Are there exceptions to the First Amendment?

[LisaR]

Based on other discussions, I know there are those of you that feel our rights are always being trampled on. Is there ever a time that exceptions need to be made?

I know the Westboro discussion has come up many times. I feel they should be able to protest whatever funeral they want because while they are sick, distasteful trash, their protests don't incite violence.

What about Pastor Jones; the idiot from FL that burned the Quran and now wants to demonstrate outside of a mosque in Dearborn, MI? They say his stunt in FL set off many killings in Afghanistan.

http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...-vows-to-protest-next-week-at-Dearborn-mosque
(there are also plenty of other articles on this story)

They gave him the option of demonstrating in a "free speech zone" away from the mosque but he only wants to be right in front of it.

He also "accidentally" discharged his gun in public the other day.

Does there come a point and time where we say someone isn't playing with a full deck and their actions have the potential to hurt others so we need to circumvent their first amendment rights? Is it reasonable to offer him an alternative place to demonstrate that would possibly incite less backlash? Or do we just let him have at it because we can't mess with the first amendment?

 

[bicker]

The only rights that could EVER be truly unrestricted are those for which the locus of impact and context is the confines of one's own mind. Once the impact of a right extends beyond that, it invariably bounces up against what may be conflicting rights of others, and therefore the boundary needs to be adjudicated, involving conditions, limitations, and/or specifications.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Based on other discussions, I know there are those of you that feel our rights are always being trampled on. Is there ever a time that exceptions need to be made?

I know the Westboro discussion has come up many times. I feel they should be able to protest whatever funeral they want because while they are sick, distasteful trash, their protests don't incite violence.

What about Pastor Jones; the idiot from FL that burned the Quran and now wants to demonstrate outside of a mosque in Dearborn, MI? They say his stunt in FL set off many killings in Afghanistan.

http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...-vows-to-protest-next-week-at-Dearborn-mosque
(there are also plenty of other articles on this story)

They gave him the option of demonstrating in a "free speech zone" away from the mosque but he only wants to be right in front of it.

He also "accidentally" discharged his gun in public the other day.

Does there come a point and time where we say someone isn't playing with a full deck and their actions have the potential to hurt others so we need to circumvent their first amendment rights? Is it reasonable to offer him an alternative place to demonstrate that would possibly incite less backlash? Or do we just let him have at it because we can't mess with the first amendment?

I've been told we as Americans are obligated to protect the religious beliefs of others even though those beliefs, well, I'll leave it at that.

And I'm not sure why you disrespect the religious beliefs of Reverend Phelps, he's preachin' right out of the Bible.

 

[Goofyluver]

We seem to live with many exceptions in our country today. Although, not the kind you may be thinking. Go read your money.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Based on other discussions, I know there are those of you that feel our rights are always being trampled on. Is there ever a time that exceptions need to be made?

I know the Westboro discussion has come up many times. I feel they should be able to protest whatever funeral they want because while they are sick, distasteful trash, their protests don't incite violence.

What about Pastor Jones; the idiot from FL that burned the Quran and now wants to demonstrate outside of a mosque in Dearborn, MI? They say his stunt in FL set off many killings in Afghanistan.

http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...-vows-to-protest-next-week-at-Dearborn-mosque
(there are also plenty of other articles on this story)

They gave him the option of demonstrating in a "free speech zone" away from the mosque but he only wants to be right in front of it.

He also "accidentally" discharged his gun in public the other day.

Does there come a point and time where we say someone isn't playing with a full deck and their actions have the potential to hurt others so we need to circumvent their first amendment rights? Is it reasonable to offer him an alternative place to demonstrate that would possibly incite less backlash? Or do we just let him have at it because we can't mess with the first amendment?

No, IMO there should be no exceptions. Once you start with an exception for one thing you've opened the door for all sorts of exceptions for other things.

It is unfortunate that people in another country used an incident in this country as an excuse to riot or kill. However, it is my opinion that they would have done that anyway; this simply gave them a good excuse. The same goes for the Westboro issue. The people who are pre-disposed to become violent simply because they don't like what someone else says will become violent regardless.

If we're going to invoke the incendiary speech argument, then most of the 24-hour news networks and talk radio shows will need to be removed from the airways. If your shows involve you constantly crying, shouting, or some other flamboyant method of "righteous indignation over the state of things", then you're guilty of incendiary speech.

