That seems to be the case, and the basis for the "fighting words argument. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 13/04/2010 11:44:03 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if a fed up vet got violent with the protesters; I'm kinda surprised none has, and it's a tribute to the restraint of members of the military, but I've never seen anything to indicate the Phelpses are inciting violence against servicemen. I could see it when they protested at Matthew Shepards funeral, because that was an act of assault, torture and murder they seemed to condone. It doesn't seem like they're advocating violence against soldiers though. Perhaps an argument could be made that they're endorsing the death of soldiers, but otherwise I don't think this is on the level of shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.
Which really really sucks, but we're once again back to the principle that popular speech doesn't need protection. I hope there's some legitimate legal wrinkle here that I'm missing and the Justices won't, but I'm not optimistic.
Which really really sucks, but we're once again back to the principle that popular speech doesn't need protection. I hope there's some legitimate legal wrinkle here that I'm missing and the Justices won't, but I'm not optimistic.
I think the violence that is being referred to is the violence that will take place against the protestors one of these days. And it will probably happen if they keep it up. I don't think anyone will feel sorry for them though, they are asking for it.
As I stated (at length) in the Skype chat though, the 1942 SCOTUS ruling saying it's OK to arrest someone for "fighting words" puts them in the same class as words that are "lewd, obscene or profane. " Meaning that if we accept that as legitimate reason to forbid their protest on the grounds that it incites violence AGAINST them, we also have to forbid anyone walking up to Phelps and saying, "there is no God" on the grounds that it incites his violence against them. We have to forbid suggestive advertising for the same reason and the awesome T-shirt with the front reading "Even though you're a Republican and I'm a Democrat, I'll still hug your elephant" and the back that says, "and you can kiss my ass. "
Again, I'm surprised no one's beaten their heads in yet, but I think when it happens the law should be on their side. Defending the right only to speech I support isn't much of a First Amendment right.
I'm sure Ghav will be along directly to shoot holes in my legal reasoning, or TVoLT will, but until then I stand by it.
