspect that if I were to stand on a public street next to a Supreme Court judge’s house and loudly broadcast abuse at him and his family over the fence at three in the morning, the police would arrive and promptly take me away. Even though I was technically on “public property”.
That wouldn't be a Constitutional Law issue, it would be a local noise ordinance issue, a breach of the peace, and possibly a harassment/stalking issue. Just as it would have been had the Westboro nutters stood on a public street next to Mr. Snyder's house and loudly broadcast abuse at him and his family over the fence at three in the freaking morning.
Jeremy would, however, be allowed under the First Amendment to picket a Supreme Court Justice's funeral (they're generally called "Justices", not "judges", Jeremy) in the same way and with the same restrictions under which the Westboro morons picketed that of Lance Cprl Matthew Snyder.
I know that a lot of Australians, used to being both strangled and cossetted by Australia's draconian and antiquated Nanny-State restrictions on free speech, sometimes have a hard time understanding how far-reaching and liberal the First Amendment to America's Constitution is, and why it's so very important to everything America stands for, but Jeremy's attempt at an equivalence there shows more than simple misunderstanding.
Seriously, that was just stupid. The boy sounds like an angry 6-year-old.
via the Cato Institute:
Love the Right to Free Speech, Hate the Speaker (link)
[...] Stepping aside from the emotions and bizarre facts, this case implicates all sorts of legal issues aside from the First Amendment. A private cemetery can and should remove unwanted visitors for trespassing — but the Phelpses didn’t enter the cemetery. A town can pass ordinances restricting the time, place, and manner of protests — but the Phelpses stayed within all applicable regulations and followed police instructions. Violent or aggressive protestors can be both prosecuted and sued for assault, harassment, and the like — but the Phelpses’ protests did not involve “getting up in the grill” of people, as their lawyer put it during oral argument.
As the brevity of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion confirms, there’s very little to this case and the Phelpses’ actions, ugly and objectionable as they are, are as constitutionally protected as a neo-Nazi parade. If people don’t like that, they can change state laws to put certain further restrictions on protests near funerals or other sensitive areas — or federal laws in the case of military cemeteries — but they shouldn’t be able to sue simply for being offended.
Defending the American principle of free speech means defending even -- especially -- the right of people you hate, to free speech which you find utterly offensive. A blink of an eye, a change of government, and it might be your free speech which needs defending. That's why the First Amendment is not for messing with.
Jeremy and his fellow travelers are as bad as some of those in the Christian Right - they just don't get it.
Post a Comment
<< Home