Personally, I'd rather a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have their rights to scream, cry and incite the masses on the airwaves all they want if it means a Cornel West or an Elizabeth Warren can also be heard elsewhere.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I read this yesterday and the same exact thought crossed my mind OP. I don't blame the pastor for pushing this because now that he has been incarcerated he has the floor and can push the legal system to ensure his rights. I simply do not think he is responsible for how other people respond to him, its not his problem. More to the point, the moment the Muslims start showing us some respect and quit burning our flags and leaders In effigies I might feel inclined to care about their feelings but as it stands I just don't, not even a little bit. They are not better than me, their beliefs are not more important than mine and I won't cower to them

 

[OceanAnnie]

Based on other discussions, I know there are those of you that feel our rights are always being trampled on. Is there ever a time that exceptions need to be made?

I know the Westboro discussion has come up many times. I feel they should be able to protest whatever funeral they want because while they are sick, distasteful trash, their protests don't incite violence.

What about Pastor Jones; the idiot from FL that burned the Quran and now wants to demonstrate outside of a mosque in Dearborn, MI? They say his stunt in FL set off many killings in Afghanistan.

http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...-vows-to-protest-next-week-at-Dearborn-mosque
(there are also plenty of other articles on this story)

They gave him the option of demonstrating in a "free speech zone" away from the mosque but he only wants to be right in front of it.

He also "accidentally" discharged his gun in public the other day.

Does there come a point and time where we say someone isn't playing with a full deck and their actions have the potential to hurt others so we need to circumvent their first amendment rights? Is it reasonable to offer him an alternative place to demonstrate that would possibly incite less backlash? Or do we just let him have at it because we can't mess with the first amendment?

The murder of innocent people in the name of a book burning does not fall under the umbrella of sanity.

 

[bicker]

The murder of innocent people in the name of a book burning does not fall under the umbrella of sanity.

Uh, in the name of what does the murder of innocent people fall under the umbrella of sanity?

 

[my3sonsagn]

No exceptions should be made. I think Phelps and his followers are absolutely despicable - the absolute dregs of society, but they have the Constitutional right to do what they do; as such, Jones has the SAME right to civil protest in front of this mosque.

To me, it's more insulting to the peaceful Muslims to imply that he can't protest there because it might incite a riot. Really? This judge thinks the Muslims can't (or won't) control themselves enough not to riot? Very insulting.

On the flip side, if they DO riot because of civil protest, then wouldn't we just be encouraging that violence more (Hey - getting violent worked before to prevent protests, let's do it some more!)?

There's also the probability that making Muslims more equal than other religions (by "protecting" their mosque from protest when other religious ceremonies/buildings are not accorded the same) is going to INcrease anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S.

This ruling is just a bad idea all the way around, imo.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Uh, in the name of what does the murder of innocent people fall under the umbrella of sanity?

It was a plain statement in context of the bolded in my above post.

It appears that the Pastor is given the blame for "sparking" the murders, the murderers were given a pass.

 

[bicker]

Fair enough... my only concern was the possibility of inference that any murder of innocent people could be considered sane. Trying to pick nits between this insanity and that insanity is useless.

 

[dngnb8]

Based on other discussions, I know there are those of you that feel our rights are always being trampled on. Is there ever a time that exceptions need to be made?

I know the Westboro discussion has come up many times. I feel they should be able to protest whatever funeral they want because while they are sick, distasteful trash, their protests don't incite violence.

What about Pastor Jones; the idiot from FL that burned the Quran and now wants to demonstrate outside of a mosque in Dearborn, MI? They say his stunt in FL set off many killings in Afghanistan.

http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...-vows-to-protest-next-week-at-Dearborn-mosque
(there are also plenty of other articles on this story)

They gave him the option of demonstrating in a "free speech zone" away from the mosque but he only wants to be right in front of it.

He also "accidentally" discharged his gun in public the other day.

Does there come a point and time where we say someone isn't playing with a full deck and their actions have the potential to hurt others so we need to circumvent their first amendment rights? Is it reasonable to offer him an alternative place to demonstrate that would possibly incite less backlash? Or do we just let him have at it because we can't mess with the first amendment?

People sometimes dont understand First Amendment Rights


The First Amendment prevents Government from preventing you to speak. Private parties can implement rules that moderate free speech.

