Is this what we want here in the USA?

[jimnyc]

We recently had varied discussions here about freedom of speech, cursing & being insulting/offensive to others. As opposed to what I support, freedom of speech and freedom of expression as outlined in the COTUS and quite a few SC decisions - some would support the banishment of the offensive, and I know of at least one who thinks maybe a fine for such might make for a better society. Imagine being locked up because you perhaps flipped the bird at a politician passing by? No thanks.

Two women detained over obscene hand gesture to Turkey PM



Istanbul (AFP) - Turkish police detained two women believed to have flashed an obscene hand gesture at Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in an anti-government protest, local media reported on Sunday.

The detention came after Erdogan lashed out at an unidentified woman for making an "ugly" hand gesture as he was on his way to an election rally in the western city of Izmir.

"You did this when the prime minister of this country was passing by. I would understand if it was a man, but I do not understand how a woman could do it," he told the huge crowd of supporters.

Following Erdogan's remarks, police detained two women on charges of "insulting a statesman", Hurriyet newspaper reported.

The second woman reportedly made her gesture from a nearby balcony.

Erdogan has faced street protests since a corruption scandal erupted in mid-December, implicating his key allies and posing the biggest challenge to his 12-year rule ahead of local elections on March 30.

Izmir, a port city on the Aegean coast, is seen as a bastion of secularism where Islamic parties fare poorly.

Turkish riot police fired water cannons at a group of protesters who said they did not want the prime minister in their city and chanted, "Tayyip, the thief".

http://news.yahoo.com/two-women-deta...222219702.html

[gabosaurus]

Not at all. Speaking on behalf of former party girls everywhere, this is what we want:

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/v4BggP1IMck" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

[fj1200]

We recently had varied discussions here about freedom of speech, cursing & being insulting/offensive to others. As opposed to what I support, freedom of speech and freedom of expression as outlined in the COTUS and quite a few SC decisions - some would support the banishment of the offensive, and I know of at least one who thinks maybe a fine for such might make for a better society. Imagine being locked up because you perhaps flipped the bird at a politician passing by? No thanks.

IMO, him and his cohorts went beyond freedom of speech and into the harassment department when they made every attempt to picket every American soldier burial that they could, and make the most repulsive comments and hold them signs, during a funeral, so those grieving would hear and see it.

[jimnyc]

You do understand the difference between someone speaking their beliefs as per the COTUS - and a group of people harassing people attending a funeral of a fallen soldier? Or are you going to defend Westboro and state it was strictly speech and they should be within their rights to go to funerals and put such crap at the feet of the families? And regardless, you have already equated me supporting freedom of speech to somehow being in conflict with being against the actions of the WBC. If you have a problem with me excluding their actions from "freedom of speech", bringing words from another thread trying to play "gotcha" - sorry, it won't work. While a court may have stricter guidelines in how they rule, and may push them back on a distance thing - no way in hell will I, or should I be expected to support what those scumbags do, just because I support freedom of speech. If you are confused as to why I don't support this group, as you have expressed, then I don't know what to tell you.

[fj1200]

You do understand the difference between someone speaking their beliefs as per the COTUS - and a group of people harassing people attending a funeral of a fallen soldier? Or are you going to defend Westboro and state it was strictly speech and they should be within their rights to go to funerals and put such crap at the feet of the families? And regardless, you have already equated me supporting freedom of speech to somehow being in conflict with being against the actions of the WBC. If you have a problem with me excluding their actions from "freedom of speech", bringing words from another thread trying to play "gotcha" - sorry, it won't work. While a court may have stricter guidelines in how they rule, and may push them back on a distance thing - no way in hell will I, or should I be expected to support what those scumbags do, just because I support freedom of speech. If you are confused as to why I don't support this group, as you have expressed, then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not going to defend Westboro but the reality is that they've been judged as to not violating free speech. That may suck but I don't think it's really up for question, Constitutionally speaking. I was only pointing out what may have been two positions in conflict with each other.

And FWIW, I'm not confused to why you don't support WBC, they're a disgusting group.

[jimnyc]

I'm not going to defend Westboro but the reality is that they've been judged as to not violating free speech. That may suck but I don't think it's really up for question, Constitutionally speaking. I was only pointing out what may have been two positions in conflict with each other.

And FWIW, I'm not confused to why you don't support WBC, they're a disgusting group.

The SC can find them within their constitutional rights from now until the end of time. Their interpretation of the law and what is "right and wrong" aren't always in jive with one another. They have also ruled that it's within ones rights to burn the American flag. I don't agree that Phelps should have been or should ever be allowed to do what they do. I don't think anyone should be allowed to burn the American flag. I don't see that as being in conflict with what I wrote earlier, unless it's the SC making another ruling. While I support freedom of speech and know people have died to preserve that right, I'll still never personally extend that right to either examples. If that makes me bad, a hypocrite, in conflict with the law/courts or whatever, I can deal with that label or accusation. I stand for freedom of speech in the strongest sense and I stand against both of those actions in the strongest sense.

[fj1200]

^Speech is speech. But standing against WBC doesn't have to mean standing against 1A.

[Abbey Marie]

We recently had varied discussions here about freedom of speech, cursing & being insulting/offensive to others. As opposed to what I support, freedom of speech and freedom of expression as outlined in the COTUS and quite a few SC decisions - some would support the banishment of the offensive, and I know of at least one who thinks maybe a fine for such might make for a better society. Imagine being locked up because you perhaps flipped the bird at a politician passing by? No thanks.

