The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

High court rules for military funeral protesters

chrisrobin

chrisrobin

JUB 10k Club
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Posts
11,539
Reaction score
844
Points
0
What a surprise!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

Q. What is the difference between conservative Supreme Court justices and the KKK?

A. The robes are a different color and they don't wear hoods. :rolleyes:
Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech.

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p​
 
Anyone surprised?

I think it was the right decision.

It can just as easily protect the rights of gay protestors who start picketing the religious right.
 
Golly, what a brilliant analysis, Chris!

The ruling was 8-1

Did you actually read Mr. Alito's dissent? Of course you didn't.
 
rareboy said:
Anyone surprised?

I think it was the right decision.

It can just as easily protect the rights of gay protestors who start picketing the religious right.
Click to expand...

It may have been the right decision, but don't the mourners get any consideration? Just asking.

Several years ago, the American Nazi Party had been planning a demonstration in Skokie, Illinois. Skokie is a diverse community, but has large population of holocaust survivors and their descendants. The ACLU ruled that the march would proceed. Technically the ruling was correct, but seeing the tattoos from concentration camps made me want to puke.

I think this is a case where the "spirit of the law" trumps the "letter of the law." Also, I think there's a big difference between killing Jews and being gay.
 
Nope.

Mourners don't count for shit.

You live in a hate filled country where the living not only scream at the living, they scream at the dead.
 
It is still freedom of speech.
What the mourners need to do is like those citizens who came out in numbers to block the protesters from the funeral. Then slit their tires so they would have to walk home. That is the best deterrent. Eventually they can't afford the tires anymore.
 
chrisrobin said:
What a surprise!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests

Q. What is the difference between conservative Supreme Court justices and the KKK?

A. The robes are a different color and they don't wear hoods. :rolleyes:
Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech.


:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p
Click to expand...

The issue was freedom of speech. Speech won out as distasteful as it may be in this instance. I'm not quite sure what the basis for your comparison to the 8 justices are to the Klan, but it falls short.
 
rareboy said:
Anyone surprised?

I think it was the right decision.

It can just as easily protect the rights of gay protestors who start picketing the religious right.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it's unfortunate to see the Phelps clan win at anything, but this was the right decision.

This certainly does not limit local jurisdictions from passing laws enforcing buffer zones for protests like this though, which many have already done.
 
The Westboro Cult can continue to show its hate and intolerance.
 
The Supreme Court has made bad decisions before. This is another one.
 
jackoroe said:
The issue was freedom of speech. Speech won out as distasteful as it may be in this instance. I'm not quite sure what the basis for your comparison to the 8 justices are to the Klan, but it falls short.
Click to expand...

Judges Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy (5) are way too far to the right of center for me. They have usurped the duties from the legislative branch and have become "lawmakers in robes". Please check Marbury v. Madison which gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution delineate separation of powers.

I was born and raised in a country where the Supreme Court was a lot more balanced than it is now. Healthy dissent between SCOTUS members was always welcomed. However, the Court has become as "fair and balanced" as Fox. Judge Thomas was a big hit at the CPAC Convention last month.

Sonya Sotomayor had to recluse herself from a case because she was involved in a decision on this case when she was Solicitor General. I do not foresee the aforementioned five justices doing that, faced with similar circumstances.

Perhaps my KKK reference was a bit strong, but I fear that the Court is headed in that direction. The Court's decision on Citizens United gives unlimited power to corporations which might disenfranchise the general public forever.
 
I think that the mourners and homos in the US should see how they could use this to harass and intimidate all the Phelps clan in their own homes and churches.

Apparently the US is a country where whoever yells loudest wins.

Start yelling louder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or stop giving the Phelps clan any setting for their hateful displays.

It won't make the US any more admired or a place that people might want to visit, but at least having 100 voices drowning out the noise of the Phelps clan 24 hours per day, 365 days a year might start to get the message across too.

And remember Phelps can't live forever.

Thank God we don't ever have to entertain them in Canada.
 
chrisrobin said:
Judges Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy (5) are way too far to the right of center for me. They have usurped the duties from the legislative branch and have become "lawmakers in robes". Please check Marbury v. Madison which gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution delineate separation of powers.

I was born and raised in a country where the Supreme Court was a lot more balanced than it is now. Healthy dissent between SCOTUS members was always welcomed. However, the Court has become as "fair and balanced" as Fox. Judge Thomas was a big hit at the CPAC Convention last month.

Sonya Sotomayor had to recluse herself from a case because she was involved in a decision on this case when she was Solicitor General. I do not foresee the aforementioned five justices doing that, faced with similar circumstances.

Perhaps my KKK reference was a bit strong, but I fear that the Court is headed in that direction. The Court's decision on Citizens United gives unlimited power to corporations which might disenfranchise the general public forever.
Click to expand...

Uh, Sonya Sotomayor was never Solicitor General [-X

And to think that the Court is heading in the direction of the KKK is not only absurb, but delusional.
 
Sad to say but I agree with their ruling. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, no matter how vile it is.
 
The 1st amendment does not grant the right to say what you want, when you want without consequence. It merely protects the right to express one's ideals without fear of persecution. It does not grant one the right to go around intentionally causing harm for the sake of remaining famous.
 
In my opinion, the primary issue in this case is whether a person (or group) is entitled to use freedom of speech as an excuse to harass private individuals.

I concur with Justice Alito.
 
I do agree with the ruling as vile as I find them....but I have to ask as I am very unfamilar with the law, isn't emotional distress or something along that line to hear them say that while they mourn their loss?
 
I have to say that I found Alito's dissent exceptional and a much needed opinion on the matter.

But still as much as it pains me, free speech is free speech is free speech and if you remove it for one you remove it for all.

It may leave you with an uncivil society, but it is the contract that was made with the people.

I am glad that in Canada, there are still lines that you cannot cross. That there is a civil responsibility to not indulge in hate mongering.

What the US citizens need to do is to assess whether they want to continue living in a country where civil discourse is dead, or whether they want to collectively curtail their rights.
 
^^^

JockBoy, I think you said once you work in a law office. Where do I find Alito's opinion?

The local people around Topeka, Kansas have to do something to clean their local environment -- I'm not advocating violence but some type of silent vigil outside their complex would be good.

Maybe even publicize where it is. People driving by and honking horns would get irritating after a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top