Are there exceptions to the First Amendment?

[bicker]

The government legislates morality all the time.

Well, no not really: Rather, sometimes certain aspects of commonly-held moral perspectives are made into laws, in recognition of the fact that forces within the society done what they needed to in order to bring that about. The distinctions are very important. The US government, at least, doesn't "legislate morality".

I don't see how that applies here.

I agree: The Westboro folks are actually not doing anything immoral (well, at least when the do their demonstrations). Offensive, yes. Immoral, no.

 

[Planogirl]

Well, no not really: Rather, sometimes certain aspects of commonly-held moral perspectives are made into laws, in recognition of the fact that forces within the society done what they needed to in order to bring that about. The distinctions are very important. The US government, at least, doesn't "legislate morality".

What type of forces? You can't say that it's necessarily the desire of the majority.

For example, legalizing pot or gambling wouldn't seem to be much of an issue if statistics are correct. I would say that those activities being illegal in at least much of the country does have something to do with morality and when the government agrees with whatever forces want these laws in place then yes, they are legislating morality.

 

[bicker]

What type of forces?

It depends on the society. In the US it is really quite civilized... voting, for example.

You can't say that it's necessarily the desire of the majority.

"Desire" is the wrong word. I "desire" things to be a certain way, but no way would I vote to impose that on others. Would I like them to come to that conclusion themselves and go that way themselves? Absolutely! But forcing them would not be something I would support.

I would say that those activities being illegal in at least much of the country does have something to do with morality

You can say whatever you'd like. However, what you're saying is only true for yourself and those who agree with you. (By the way, in this case, I happen to agree with part of what you wrote, so if you thought that it was a complete agreement versus complete disagreement thing, that too would be incorrect.)

and when the government agrees with whatever forces want these laws in place then yes, they are legislating morality.

No they're not. That's jingoism. I pointed out earlier the distinctions that that sound bite you're bandying about glosses over. Jingoism like that doesn't foster understanding the situation realistically, but rather fosters visceral and often mis-directed emotional reaction.

 

[EMom]

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.

That preacher strikes me as a few cards short of a full deck, but if he wants to burn a Koran every day, more power to him. Geez, if burning the AMERICAN flag is protected as free speech, surely what he's doing is protected........

As for his actions (the burning) being "responsible" for the murders in the Middle East, I call BS on that. I find it offensive and scary that our media is parroting this line. The South Park Muhammad episode should be show daily, as far as I'm concerned. The message being that in OUR culture, portraying Muhammad or Jesus may be in bad taste, but it's legal. Burning a Koran or Bible may be tacky, but it's legal. We will not change our standards out of fear of reprisals from those who threaten to kill us if we "offend" them.

I find the efforts to shut down the nutty minister disturbing on many levels, because of the slippery slope I see ahead in which one religion is MORE protected than others.

 

[OceanAnnie]

That preacher strikes me as a few cards short of a full deck, but if he wants to burn a Koran every day, more power to him. Geez, if burning the AMERICAN flag is protected as free speech, surely what he's doing is protected........

As for his actions (the burning) being "responsible" for the murders in the Middle East, I call BS on that. I find it offensive and scary that our media is parroting this line. The South Park Muhammad episode should be show daily, as far as I'm concerned. The message being that in OUR culture, portraying Muhammad or Jesus may be in bad taste, but it's legal. Burning a Koran or Bible may be tacky, but it's legal. We will not change our standards out of fear of reprisals from those who threaten to kill us if we "offend" them.

I find the efforts to shut down the nutty minister disturbing on many levels, because of the slippery slope I see ahead in which one religion is MORE protected than others.

I agree with you on all counts.

 

[LisaR]

That preacher strikes me as a few cards short of a full deck, but if he wants to burn a Koran every day, more power to him. Geez, if burning the AMERICAN flag is protected as free speech, surely what he's doing is protected........