For instance, when we agree to the terms of service, we also agree to rules of conduct to post on this board. Some cry that this interferes with the First Amendment. Since DIS isnt the Government, First Amendment doesnt apply


I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight for your Right to not have the Government interfere with what you say. The minute we allow Government to control what we say, it is over.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

And free speech does not allow you to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater for the fun of it.

 

[rie'smom]

No exceptions
They have the right to state their beliefs and we have the right to say we don't agree with them.

 

[palavra]

People sometimes dont understand First Amendment Rights


The First Amendment prevents Government from preventing you to speak. Private parties can implement rules that moderate free speech.

For instance, when we agree to the terms of service, we also agree to rules of conduct to post on this board. Some cry that this interferes with the First Amendment. Since DIS isnt the Government, First Amendment doesnt apply


I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight for your Right to not have the Government interfere with what you say. The minute we allow Government to control what we say, it is over.

Thank you for saying this. I think many Americans don't really understand the Bill of Rights.

 

[golfgal]

People sometimes dont understand First Amendment Rights


The First Amendment prevents Government from preventing you to speak. Private parties can implement rules that moderate free speech.

For instance, when we agree to the terms of service, we also agree to rules of conduct to post on this board. Some cry that this interferes with the First Amendment. Since DIS isnt the Government, First Amendment doesnt apply


I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight for your Right to not have the Government interfere with what you say. The minute we allow Government to control what we say, it is over.

People also seem to forget that there is the law and was is legally right and then there are morals and what is morally right. You simply can't legislate morality, however society as a whole can dictate what is morally right-and this varies from country to country even. Westboro has the LEGAL right to protest but MORALLY they are wrong in the eyes of most people in the US.

 

[ashley0139]

People sometimes dont understand First Amendment Rights


The First Amendment prevents Government from preventing you to speak. Private parties can implement rules that moderate free speech.

For instance, when we agree to the terms of service, we also agree to rules of conduct to post on this board. Some cry that this interferes with the First Amendment. Since DIS isnt the Government, First Amendment doesnt apply


I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight for your Right to not have the Government interfere with what you say. The minute we allow Government to control what we say, it is over.

Exactly. People hear "freedom of speech" and think that anyone has the right to say anything, anywhere, at any time. That is just not the case. So many people misunderstand what their first amendment rights are.

 

[bicker]

The difference between the law and morality is that the law is a reflection of society's perspective while morality is a reflection of each person's own personal perspective. Within a society people living right next-door to each other can legitimately (and hopefully peacefully) hold to radically different codes of morality.

A society can seem to have a common moral code. This is a by-product of widespread common holding of the aspects of that moral code, not the expression of a moral code by the society. Society is not a single, conscious thing, that can express singular thoughts and feelings. Rather, society is a collection.

Society appears to express a moral code in how members within the society choose to react to things people do (i.e., grant or withhold praise; inflict or withhold shame), however never lose sight of the fact that what is happening is individual people making personal decisions about how they personally choose to react. Those reactions hold no more weight because lots of other people also choose to react the same way. What grants them more weight is when people utilize the mechanisms of society ("passing laws") to express the moral code.

Here in the United States we have a common set of values that we all agree to abide by (as evidenced by our laws). One of the greatest aspects about the United States, and one of the principles on which it was established, is that beyond the limitations that laws impose on us, we are all legitimately and comprehensively justified in complying with our own moral code, and are under no reasonably justified expectation of complying with any moral code other than our own.

A good demonstration of this involves the Amish. They eschew government and the trappings of modern society. Respect for some of their denial of society's moral code has actually been codified in the law - the law is, in such cases, even more flexible than the so-called morality of society (though that's generally not the case). However, the legitimate sanction of society for violating its moral code is something that the Amish willingly accept, in the interest of following their own moral code.

I wouldn't put it past the Westboro folks (as an example) to view themselves in the same context. The forgiving of variances from society's moral code when you personally find the violators innocuous or likable while condemning variances from society's moral code when you personally find the violators offensive is arrogant and capricious. We can "not like" what they do without trying to make it sound like it is something different from what "people we like" (or at least don't mind) do.

 

[dngnb8]

And free speech does not allow you to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater for the fun of it.

Bad example

That is private property. 1st Amendment doesnt apply

 

[Planogirl]

The government legislates morality all the time. I don't see how that applies here.

I agree with those who say that private property owners can dictate behavior, at least up to a point. These guys can be arrested if they trespass for example. It would be nice if noise harassment could be a way to have them arrested too.