Fred Phelps church being sued . . . FINALLY!

[str8curious]

Canadians value free speech and assembly as much as anyone. Canucks are very opinionated (I'm not the only one!) I guess you could sum up my previous post by saying that we just don't tolerate hatred and we made a federal law to abolish it. This infringes on some liberties, but it's working. The U.S. Supreme court has been swamped for decades trying to interpret what "free speech" is. We don't have this sort of problem because disputes regarding hatred, defamation and slander are normally decided by Justices and not Judges.



I don't really understand your point. You seem to be agreeing with freedom of speech and people doing what they want, and yet you dislike gatherings where people speak angry or bitter words. Maybe more specific laws regarding freedom of speech are needed, rather than countless federal court rulings.

How can Canadians value freedom of assembly and free speech if they place restrictions? It is my understanding that a legal system cannot legislate morality, is that not the case? Any one a lawyer on here? I'm just going by what I learned in para legal classes in highschool and early college years. What is "hatred" exactly? What if these people are displeased or just plainly annoyed, or even paranoid? They have a right to that as long as they don't beat any one up or kill them. I mean words are words after all, are they not? What can words do to a secure person?

As for your misunderstanding of my point: I didn't say I disliked any gathering, I just said that the double standards bothers me. I wrote

"why the double standards? I say let people be, say and do what they want until it gets violent and then let the law step in. Face it, we live in a world of many minds and each deserves its right to be heard and seen regardless of how evil or mean others may see them."

My point is: Why pick one group over another if that one group is doing the same thing? The kkk, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, gays, pedophiles, rapists, abortionists, prolifers, conservatives, liberals, pro war, anti war, whites, blacks, latinos, asians, indians, et al must be allowed to protest and assemble as long as they are not breaking any laws regarding trespassing, assault/battery, stalking, legal age of consent, etc.

I hope America never turns into a witch hunting country again lol. People protest a president's inauguration, graduations, and other occasions all the time, why get upset when a marine's funeral gets the same? It may be or not in bad taste; however, if the people are secure in themselves and with their lost ones, then what is the problem?

 

[str8curious]

Thanks for bringing this to attn njqt and forget some of this bullshit posting in between.

What's wrong with hearing other people's opinions? Humanity is not a collective conscience, but a collection of different minds, thoughts, ways and opinions. It would be immature to cover our ears and shout "lalalalala" so that we wouldn't hear others who may think differently, don't you think?

 

[dong20]

How can Canadians value freedom of assembly and free speech if they place restrictions? It is my understanding that a legal system cannot legislate morality, is that not the case? Any one a lawyer on here? I'm just going by what I learned in para legal classes in highschool and early college years. What is "hatred" exactly? What if these people are displeased or just plainly annoyed, or even paranoid? They have a right to that as long as they don't beat any one up or kill them. I mean words are words after all, are they not? What can words do to a secure person?

The same way the US does. In the case of the US by combining the wisdom of the framers, the judiciary and the citizenry. What is law if not a form of collective, social morality?

I agree with you that personal morality falls outside the scope of both the constitution and/or the justice system, right up until it breaches the law that is. I would have thought that was obvious.

The US places restrictions on free speech, it just doesn't always do so with the same, explicit provisions that some other nations do. If it didn't then this case would never have come to court would it?

Look at recent terror legislation if you need further evidence of restrictions placed on free speech in the land of the free.

 

[str8curious]

The same way the US does. In the case of the US by combining the wisdom of the framers, the judiciary and the citizenry. What is law if not a form of collective, social morality?

I agree with you that personal morality falls outside the scope of both the constitution and/or the justice system, right up until it breaches the law that is. I would have thought that was obvious.

The US places restrictions on free speech, it just doesn't always do so with the same, explicit provisions that some other nations do. If it didn't then this case would never have come to court would it?

Look at recent terror legislation if you need further evidence of restrictions placed on free speech in the land of the free.

I don't think there is such a thing as social morality, but I see where you are coming from. Morality is something that never changes regardless of society, i.e. killing another for any other reason besides self defense will always be wrong. Legislation does change. Moreover, I don't think the judiciary has the power to change laws, but rather to say whether or not they are constitutional whether on the state level or federal. That power rests on the voting body, whether it comes from citizens or elected officials.