As for his actions (the burning) being "responsible" for the murders in the Middle East, I call BS on that. I find it offensive and scary that our media is parroting this line. The South Park Muhammad episode should be show daily, as far as I'm concerned. The message being that in OUR culture, portraying Muhammad or Jesus may be in bad taste, but it's legal. Burning a Koran or Bible may be tacky, but it's legal. We will not change our standards out of fear of reprisals from those who threaten to kill us if we "offend" them.

I find the efforts to shut down the nutty minister disturbing on many levels, because of the slippery slope I see ahead in which one religion is MORE protected than others.

I believe if we would quit giving these "preachers" their 15 minutes of fame, they would disappear rather quickly.

I am curious what the media attention would be like if a Muslim Cleric announced that he was going to protest in front of a large Christian church and said Cleric was known to have burned Bibles in the past. Do you think there would be more or less outrage/coverage? From what I have read and heard, there are only about 100 people showing up to protest the preacher's actions in Dearborn. It isn't exactly drawing huge crowds.

 

[EMom]

I believe if we would quit giving these "preachers" their 15 minutes of fame, they would disappear rather quickly.

I am curious what the media attention would be like if a Muslim Cleric announced that he was going to protest in front of a large Christian church and said Cleric was known to have burned Bibles in the past. Do you think there would be more or less outrage/coverage? From what I have read and heard, there are only about 100 people showing up to protest the preacher's actions in Dearborn. It isn't exactly drawing huge crowds.

The media needs to take a good hard look at itself while they're throwing stones. The first time he threatened to burn the Koran, no one would have known who he was had the media not covered it as if it was the Event of the Century. So he decides to not burn it and a few months later holds the "trial." Koran is burned. If a dozen people took part, it was probably a miracle. Again, no one anywhere, let alone the Middle East, knew of it until the media made a huge to-do over it and how it "might endanger innocent lives."

Well, the media let the cat out of the bag by beating this dead horse some more. They spread word of the burning, not kooky preacher. So if they want to point fingers of blame, they need to do a little man-in-the-mirror time. But they won't. Easier to make the nutty minister the "murderer once removed."

 

[GeorgeG]

It's very common for people to put their own spin on some very basic laws when they want them to suit their own causes or beliefs. Too common, perhaps. The same goes for what is considered moral. This preacher, the Westboro group, and so many others are simply putting their own spin on what they see as accepted behavior. EMom makes a good point about the media involvement. People putting their own spin on the Bill of Rights just feeds into the circus that has been created.I think most of us recognize that the people and groups in question may not be tightly wrapped and that should be sufficient for us to get on with our lives.

 

[FergieTCat]

Bad example

That is private property. 1st Amendment doesnt apply

What is the line between the 1st Amendment and "Disturbing the Peace."

What if you stand on a street corner at 3:00 AM screaming your beliefs and wake up the whole neighborhood? Should you be allowed to continue due to your First Amendment rights? Or does the neighborhood have a right to peace?

I live in New York City and I've always wondered where the boundary is.

 

[tvguy]

The media needs to take a good hard look at itself while they're throwing stones. The first time he threatened to burn the Koran, no one would have known who he was had the media not covered it as if it was the Event of the Century. So he decides to not burn it and a few months later holds the "trial." Koran is burned. If a dozen people took part, it was probably a miracle. Again, no one anywhere, let alone the Middle East, knew of it until the media made a huge to-do over it and how it "might endanger innocent lives."

Well, the media let the cat out of the bag by beating this dead horse some more. They spread word of the burning, not kooky preacher. So if they want to point fingers of blame, they need to do a little man-in-the-mirror time. But they won't. Easier to make the nutty minister the "murderer once removed."