Two women detained over obscene hand gesture to Turkey PM



Istanbul (AFP) - Turkish police detained two women believed to have flashed an obscene hand gesture at Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in an anti-government protest, local media reported on Sunday.

The detention came after Erdogan lashed out at an unidentified woman for making an "ugly" hand gesture as he was on his way to an election rally in the western city of Izmir.

"You did this when the prime minister of this country was passing by. I would understand if it was a man, but I do not understand how a woman could do it," he told the huge crowd of supporters.

Following Erdogan's remarks, police detained two women on charges of "insulting a statesman", Hurriyet newspaper reported.

The second woman reportedly made her gesture from a nearby balcony.

Erdogan has faced street protests since a corruption scandal erupted in mid-December, implicating his key allies and posing the biggest challenge to his 12-year rule ahead of local elections on March 30.

Izmir, a port city on the Aegean coast, is seen as a bastion of secularism where Islamic parties fare poorly.

Turkish riot police fired water cannons at a group of protesters who said they did not want the prime minister in their city and chanted, "Tayyip, the thief".

http://news.yahoo.com/two-women-deta...222219702.html

The bolded tells me all I need to know about the real reason for the situation.

[jimnyc]

The bolded tells me all I need to know about the real reason for the situation.

I'm sure it plays a part, but I had not gone there yet. And you know it would always be denied anyway. Muslims around the world would literally have to have a huge revolt in order for women to have equal rights to men. But this won't happen, as it's claimed in most places that they are treated as equals (and no, I'm not joking!)

[jafar00]

The SC can find them within their constitutional rights from now until the end of time. Their interpretation of the law and what is "right and wrong" aren't always in jive with one another. They have also ruled that it's within ones rights to burn the American flag. I don't agree that Phelps should have been or should ever be allowed to do what they do. I don't think anyone should be allowed to burn the American flag. I don't see that as being in conflict with what I wrote earlier, unless it's the SC making another ruling. While I support freedom of speech and know people have died to preserve that right, I'll still never personally extend that right to either examples. If that makes me bad, a hypocrite, in conflict with the law/courts or whatever, I can deal with that label or accusation. I stand for freedom of speech in the strongest sense and I stand against both of those actions in the strongest sense.

Just as I believe that nobody should be free to spread hate speech that incites violence against a particular group of people, you don't think people should freely express themselves as Phelps did or to burn the flag. I'm glad we finally understand each other and can agree that freedom comes with responsibility and those that cannot act responsibly with it should have the right taken away.

[jimnyc]

Just as I believe that nobody should be free to spread hate speech that incites violence against a particular group of people, you don't think people should freely express themselves as Phelps did or to burn the flag. I'm glad we finally understand each other and can agree that freedom comes with responsibility and those that cannot act responsibly with it should have the right taken away.

Not quite. I think they are fully entitled to their opinions, and to express them ELSEWHERE than the cemetery. Even if that means some think it's spreading hate. My beef is WHERE they are doing so. That's something I've stood for always. For example, while I support porn as such, or political protests and such - there are limitations as to where and when.

[tailfins]

Just as I believe that nobody should be free to spread hate speech that incites violence against a particular group of people, you don't think people should freely express themselves as Phelps did or to burn the flag. I'm glad we finally understand each other and can agree that freedom comes with responsibility and those that cannot act responsibly with it should have the right taken away.

A funeral is a form of speech, honoring the deceased. Impeding a funeral is abridging the freedom of speech of those honoring the deceased.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We recently had varied discussions here about freedom of speech, cursing & being insulting/offensive to others. As opposed to what I support, freedom of speech and freedom of expression as outlined in the COTUS and quite a few SC decisions - some would support the banishment of the offensive, and I know of at least one who thinks maybe a fine for such might make for a better society. Imagine being locked up because you perhaps flipped the bird at a politician passing by? No thanks.

Two women detained over obscene hand gesture to Turkey PM



Istanbul (AFP) - Turkish police detained two women believed to have flashed an obscene hand gesture at Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in an anti-government protest, local media reported on Sunday.

The detention came after Erdogan lashed out at an unidentified woman for making an "ugly" hand gesture as he was on his way to an election rally in the western city of Izmir.

"You did this when the prime minister of this country was passing by. I would understand if it was a man, but I do not understand how a woman could do it," he told the huge crowd of supporters.

Following Erdogan's remarks, police detained two women on charges of "insulting a statesman", Hurriyet newspaper reported.

The second woman reportedly made her gesture from a nearby balcony.

Erdogan has faced street protests since a corruption scandal erupted in mid-December, implicating his key allies and posing the biggest challenge to his 12-year rule ahead of local elections on March 30.

Izmir, a port city on the Aegean coast, is seen as a bastion of secularism where Islamic parties fare poorly.

Turkish riot police fired water cannons at a group of protesters who said they did not want the prime minister in their city and chanted, "Tayyip, the thief".

http://news.yahoo.com/two-women-deta...222219702.html

We already had that = IRS SCANDAL, targeting tea party , patriotic , conservative , Christian opposition groups etc by Obama and crew. And "the little Fuhrer " got away with it too. --Tyr

[jafar00]

A funeral is a form of speech, honoring the deceased. Impeding a funeral is abridging the freedom of speech of those honoring the deceased.

If protesting a funeral because you offend the funeral goers is unacceptable, when does it become acceptable again?

Note: I would not accept it either. If a funeral goes past me, I stand still facing them with my head lowered in respect. It's the decent thing (and it's sunnah!) to do no matter who's funeral it is.