User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 79

  1. #11
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Does Free Assembly include the right to picket a funeral? Aren't there laws about needing to apply for permission for a public gathering, and laws against public order offences?
    The 1st Amendment puts no restrictions on free assembly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Key phrase: Congress shall make no law

    Giving tax exempt status to religious organizations is against the law in the first place, prohibiting the free exercise of speech, press or the right of the people to assemble is also against the law. Local governments may require a permit, which makes sense, for example...a local ordinance that says funeral homes and cemeteries are off limits is fine, but the federal government doesn't have the authority to ban any specific group, nor can they ban coverage of that group by the press.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  2. #12
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I don't think that the US legal system acknowledged hate group as a term. I thought there were a couple of NGOs and a categorization used by enforcement, but that was it.

    Being Canadian, we just banned them (some individuals anyway) from our country. We have it codified though, unlike the US, AFAIK.
    Ironically, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 did allow federal prosecution of "hate" crimes, which led to the executive branch's compiling a list of hate groups. So, yes, we do categorize them in some way and hate crimes are prosecuted. I'm of the opinion that a law broken by a racist is no worse than a law broken by someone with any other motive. A homicide is always a homicide.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    The 1st Amendment puts no restrictions on free assembly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Key phrase: Congress shall make no law

    Giving tax exempt status to religious organizations is against the law in the first place, prohibiting the free exercise of speech, press or the right of the people to assemble is also against the law. Local governments may require a permit, which makes sense, for example...a local ordinance that says funeral homes and cemeteries are off limits is fine, but the federal government doesn't have the authority to ban any specific group, nor can they ban coverage of that group by the press.
    I see.

    I wasn't talking so much about banning a group, actually I think you guys are right to not allow Congress to do that.

    I was talking more about the authorities prohibiting a particular gathering. It seems surprising from a British point of view that even local authorities don't more often prohibit these guys from demonstrating at a particular sensitive place and time. What are the exact possibilities regarding that? Because from what you said above, it would seem possible.

  4. #14
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    I see.

    I wasn't talking so much about banning a group, actually I think you guys are right to not allow Congress to do that.

    I was talking more about the authorities prohibiting a particular gathering. It seems surprising from a British point of view that even local authorities don't more often prohibit these guys from demonstrating at a particular sensitive place and time. What are the exact possibilities regarding that? Because from what you said above, it would seem possible.
    You're right. local authorities should be able to stop these kinds of things.
    Unfortunately we have this damn thing call the incorporation doctrine..
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #15
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    I see.

    I wasn't talking so much about banning a group, actually I think you guys are right to not allow Congress to do that.

    I was talking more about the authorities prohibiting a particular gathering. It seems surprising from a British point of view that even local authorities don't more often prohibit these guys from demonstrating at a particular sensitive place and time. What are the exact possibilities regarding that? Because from what you said above, it would seem possible.
    It is possible and it does happen. Some towns don't forbid, condone or require permits for demonstrations. Some are exceptionally particular about where you protest. I'm not sure about the particulars of this specific case, so Newton may be a town in which permits are not required. I wouldn't have a problem with any town that said respect for the dead and mourning is more important than demonstrating, I would have a huge problem if congress said the same thing. Although some people would argue that people have the right to protest at a public cemetery, regardless of any local laws that contradict the constitution. However, most public cemeteries are not federally owned, they're owned by a community or privately or regulated by the state in which they exist, so I wonder if a public cemetery in a certain town can say that it's only public for that town and not some retarded psycho church group from texas. I'm not a lawyer though, I'm sure someone in this thread is.

    edit: Oh, nm, see previous post.

    edit #2: WBC is from Kansas? I had no idea.
    Last edited by LEGERdeMAIN; 12-23-2012 at 09:38 AM.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  6. #16
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    The first one I would never sign. I also don't think that any group should be designated as a hate groups by the federal government, even if it's just for "tracking" purposes(FBI). If you don't like their politics, ignore them, punch them in the face ...
    Funny that you say that, because that's how they make their money. Fred Phelps is a lawyer (or at least used to be before getting disbared) and so are many of his adult children. They engage in legally allowed trolling, hoping some local official stops them without a just legal reason, at which point they will sue, OR somebody assaults them, at which point they will sue as well. They also take minor children to those pickets and they get hurt in the process when somebody inevitably chucks a bottle at their general direction.

    As a far as I am concerned, tax exemption should be strictly for groups whose primary purpose is to engage in charitable work. Although I share your sentiment that spreading religion is not charitable work in and of itself, and this cherry picking of who gets tax exemption is off putting.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  7. #17
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Funny that you say that, because that's how they make their money. Fred Phelps is a lawyer (or at least used to be before getting disbared) and so are many of his adult children. They engage in legally allowed trolling, hoping some local official stops them without a just legal reason, at which point they will sue, OR somebody assaults them, at which point they will sue as well. They also take minor children to those pickets and they get hurt in the process when somebody inevitably chucks a bottle at their general direction.
    Exactly. This is what I was referring to when I called them a money-making scheme under the guise of being a church.

  8. #18
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    You're right. local authorities should be able to stop these kinds of things.
    Unfortunately we have this damn thing call the incorporation doctrine..
    Didn't the Skokie case have a role in that too? For those who don't know what I'm referring to: "Skokie right to march case"

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    They engage in legally allowed trolling
    That's basically what they are, RL trolls. I had never been sure if "trolling" could exist offline, but they seem to be proof.

  10. #20
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    That's basically what they are, RL trolls. I had never been sure if "trolling" could exist offline, but they seem to be proof.
    They aren't the first.


Similar Threads

  1. Need help buttoning down my type
    By MaybeINTJ in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-02-2016, 12:53 PM
  2. Help type my friend group
    By lapinchocolat in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-21-2015, 09:05 PM
  3. Westboro Baptist Church is protesting at my school.
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 11-20-2009, 08:27 PM
  4. Westboro Baptist Church
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 06:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO