Should religious anti-gay activists have the right to picket, and shout derogatory comments at the funerals of fallen American warriors. Why or why not? If yes please elaborate on how free speech (which is about the only argument you can use) is not also violated by the law that some counties impose agenst people that curse in public.
122634
As a proud American citisen, I 100% support there legal right to do it, if it is on public property. But let me tell you, if it was a family member/friend/anybody I knew, the minute any protestor (be it peace/war/gay/holy-roller) step one hair across my property line without my permission, thier carcas is mine! I belive strongly in free speach, so on public property, as much as I'd like to rip thier damn sighs right out of thier hands, and break it over thier heads, I do not, because I actualy do belive in gay rights (even though I am not gay, I support freedom, unlike some), and most importantly I belive in free speach FOR ALL, no matter how much they pi$$ me off. If they did this at a funeral that I was in attendance, I would use my freedom of speach to chant inflamitory remarks, and mock the protestors. Also, if they approached me, or somone else to where I thought they/me were threatened, I would not hesitate to draw my 45cal in the name of self defense, and make a citisens arrest (I am a strong believer in vigilante justicE). As for cursing in public, I could care less as long as I can curse back at the M****r F*****s (I can proudly hold my own in a cursing match, and have a very loud voice). I hate (scratch that, Royaly Dispise) anybody that has/is/will use a funeral for ANY kind of protest, even if I agree with what they're protesting, but like I said, I hold back my hatred on public property, but the minute they cross onto my property I will shoot to kill (once again, weather I agree, or dissagree with them)...\n\n...and this is coming from a fiscaly conservative, social liberal (independant, pro gay rights, anti IRAQ war, not anti Afghanistan war, anti Bush/Bushite)...\nCan you even begin to imagine how mad/dangerous I would be if I were some right-stealing republican/right-winger/"conservative"/holy-roller/(you get the idea) or If I were a democrat/left-winger/"liberal/baby-killer/(you get the idea).\n\n\nBottom line...\nPeople on both sides get me so pi$$ed off, and either side (the demoncraps or retardicans) will object to (or promote) free speach when it is convienient for them (agrees with them), it is unAmerican, and makes me sick.\n\nI am for these individules legal rights to protest/curse/whatever on private property for any reason, at any time, however to do so at somones funeral (one of our great, fallen american heroes, none the less), is dispicable, and should be looked down on by society with great hatred\n\nBesides isn't it irony that they be so rude to those who who died so that they could be so rude? I'm sure it really helps whatever cause they're protesting (sarcasm).\n\nJust because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD\n\nIt's like burning the American flag on american soil (I support peoples rights to do this as well, even though I find it sickening), isn't it ironic that they burn the flag of a nation, that allows them to burn the flag (irony? ANYBODY), and also the same country of which they are most likely citisens? Try doing that in Iran, with the Iranian flag, SEE WHAT HAPPENS! in the end, that is what makes America great, that we are free to do as we please, no matter how stupid it is, and I say we should have a counter protest (an even louder/more obsene one) against the dirt-bags that would dare to protest at ANYBODY'S funeral for ANY reason.\n\nMay the government of, by, and for itself be torn down, and destroyed... and the government of, by, and for the people rise again!\n\nGod bless the REAL America!
174550
In the United States a citizen has a right to voice their opinion. This is called Freedom of Speech and unfortunately you cannot do much about it.  If that person were to infringe on your rights, or commit an act of violence because of your nationality/creed it would be a hate crime.  The best thing to do is to keep on going and ignore their hateful comments.  If you let an idiot affect you, what have you become?  an idiot.  So don't let these people get beneath your skin because thats what they want.  If you take steps to silence this person, well that would be infringing on their rights, so its best to just ignore them and move on.
451905
Sure does, your opinion is being heard.  Why else would people's questions and answers keep getting deleted? This section of y/a is becoming a mini civil rights movement. People post, others delete them because they don't like the question or answer because it doesn't agree with their thinking. It's freedom of speech trying to be strangled by a small slice of small minded people. It appears bigotry is alive and well in this section. Does deleting people's remarks really matter? Other than losing points, it won't stop me from responding to outrageous questions filled with either lies, half-truths, or completely inaccurate statements.
631312
That is a really good question.  I totally agree with you on all points.  Its always sue this person, sue that person.  What happened to freedom of speech?  No one has a sense of humor.  I am a fat woman,  I have been teased all my life.  I think fat women are the last of the species that people can still make fun of.  You never hear anyone talk about the fat bubbas laying on the beach making fun of fat women.  But so what?  I am what I am.  I'm sure not going to sue someone over it.  Or go whinning to the ACLU.
72737
I agree. 100%.\nIf religious people say things, we are swiftly "shut up" and our posts deleted.\nBut secularists can say almost anything and get by with it. They can offend us. They can attack our beliefs.\n\nI have found ridiculous posts on here. Vile posts. As long as it is religion under attack it appears to be accepted on here.
71962
The line is drawn between free speech and hate speech.\nThis is a theory developed by freedom of expression supporters which is ment to define what goes and what doesn't.\n\nDefinition varies and many disagree on what goes where (eg: most people would see the Holocaust matter brought under free speech, on certain conditions, while others still want to keep the taboo).\n\nGenerally speaking, free speech embraces things that aren't particulartly aimed at hurting or insulting others and are supported by accepted arguments, facts and proof.\nOn the other hand hate speech are opinions gratuituously spilled just to provoke and insult.\n\nThis doesn't help much and the debate goes on.\nStill most people see the cartoon deal under hate speech because it's not sustainable by arguments (there are many ways to make fun of Islam without resorting to attacking religious principles of non-graphical depiction).\n\nA more fierce debate goes around the Holocaust, where free-speech supporters say that discussions around the events and the number of victims should be allowed and proof needs to be gathered to support supporters and deniers (if the supporters are right, why do they need a law to hide behind if they have strong arguments).