As for the terrorism legislation. That always expires and it is up to elected officials to reinstate them or not, and it is my understanding that they will only remain as long as there is a long threat of an attack on the USA. So if we return to a pre-911 world, most likely that legistation will be obsolete. But again, it goes to my point. The legislation on terror was made for security reasons. Those who attend a funeral that is being protested have rights to security under the law, so if a protester crosses the line, so to speak, he/she will be dealt with under the law correct? So, people should be able to protest or say anything as long as it does not put their target's security in jeopardy. This case may be thrown out on grows of free speech, or the plaintiff may win for being harrassed by the defendant. Who knows... But if the plaintiff does win on grounds of being hated, then that will most likely inspire this group of christians to fight even more since they may see it as an attack or even martyrdom as muslim radicals do.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

I mean words are words after all, are they not? What can words do to a secure person?

Don't the terms "God hates fags," or "God hates you" comfort you?

I hope America never turns into a witch hunting country again lol.

This is kinda why hate crimes are relevant, no?

 

[str8curious]

Don't the terms "God hates fags," or "God hates you" comfort you?



This is kinda why hate crimes are relevant, no?

Well think about it, will those comments bother a gay atheist? People will always have some thing to say about any one or any thing. That is life. Whether or not they comfort me is irrelevant because I'm not gay... curious yea lol, but not gay. It will bother me if I see and hear some one saying that as they beat up a gay dude...

 

[dong20]

I don't think there is such a thing as social morality, but I see where you are coming from. Morality is something that never changes regardless of society, i.e. killing another for any other reason besides self defense will always be wrong. Legislation does change. Moreover, I don't think the judiciary has the power to change laws, but rather to say whether or not they are constitutional whether on the state level or federal. That power rests on the voting body, whether it comes from citizens or elected officials.

I think that's debatable but largely a matter of definition. Legislation tends to reflect the morality of contemporary society, usually with a time lag. Look at civil rights and other such legislation. Some things were clearly considered morally acceptable by far too many, otherwise legislation would not have been necessary to ensure that those who espoused such views, or took actions in support of them were punished.

This case is but another example of how such laws, and their interpretation evolve. Put another way; the killing of another person has pretty much always been morally reprehensible when viewed in the abstract, but consider that the enslavement, or subsequently abuse of, discrimination against people based for example on skin colour or, in this case sexuality has only been so for a comparatively short time. Within a single human lifetime the legal stance on such issues has pretty much done a 180. I'm not sure the moral one has fully caught up for far too many. Again, this Phelps issue is a case which illustrates that quite well.

My point is that legislation has evolved to reflect what the majority of society consider immoral and/or unacceptable, isn't that what the main function of the law is? Such always have been of course (at least by todays standards) but that's another issue. In that sense I do believe the law constitutes a form of collective morality.

Yes, the judiciary doesn't have the power to change laws, only the power to enforce, and to a degree interprate them within the context of the constitution. IMO that's what happened here, thus again confirming that the concept of free speech is not without restriction.

As for the terrorism legislation. That always expires and it is up to elected officials to reinstate them or not, and it is my understanding that they will only remain as long as there is a long threat of an attack on the USA. So if we return to a pre-911 world, most likely that legistation will be obsolete. But again, it goes to my point. The legislation on terror was made for security reasons. Those who attend a funeral that is being protested have rights to security under the law, so if a protester crosses the line, so to speak, he/she will be dealt with under the law correct? So, people should be able to protest or say anything as long as it does not put their target's security in jeopardy. This case may be thrown out on grows of free speech, or the plaintiff may win for being harrassed by the defendant. Who knows... But if the plaintiff does win on grounds of being hated, then that will most likely inspire this group of christians to fight even more since they may see it as an attack or even martyrdom as muslim radicals do.

Perhaps, but such freedoms removed under the guise of security are seldom willingly or promptly handed back by those who have usurped them.

Your point about crossing lines and people being "able to protest or say anything as long as it does not put their target's security in jeopardy" are valid ones, but isn't the constraint about jeopardy by definition a restriction on the other's free speech? More particularly, who defines where that 'line' is, i.e. who decides when the target is in jeopardy; the target, the courts, the police, the assailant, you?

