tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post7844977215643604595..comments2024-03-29T16:58:01.576+13:00Comments on AmeriNZ Blog: No foolin’Arthur Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10568299067544221996noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post-59911718166016762902010-04-12T12:56:50.135+12:002010-04-12T12:56:50.135+12:00Good points there...thanks for prodding my thinkin...Good points there...thanks for prodding my thinking on this. It will definitely be interesting to see how this pans out. Thanks again and best of luck to you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06096333148379966735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post-26941390901981630042010-04-08T23:38:49.818+12:002010-04-08T23:38:49.818+12:00Welcome to the blog! Feel free to comment as much ...Welcome to the blog! Feel free to comment as much or as little as you want.<br /><br />I'm less worried about the potential impact of a Supreme Court ruling against Westboro than are a lot of my centre-left friends. They, like you, are worried that the precedent would allow the suppression of legitimate political protest and dissent.<br /><br />You all may be right, but as I see it, free speech is already suppressed at will when it suits the relevant authorities. The best example is probably the 2008 Republican National Convention in which peaceful, non-violent—and in some cases, non-protesting—people were brutally rounded up by the police, treated very badly and ultimately released—after the convention was over.<br /><br />Previous Courts have established that free speech is not absolute, that, for example, one can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Also, precedent has established that someone who creates a public disturbance, especially by creating the likelihood of civil unrest, can be arrested.<br /><br />So, no matter how the Court rules, legitimate protest and dissent is potentially at risk. I wouldn't be surprised if this Court doesn't get into whether Westboro's speech is protected, but instead focuses on the issue of ensuring public order.<br /><br />Personally, I don't think Westboro (or anyone else) has the right to picket military funerals (maybe funerals of a serving elected official who's died in office, but I'm not even sure about that).<br /><br />One thing's certain: This is a VERY big topic.<br /><br />Thanks for saying hello!Arthur Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10568299067544221996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34249799.post-51394639798669215952010-04-08T20:57:45.399+12:002010-04-08T20:57:45.399+12:00Hi there...I don't know how I came across your...Hi there...I don't know how I came across your blog, but I'm an American expat living in Lyttelton, NZ. I moved here with my same-sex partner when G.W. was re-elected. The Westboro protesters are just vile, sick people. But, I have to say the implications of this ruling go far...Westboro folks were apparently over 100 feet from the funeral screaming out their sick taunts. If the ruling falls that this counts as an invasion of privacy rights that trump free speech, you can see the implications in all sorts of unforseen ways in terms of political protest. How far does one need to be away from an event so as not to breach their privacy rights? So far that no one notices the protest in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I wish a bus would roll over those Westboro idiots, but this ruling could have some far-reaching implications. A potential upswing would be that anti-abortion protests would likely be forced to move to a much wider distance away from clinics if this ruling was upheld. But, so would those picketing WTO conventions and government offices. Well, anyway, glad I came across your blog. Thanks for the post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06096333148379966735noreply@blogger.com