March 02, 2011
On the one hand,the threshold for a first amendment exception must necessarily be kept very high, on the other hand this situation is a pretty damned high threshold. The only thing a funeral protester of this sort does is inflict pain.
On the gripping hand, Jerry Pournelle brings some perspective as to the implications of this.
The decision was 8-1, Alito dissenting, and the Chief Justice exercised his prerogative to write the decision. That pretty well settles the matter: you have the right not only to say infuriating things, but also to say them in the most sensitive of places, so long as you are not disruptive: and you cannot be sued in civil courts for offending the parents of a war hero merely because you are being offensive.
This should have considerable impact on hate speech laws; it also ought to have some effect on the suppression of majority opinion because it offends a particular minority. If the Westbro Baptist Church has the right to say "Thank God for dead soldiers" at a funeral for a dead soldier, it should be difficult to defend suppressing displays "offensive" to Muslims outside their mosques. I haven't read the decision yet, but it certainly implies that non-disruptive speech knows no bounds of context and place.
As much as I detest them, it's the right call. Now I feel icky for "supporting" them.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Wed Mar 2 22:57:03 2011 (W8Men)
66 queries taking 0.2245 seconds, 274 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.