The concept of free speech should be as broad as possible but I believe it cannot be boundless, nor without responsibility or consequence as you seem to agree. Hence there are restrictions. The difficulty lies in defining and re-defining those shifting boundaries. That's really all I was trying to say.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Well think about it, will those comments bother a gay atheist? People will always have some thing to say about any one or any thing. That is life. Whether or not they comfort me is irrelevant because I'm not gay... curious yea lol, but not gay. It will bother me if I see and hear some one saying that as they beat up a gay dude...

Come on dude. I'm sure these horrible terms would bother any normal person. Besides, you are missing my point. Words can hurt and even kill, so maybe there should be laws which deter such words.

 

[str8curious]

I think that's debatable but largely a matter of definition. Legislation tends to reflect the morality of contemporary society, usually with a time lag. Look at civil rights and other such legislation. Some things were clearly considered morally acceptable by far too many, otherwise legislation would not have been necessary to ensure that those who espoused such views, or took actions in support of them were punished.

This case is but another example of how such laws, and their interpretation evolve. Put another way; the killing of another person has pretty much always been morally reprehensible when viewed in the abstract, but consider that the enslavement, or subsequently abuse of, discrimination against people based for example on skin colour or, in this case sexuality has only been so for a comparatively short time. Within a single human lifetime the legal stance on such issues has pretty much done a 180. I'm not sure the moral one has fully caught up for far too many. Again, this Phelps issue is a case which illustrates that quite well.

My point is that legislation has evolved to reflect what the majority of society consider immoral and/or unacceptable, isn't that what the main function of the law is? Such always have been of course (at least by todays standards) but that's another issue. In that sense I do believe the law constitutes a form of collective morality.

Yes, the judiciary doesn't have the power to change laws, only the power to enforce, and to a degree interprate them within the context of the constitution. IMO that's what happened here, thus again confirming that the concept of free speech is not without restriction.



Perhaps, but such freedoms removed under the guise of security are seldom willingly or promptly handed back by those who have usurped them.

Your point about crossing lines and people being "able to protest or say anything as long as it does not put their target's security in jeopardy" are valid ones, but isn't the constraint about jeopardy by definition a restriction on the other's free speech? More particularly, who defines where that 'line' is, i.e. who decides when the target is in jeopardy; the target, the courts, the police, the assailant, you?

The concept of free speech should be as broad as possible but I believe it cannot be boundless, nor without responsibility or consequence as you seem to agree. Hence there are restrictions. The difficulty lies in defining and re-defining those shifting boundaries. That's really all I was trying to say.

Well the definition of law and legislation that I was taught was that it just dictates what is fair for living in a society, merit and punishment. Morality is a whole other issue and has nothing to do with law. Issues with civil rights, women, sexuality are considered human rights cases, not moral ones. People protested and are protesting because they are not being treated fairly. We cannot mix the definitions around. If legislation were the result of a collective social morality, then what of abortion? The majority of Americans are against it unless the mother is in danger or raped. If to majority are against it, then why does it still exist?

As for the legislation of terrorism, the USA is not a dictatorship. Those who voted for to reinstate the terrorism acts will be replaced by voters, so there is no issue there.

You wrote: "isn't the constraint about jeopardy by definition a restriction on the other's free speech? More particularly, who defines where that 'line' is, i.e. who decides when the target is in jeopardy; the target, the courts, the police, the assailant..." No it is not a restriction on another's free speech if that person is violent. I have already stated that people can protest as long as they don't hurt others physically, stalk them or kill them. So I don't see any jeopardy in that. The law is clear so there is no need on who decides what is crossing the line. If you assault or commit battery, you will be arrested and charged. There was a case in Massachussetts about a pro-family group leader who was exonerated of charges for alledgedly attacking a pro-gay marriage opponent. Videos have shown that the pro-gay marriage opponent disrupted a speaker even after the police told them to protest across the street away from the rally. A combination of cops, video and witnesses should be enough to dictate when one crosses the lines, don't you think?

Free speech should go as far as vocabulary allows it. I think that is what the fore-fathers wanted. They did come from an oppressive form of european government so they knew how important it was to have free speech and to be able to assemble in a peaceful manner to voice one's concerns.