The media's job is to report what is happening. Don't blame the media for how people, especially people in power, react to what is happening.
Here are the facts:
On Wednesday September 8, 2010, Terry Jones announced he plan to burn the Koran.
On Thursday September 9, 2010, the U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory for Americans traveling to be on alert. INTERPOL also issued a global advisory, and President Obama did sit down interviews expressing his concern about the proposed Koran burning.
I can only speak for the station I work for, and the network we are affilated with. Terry Jones plan did not air on any our our local or network newscasts on Wednesday September 8. Yes, it ran on Thursday September 9, but only after the President of the United States, the United States State Department and INTERPOL, an international police agency felt it was important enough to take action on.

 

[crashbb]

What type of forces? You can't say that it's necessarily the desire of the majority.

For example, legalizing pot or gambling wouldn't seem to be much of an issue if statistics are correct. I would say that those activities being illegal in at least much of the country does have something to do with morality and when the government agrees with whatever forces want these laws in place then yes, they are legislating morality.

No they're not. That's jingoism. I pointed out earlier the distinctions that that sound bite you're bandying about glosses over. Jingoism like that doesn't foster understanding the situation realistically, but rather fosters visceral and often mis-directed emotional reaction.

Perhaps I'm just not following the thread, but how it is possibly jingoism? We aren't talking about foreign policy (or even comparing the US to other countries).

 

[EMom]

The media's job is to report what is happening. Don't blame the media for how people, especially people in power, react to what is happening.
Here are the facts:
On Wednesday September 8, 2010, Terry Jones announced he plan to burn the Koran.
On Thursday September 9, 2010, the U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory for Americans traveling to be on alert. INTERPOL also issued a global advisory, and President Obama did sit down interviews expressing his concern about the proposed Koran burning.
I can only speak for the station I work for, and the network we are affilated with. Terry Jones plan did not air on any our our local or network newscasts on Wednesday September 8. Yes, it ran on Thursday September 9, but only after the President of the United States, the United States State Department and INTERPOL, an international police agency felt it was important enough to take action on.

There's a difference in reporting news and working yourself into a frenzy. CNN was practically salivating over this story. For a while, it was over 50% of their airtime. You'd have thought the Koran burners were some massive movement that was going to fill the Superdome instead of some piddling little group that wouldn't even take up all the seats in a Taco Bell. The media CHOSE to make this a huge event and focus the world's attention on it. They made a "star" out of some guy that none of us would have known from Adam but for their nonstop spotlight on him and his box of matches. They made the nutcase preacher the story of the week and then acted all distressed and outraged when the equally nutty folks in the Middle East took to killings people in protest of the Koran burning.

Sorry, but the media played just as big a role (if not bigger) than the preacher. They have no right to their faux outrage and distress. And to blame the whacky preacher for the murders is ridiculous. He killed a book, not people. There is no blood on his hands. I, for one, refuse to be held hostage by the religious beliefs of others. I will not curtail my right to free speech because it is forbidden by another religion. That's their problem, not mine as an American.

 

[dngnb8]

What is the line between the 1st Amendment and "Disturbing the Peace."

What if you stand on a street corner at 3:00 AM screaming your beliefs and wake up the whole neighborhood? Should you be allowed to continue due to your First Amendment rights? Or does the neighborhood have a right to peace?

I live in New York City and I've always wondered where the boundary is.

Disturbing the Peace is a noise ordinance. 1st Amendment does not give you Right to break laws.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Bad example

That is private property. 1st Amendment doesnt apply

Umm...no, actually, that's the classic example. It's based off of a very old SC case where someone did, in fact, shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre when there was no fire. Many people died being trampled in the mass exit. Its stands for the proposition that speech used to cause people imminent physical harm is not protected. It has nothing to do with private property rights.

 

[Planogirl]

Perhaps I'm just not following the thread, but how it is possibly jingoism? We aren't talking about foreign policy (or even comparing the US to other countries).

I'm puzzled by that terminology too. But then I don't get why for example our town closing the bars by midnight isn't because of the council members' moral feelings about drinking. I'm really too tired today to debate terminology though if that's all it is.