Ed, you shameless coward.

Censoring blogs?

Did not want A. Steve looking bad?

That was a creative and lively discussion! You Bore!

Sorry to have to resort to name calling - but censorship is for Nazis. If you do not want open line discussion, don't have an open line.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture

Whose thoughts, Ed? Yours? Real Big Title, Real Small Substance.

Is the ostrich protected because it refuses to look?

*yawn*

I haven't the slightest idea what went on in the thread below. I must have missed it.

One thing I will say about Phelps (and as an aside, I have nothing but respect for the woman who ought to be the subject of this thread), is that the gay community has several times employed peaceful counter-protests against him. One of my favorite tactics is simply to put up large, opaque screens between his group and the event they are protesting. When appropriate to the situation, loud music has also been used. It would interest me greatly to know about the constitutional implications of such tactics.

Hmm... If the Phelpsites are protesting a private event and the screen is erected on private property, I'd say they're out of luck. But if both the Phelpsites and the screeners are on public property, I'd think the First Amendment does not allow one to use their freedom of speech to squelch someone else's free speech. You could call it the "shout down" exception to free speech, to be put beside the "shouting fire in a theater" and "fighting words" exceptions.

Eric wrote:

If the Phelpsites are protesting a private event and the screen is erected on private property, I'd say they're out of luck. But if both the Phelpsites and the screeners are on public property, I'd think the First Amendment does not allow one to use their freedom of speech to squelch someone else's free speech. You could call it the "shout down" exception to free speech, to be put beside the "shouting fire in a theater" and "fighting words" exceptions.

This is actually called the "heckler's veto" exception, and it's a common problem. Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of settled law on the subject and the court rulings that do exist interpret the phrase differently than you might imagine. The courts have referred to the "heckler's veto" in the context of the fighting words exception, that by rioting in response to speech the crowd is making the government censor the speech, thereby exercising the heckler's veto. But in the context of one group trying to shout down a speaker whose views they oppose, I'm not aware of much in the way of legal guidance on it from the courts. It's quite common, unfortunately, especially on college campuses where, in particular, conservative speakers are often greeted with bullhorns and loud whistles to drown them out. It's a real gray area of first amendment jurisprudence.

For the record, as I stated before, I'm not in favor of government preventing these kinds of protests, as obviously hideous as I think they are. But I also think that if they're going to go and essentially spit in the face of the family during a funeral, someone in the family is likely going to take umbrage and come out swinging. And I can't blame them; I'd do the same thing.

Wow Ed,

was that you complaining about 'other' people drowning out conservative speakers?

did you mention you edit your own blog from any opposing view that is made too clear, coherent and threatening to yours?

you even goes as far as too 'ban' people from this blog because it is not what 'you' want to hear.

Ed is a coward and hypotcrite.

You aren't banned from this blog, you moronic troll. If you were, you couldn't post. If it was up to me, you certainly would be, but the powers that be for some reason wish to tolerate your trolling. If you're too stupid to understand the difference between a speaker on government property being drowned out and someone on a privately owned blog not letting you hijack threads with a bunch of juvenile nonsense, there's no point in trying to reason with you otherwise. I've not seen you express any view at all on any issue, I've only seen you engage in about 8 year old level "na na na na na" taunting. Go crawl back under your rock and let the adults carry on a conversation.

Sorry Miss Parks

Sorry to comment on-topic...... :)

Interesting column today by Thomas Sowell on Townhall.com:

...

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

...

Initially, segregation meant that whites could not sit in the black section of a bus any more than blacks could sit in the white section. But whites who were forced to stand when there were still empty seats in the black section objected. That's when the rule was imposed that blacks had to give up their seats to whites.

Legal sophistries by judges "interpreted" the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal treatment out of existence. Judicial activism can go in any direction.

That's when Rosa Parks came in, after more than half a century of political chicanery and judicial fraud. [End of article]

I found it interesting to read the truth about this historic event and thought I would share it with you.