 

[Captain Elephant]

The interesting thing about hate is how contagious it is. While one tries to voice their opposition to someone spewing hatred it always comes out hate-filled. Fighting fire with fire, I guess, but it does lower one to the hater's level.

But hell, even Jesus would have a tough times turning the other cheek with Phelps.

OK, here's the thing with free speech: there are no limitations, period, BUT there are responsibilities. That's the difference. A newspaper cannot print known untruths about someone without facing serious consequences.

Phelps and his band of demons are facing consequences for the speech. Now comes the responsibility part.

I'll never say I hate the man or wish him dead. It makes me no better than him. But I would like to see him be responsible for what he's done.

 

[str8curious]

Come on dude. I'm sure these horrible terms would bother any normal person. Besides, you are missing my point. Words can hurt and even kill, so maybe there should be laws which deter such words.

You're kidding right? How can we outlaw words??? Language is language. Words will only have an effect on those who are insecure. Did the people who were the target of this church called the police??

 

[str8curious]

The interesting thing about hate is how contagious it is. While one tries to voice their opposition to someone spewing hatred it always comes out hate-filled. Fighting fire with fire, I guess, but it does lower one to the hater's level.

But hell, even Jesus would have a tough times turning the other cheek with Phelps.

OK, here's the thing with free speech: there are no limitations, period, BUT there are responsibilities. That's the difference. A newspaper cannot print known untruths about someone without facing serious consequences.

Phelps and his band of demons are facing consequences for the speech. Now comes the responsibility part.

I'll never say I hate the man or wish him dead. It makes me no better than him. But I would like to see him be responsible for what he's done.

Did this phelps throw stone at the funeral procession or attacked any one physically? Did they disrupt the funeral service or mass? If not, then what is the problem???

 

[2322]

Have you seen footage of their protests? If you have, now might be a good time to read a little about what is, and is not illegal since you are subject to the law as well, and ignorance of it will not excuse you from compliance.

What they have done in past protests has no bearing on this instance.

Assault, as I previously stated does not have to be physical as it is defined by American laws. Were I one of that church's victims you may rest assured that assault charges would be filed in addition to the civil charges brought by Snyder's attorneys. Some charges the government will pursue with or without your assistance, others you must pursue on your own. With our limited legal resources, sometimes only the squeaky wheels get greased. Phelps was not charged with assault.

Then why raise the issue if he wasn't charged with assault? Again, not germane to this instance.

He was, however found liable for violating the family's "expectation of privacy" and "intentionally inflicting emotional distress". The latter, as I already stated covers speech not protected by the first ammendment. The former, though you may not want to believe it is also valid. Though the family was in a public location, they certainly may have an expectation of privacy.

How can one have reasonable expectations of privacy in what is defined as a public, not private, place? The protesters were in public as is the cemetery. What if they were simply mourners making loud wailing noises? Would they still be charged? I don't think so. I think the First Amendment is being bent to enforce a standard of decency that we would like to have in law but which is not constitutional. The first amendment is exceptionally broad and clear on this matter. It does not state anything about free speech except for speech someone might find, "emotionally distressing." Perhaps a beef cattle rancher finds vegan protesters, "emotionally distressing," or a furrier finds anti-fur protests, "emotionally distressing," or perhaps those seeking abortion find anti-abortion protesters, "emotionally distressing." The fact is that the common standard of decency is being applied in a case where it has no standing in light of the first amendments lack of such restraints. Make any argument you want about this or that court or even SCOTUS itself defending such laws but as we've seen with the second amendment, courts are willing to bend the constructs of the constitution to their whims in light of public opinion when, in fact, they are not empowered to blatantly disregard the precise wording of the constitution. If you don't like the amendment, propose an other, but do not pretend that the framers meant this, that, or the other thing when in fact they knew perfectly well what they were writing.

They were protesting in a public place saying things which were unpopular and frankly the first amendment is so broad precisely to defend those who make unpopular speech.

This expectation was not something made up on the spur of the moment simply for this case. This expectation is the reason I can't sit behind you in a restaurant and tape the conversation you're having with your cousin and then later use the tape against you in court, or for profit from it somehow without either of you first consenting to the recording. While it would not have occured to me to attack Phelps and his lot on the expectation of privacy angle, it certainly made sense to me once I read it.

