I love how many thoughtful people you have on your journal.
Perhaps I should clarify that I believe that "freedom of speech" means that you have the right to publicly assert your view on a matter, not that you have the right to disrupt people around you such that they are forced to pay attention to what you are saying.
But I don't think it actually immunizes people against the civil consequences of their speech; certainly the 1st Amendment is not a protection against libel or slander (verbal speech in a public enough context can be libel).
This, and this exactly.
Unlike post_ecdysis, I think civil court is a good way to handle these cases. The government can not suppress the speech itself, nor the rights of Westboro, as terrible as they may be.
However, take out the content of the speech, and you still have people shouting, cursing, using (tenuously, questionably) obscene speech or hate speech at a solemn ceremony against private individuals. That's harassment, that's intentional infliction of emotional distress, it may even be assault, but mostly it's a matter that can be handled between private individuals. Even the cemetery keepers themselves could get involved, I think.
There are criminal ways to handle it as well; back to that assault idea, back to trespassing and the like. But those I think are poorer ways to handle it because the church can call their people martyrs, and because it doesn't necessarily give redress to the victims themselves.
It's a complicated thing. Troubling when people use the letter to violate the spirit of the law.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-01 04:19 pm (UTC)Perhaps I should clarify that I believe that "freedom of speech" means that you have the right to publicly assert your view on a matter, not that you have the right to disrupt people around you such that they are forced to pay attention to what you are saying.
But I don't think it actually immunizes people against the civil consequences of their speech; certainly the 1st Amendment is not a protection against libel or slander (verbal speech in a public enough context can be libel).
This, and this exactly.
Unlike
However, take out the content of the speech, and you still have people shouting, cursing, using (tenuously, questionably) obscene speech or hate speech at a solemn ceremony against private individuals. That's harassment, that's intentional infliction of emotional distress, it may even be assault, but mostly it's a matter that can be handled between private individuals. Even the cemetery keepers themselves could get involved, I think.
There are criminal ways to handle it as well; back to that assault idea, back to trespassing and the like. But those I think are poorer ways to handle it because the church can call their people martyrs, and because it doesn't necessarily give redress to the victims themselves.
It's a complicated thing. Troubling when people use the letter to violate the spirit of the law.