431163
I am a conservative Republican and I absolutely believe that we have a First Amendment Right to burn the U.S. Flag.  "I may not agree with a word that you are saying, I but I would defend, to the death, your right to say it."    No law abridging "freedom of speech".  First you have to ask what "speech" is.  If you think that speech only means "the spoken and written word", then fine, that's it.  The real question becomes, how far should the government be able to go to control your message coming across?  Hey, the internet and this Board aren't mentioned.  What is stopping the Government from shutting this site down.  Typing this stupid debate is not "speech" right?  P.S. chicks are allowed to dance nude BECAUSE of the liberal interpretation of "free speech", so don't rock the boat!
585141
I'm sorry, but your use of the word thinking is far too liberal (sorry, I can't find a thesaurus to come up with a less tasteless word and I really don't feel like firing up Microsoft word right now.)\n\nAnd if someone is "alright" with gays, as in they believe that gays deserve to be treated equally, then why are they attempting to use the word as an insult? Is that hypocrisy or irony? Or is it just sheer stupidity?\n\n\nAnd I see yet another S.B.S.N. has struck. I'm going to start counting now as I browse your questions.
376405
As a full fledged member of CBOA (cry babies of america) I have to say I take offense at your offending, you offending offender you!  LOL.  \nI think people have taken the pc thing a bit to far.  Do we all remember our mother's lesson of "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".????\nThis is a general religeon and spirituality forum, come in here expecting to have folks disagree with ya.  \nI'm with you...First Amendment provides freedom of religeon, it doesn't offer freedom from it.
539264
This is the religious forum, it's called religion and spirituality. Why start another forum when this gets more hits than someone's unknown blog? How else would you use freedom of speech unless you are discussing words? Seriously, we like the word, the word is good. But what point are you trying to make here? That people ought to be inclosed and not speak to each other? Do you get it? Or are you just fed up from hearing about it? I already mentioned why this place is better than a blog. If it's tiring why are you here? As for the questions, most of the questions have nothing to do with spirituality, most of the questions have more to do with retards asking stupid questions than anything spiritual (just kidding whatshoudIdo, I actually find your gag funny:). I don't read the bible but am interested in what people have to say about it. Spiritual and religious questions have always been answered but always need an answer, kind of like, how can we make the world a better place. The second you stop asking is the second you stop being human.
46652
Well that's true in a sense. People can speak out for what they believe and people hear, but in some countries they will be *silenced* by bad ways(to put delicatly)\nNo matter what though, I think they should outcry against it, if enough people think it's wrong and continue for a long time they could possibly do something, but it also may not help. That's the problem with freedom of speech, you can speak out but it doesn't always account for something. \nAm I making any sense? I'm sorry, my thoughts are all jumbled up!
539616
I wish the controller from yahoo would answer it!!  You are right tho, i have seen loads of crape against a particular community and a particular religion which should have not been allowed in the first place.
154919
No! For me personally, it is more about the language used to express some ideas. I too have served in the military and stand for freedom of speech.It is not necessary to yell,use foul words,throw things,   destroy people or property to get your point across. Yet all too often we do.Ask why? To be a better listener is a start.
221662
I do alot of posting on http://www.military.com....\n\nhere is link to that topic and the reactions to protestors at military members funerals....\nthey got a lot to say about that.\nlink is to military.com forums.\nmilitary people...active, retired, vets etc address the same question.\n\nhttp://forums.military.com/groupee/forums?a=search&reqWords=protestors+at+soldiers+funeral&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=0&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search\n\n\nwhen one of these protestors gets shot by distraught parents or brothers or friends...will it be Ok for a bunch of soldiers to celebrate at deceased protestors funeral?\n\nI say...THROW A KEGGER!!!\n\nnote: and ..the protestors are so called "CHRISTIANS" from the WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH !!!\nhttp://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,87269,00.html
41075
I think that generally, people should be able to speak about anything.  There have to be exceptions made where public safety or an important government need (a much more narrowly defined concept then it might appear) are involved.  For example, defamation is one area where I am pleased that the law curtails inappropriate speech.  Also, to paraphrase Justice Holmes, can you imagine the mayhem that would be caused if the law didn't threaten to punish people who would otherwise yell fire in a crowded auditorium when in fact no fire existed?  People could be trampled to death for the sake of preserving one person's right to speak freely in all circumstances.  Surely, that is not the result you desire.  I am in favor, however, of open debate and discourse on all topics and in all manners where public safety and important government interest (again narrowly defined) are not implicated.
385777
I agree with you. If a person WANTS to say the Pledge before a meeting (game, class, etc) then they should be allowed to do so. No one is forcing others to join in and pledge -- they are perfectly within their rights to abstain. \n\nIt really p*sses me off when people try to claim that just "hearing" the pledge violates their rights. Well, what about my right to assert myself and my allegiance to my country?? I would think that would trump anything else.
496842
Didn't you get the memo?  Freedom of speech and freedom of religion only applies to Christians.  All us non-Christians have to shut up and salute.