A restaurant, unless owned by the public, is a private space. Further you are free to publish any recording you want under your protections of the first amendment. Record who you like where you like. People do the same with images. If I take a video of people passing by I don't need their permission to publish it.

I have to assert: Not all speech is protected by the first amendment. They do teach us that in school. That's why you can't lie to the police. That's why you can't incite people to riot, or otherwise use speech to create dangerous situations. One persons rights end where the next person's begins. This is clear in American case law, and has been for a long time.

What they teach in school has nothing to do with what the constitution states unless they're teaching what the constitution states. In this case the law is being bent to suppress unpopular speech and that's illegal. I don't care what judge or justice says it is, the constitution supersedes any court in the land.

By the nature of public space being public, we must accommodate the free speech of others which takes place in public. If my rights end where yours begin then what constitutes that? If I protest with a sign that blocks your view of a favorite tree then whose right wins out? If I make a speech on a street corner do you have a right not to listen and, if so, does that mean I have to be silent?

FYI, bringing George Bush into this is not a great idea. His disregard for constitutional rights makes anything he does in this arena fall under deep suspicion. "Free speech zones," are unconstitutional.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

You're kidding right? How can we outlaw words??? Language is language. Words will only have an effect on those who are insecure. Did the people who were the target of this church called the police??

No words offend you? I have two words for you: "bull" and "shit."

 

[dong20]

Well the definition of law and legislation that I was taught was that it just dictates what is fair for living in a society, merit and punishment. Morality is a whole other issue and has nothing to do with law. Issues with civil rights, women, sexuality are considered human rights cases, not moral ones. People protested and are protesting because they are not being treated fairly. We cannot mix the definitions around. If legislation were the result of a collective social morality, then what of abortion? The majority of Americans are against it unless the mother is in danger or raped. If to majority are against it, then why does it still exist?

I think we may be talking cross purposes. You are saying that morality cannot and should not be legislated. I disagree on the first, look at Sharia law for example, but I entirely agree with you on the second.But that wasn't my argument. I wasn't saying the law should dictate morality but that it is guided, to varying degrees by it.

If you dig beyond that for a moment and ask what is the purpose of the law, if it isn't to protect society, with penalties, from those things that we as members of said society have deemed unacceptable. I'm not mixing defintions, merely suggesting that law is, in many aspects based in and bound to morality. If human rights, race and sexuality discrimination issues are not, fundamentally moral ones, what are they? After all if the law is not to support in some form of basic morality, even if indirectly, why have it?

As you say, the law isn't (or shouldn't be) an abstraction within which we play with intellectual considerations, it's a tool to ensure that society is fair and just to it's citizens including that those who transgress. The law is about enforcing the accountability of and/or imposing penalties on those who commit wrong. I'm not saying that it is or should be bound to any particular concept of morality, especially not a religious one as some nations do.

On that note, and on abortion, well first I'm not quite sure the majority view is so clear cut, but that's not really the issue, or at least not the whole issue. Abortion used to be pretty much entirely illegal (at least in many nations, and in some it still is) but society and, through them the law has deemed that a woman's right to choose outweighs what are (for many detractors) primarily pseudo religious, moral argument against it.

With a constitutional mandate for a separation of church and state the conflict here was clear. Religion is an abstract concept, based on faith, the freedom for a woman to choose not to be a parent other that at a time of her choosing, and make that informed choice about her body without unreasonable penalty most certainly isn't.

This is a good example of when morality and law can be in conflict. It may be the moral view of many that abortion is wrong, but the suppression of a woman's right to choose is also a moral consideration as well as a legal one. I'm trying say that the issue isn't clear cut, that there are extemes where morality has no place, just as there are others where morality may be all there is. In between, for much of the time all we have is the law.

In the 1950s racial segregation was being abolished not becuase it was illegal, because it wasn't. It was abolished because it was wrong. King's argument was fundamementally a moral one, not a legal one.

Legislation generally follows and reflects changes in society though sometimes it can provoke it. The civil rights issue is an example where the two happened together. What the law often does is help reinforce that social change. Many people feel that if it's illegal it's probably 'wrong' or immoral. Naturally, some don't and ignore the law, sometimes they are right and if enough speak up the law is changed.

As for the legislation of terrorism, the USA is not a dictatorship. Those who voted for to reinstate the terrorism acts will be replaced by voters, so there is no issue there.

Replacing those who enacted legisaltion is no guarantee that said legislation will be repealed or modified by those that replace them so yes, there is an issue there.

You wrote: "isn't the constraint about jeopardy by definition a restriction on the other's free speech? More particularly, who defines where that 'line' is, i.e. who decides when the target is in jeopardy; the target, the courts, the police, the assailant..." No it is not a restriction on another's free speech if that person is violent. I have already stated that people can protest as long as they don't hurt others physically, stalk them or kill them. So I don't see any jeopardy in that. The law is clear so there is no need on who decides what is crossing the line. If you assault or commit battery, you will be arrested and charged.

You are talking about physical assault, not speech.

There was a case in Massachussetts about a pro-family group leader who was exonerated of charges for alledgedly attacking a pro-gay marriage opponent. Videos have shown that the pro-gay marriage opponent disrupted a speaker even after the police told them to protest across the street away from the rally.

Again, you're talking about assault, I'm talking about speech.

A combination of cops, video and witnesses should be enough to dictate when one crosses the lines, don't you think?

The courts are the ultimate arbiters of when a line has been crossed, the initial assessment being of necessity delegated to law enforcement. The role of the police is to collect, process and present evidence, the role of the justice system is to consider and test that evidence within a clearly defined framework and reach a reasoned judgement.

Wasn't your own argument was that words are only words and cannot cause harm; "I mean words are words after all, are they not? What can words do to a secure person?" We are talking about speech here, not violent action aren't we, you seem to be taking tangents.

IMO, though, threatening the life or well-being of someone can put them in jeopardy, even if it's only words. Again, it's that line between free speech and incitement or threatening behaviour. Where does one end, and the other begin.

Free speech should go as far as vocabulary allows it. I think that is what the fore-fathers wanted. They did come from an oppressive form of european government so they knew how important it was to have free speech and to be able to assemble in a peaceful manner to voice one's concerns.

I agree, and I believe I said so. They did a pretty good job too. My point was that the concept of free speech is fluid, and while it needs to have a minimum of constraints, the exercise of free speech when intended to cause harm or incite others to do so, should not be without consequence.

In essence I'm saying that IMO the law and morality are connected.

Have a glance at these, as a start.

Law and Morality
Aristotle's Ethics
Morality and Law Inseparable
Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct -- Shavell 4 (2): 227 -- American Law and Economics Review
Law vs. Morality
On Abortion, the law and morality from an anti perspective
Mirror of Justice: (Im)morality versus (il)legality and the Law (of abortion)

 

[str8curious]

No words offend you? I have two words for you: "bull" and "shit."

That coming from some one who didn't grow up in NYC...

 

[BigDuder]

i say the best move is to have members of lpsg hate fuck a bunch of these female church members: http://antiprotester.com/westboromembers.jpg

 

[BigDuder]

i got dibs on the two bondes in the front

 

[BigDuder]

That coming from some one who didn't grow up in NYC...

yeah, words only offend immature people.

 

[str8curious]

I think we may be talking cross purposes. You are saying that morality cannot and should not be legislated. I disagree on the first, look at Sharia law for example, but I entirely agree with you on the second.But that wasn't my argument. I wasn't saying the law should dictate morality but that it is guided, to varying degrees by it.

If you dig beyond that for a moment and ask what is the purpose of the law, if it isn't to protect society, with penalties, from those things that we as members of said society have deemed unacceptable. I'm not mixing defintions, merely suggesting that law is, in many aspects based in and bound to morality. If human rights, race and sexuality discrimination issues are not, fundamentally moral ones, what are they? After all if the law is not to support in some form of basic morality, even if indirectly, why have it?

As you say, the law isn't (or shouldn't be) an abstraction within which we play with intellectual considerations, it's a tool to ensure that society is fair and just to it's citizens including that those who transgress. The law is about enforcing the accountability of and/or imposing penalties on those who commit wrong. I'm not saying that it is or should be bound to any particular concept of morality, especially not a religious one as some nations do.

On that note, and on abortion, well first I'm not quite sure the majority view is so clear cut, but that's not really the issue, or at least not the whole issue. Abortion used to be pretty much entirely illegal (at least in many nations, and in some it still is) but society and, through them the law has deemed that a woman's right to choose outweighs what are (for many detractors) primarily pseudo religious, moral argument against it.

With a constitutional mandate for a separation of church and state the conflict here was clear. Religion is an abstract concept, based on faith, the freedom for a woman to choose not to be a parent other that at a time of her choosing, and make that informed choice about her body without unreasonable penalty most certainly isn't.

This is a good example of when morality and law can be in conflict. It may be the moral view of many that abortion is wrong, but the suppression of a woman's right to choose is also a moral consideration as well as a legal one. I'm trying say that the issue isn't clear cut, that there are extemes where morality has no place, just as there are others where morality may be all there is. In between, for much of the time all we have is the law.

In the 1950s racial segregation was being abolished not becuase it was illegal, because it wasn't. It was abolished because it was wrong. King's argument was fundamementally a moral one, not a legal one.

Legislation generally follows and reflects changes in society though sometimes it can provoke it. The civil rights issue is an example where the two happened together. What the law often does is help reinforce that social change. Many people feel that if it's illegal it's probably 'wrong' or immoral. Naturally, some don't and ignore the law, sometimes they are right and if enough speak up the law is changed.



Replacing those who enacted legisaltion is no guarantee that said legislation will be repealed or modified by those that replace them so yes, there is an issue there.



You are talking about physical assault, not speech.



Again, you're talking about assault, I'm talking about speech.



The courts are the ultimate arbiters of when a line has been crossed, the initial assessment being of necessity delegated to law enforcement. The role of the police is to collect, process and present evidence, the role of the justice system is to consider and test that evidence within a clearly defined framework and reach a reasoned judgement.

Wasn't your own argument was that words are only words and cannot cause harm; "I mean words are words after all, are they not? What can words do to a secure person?" We are talking about speech here, not violent action aren't we, you seem to be taking tangents.

IMO, though, threatening the life or well-being of someone can put them in jeopardy, even if it's only words. Again, it's that line between free speech and incitement or threatening behaviour. Where does one end, and the other begin.



I agree, and I believe I said so. They did a pretty good job too. My point was that the concept of free speech is fluid, and while it needs to have a minimum of constraints, the exercise of free speech when intended to cause harm or incite others to do so, should not be without consequence.

In essence I'm saying that IMO the law and morality are connected.

Have a glance at these, as a start.

Law and Morality
Aristotle's Ethics
Morality and Law Inseparable
Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct -- Shavell 4 (2): 227 -- American Law and Economics Review
Law vs. Morality
On Abortion, the law and morality from an anti perspective
Mirror of Justice: (Im)morality versus (il)legality and the Law (of abortion)

I will answer all here briefly becaue I don't know how to quote sections.

You are mixing definitions, here is what the dictionary says a law is:

civil law

NOUN:
The body of laws of a state or nation dealing with the rights of private citizens.
The law of ancient Rome as embodied in the Justinian code, especially that which applied to private citizens.
A system of law having its origin in Roman law, as opposed to common law or canon law.

A law is simply a code of fair treatment for citizens. It does not and never has been part of morality. Morality is according to the dictionary:

mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-) KEY

NOUN:
pl. mo·ral·i·ties
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
Virtuous conduct.
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

They may be similar, but they are not the same. Abortion, racism, women's rights etc are not moral issues in the eye of the law, but basic rights issues or fair treatment since all are created equal as the consitution states. Dr. King fought on a moral side because he was a minister, but he was not the one who gave rights to blacks nor was the decision to do so based on morality.

As for speaking about speech, I am mentioning it because that was the topic of this thread and I have not seen or heard of any evidence that the protesters physically assaulted any one. Some one who has hate has every right to speak of it whether we think of it as wrong or right. I am merely stating that I don't see why the uproar if these people did not do any thing illegal.

The links you posted are theories and people's opinions, we have to look at the definitions themselves and the laws themselves. Morality is mostly a religious thing, not civil. The Catholic Church is the sole promoter of it using archaic aristotilian philosophies that don't apply in today's modern world. Law was made to give rights to all so that all may be treated fairly, while morality is more personal in regard to choices of what is right or wrong, sin or sinful.

I wish there was a lawyer here to clarify this, I can only rely on what I was taught in my para legal class.