Quote:

---

"Arizona state lawmakers approved emergency legislation that would order protesters to stay 300 feet away from the funeral. The bill passed unanimously in the House and the Senate is now headed to Gov. Jan Brewer for her expected signature.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the lead sponsor on the bill, said in an e-mail to colleagues before the bill was passed that the plan was to protect the victims' families from the "hateful protest" from the Westboro Baptist Church.

She said she has the support of the Senate president and Gov. Jan Brewer, and the bill will go into effect "immediately" once it's signed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/arizonans-rally-prevent-wes
tboro-church-disruption-shooting-victims-funerals/#ixzz1Amt6Naxp"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The link was in an item posted by Wulf, and it has left me dismayed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.

---

No, you're right. I agree with you.

This one time though, just when it comes to WBC, I WISH I didn't agree with you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
When we surrender to impulses like this, we are nurturing the seed and growing the tree that will cast us all in shadow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Those who agree with banning the WBC and keeping them X distance away - are you also agreeing with the so-called "Free Speech Zones" at political conventions? Will you support the G20's "right" to not have their economic summit disturbed by the "heinous and hideous behavior" of protestors?

THAT is the slippery slope.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.

I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.

--Anthony



Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

---

Quote:

---

Well, I'm probably the lone holdout, but I still live in a world which isn't black and white, in which not everything that happens is a harbinger of government takeover.

If you think about it, whether I'm in favor of it or not, they DID have "free speech zones" when Bush was in power (and I'll bet at other times), and gee, we haven't slid down that "slippery slope" yet. I don't think the American people would put up with stuff like that--certainly not for long, we're too independent and mistrustful a bunch. But on this specific issue, I have no problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred,

---

Quote:

---

...there's been public outcry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred,

---

Free speech zones started on college campuses in the 60s and 70s with protests against Vietnam. The govt didn't start doing it until the late 80s. In the 90's, cities began implementing free speech zones a little bit more. In the 2000's, they became routine with Bush. Now, people are accustomed to the idea of limiting embarrassing protests to areas out of the line of sight.

You may not see an erosion, but many others do. Erosion is by definition a slow, incremental process. It is not an avalanche.

Quote:

---

...there's been public outcry.

---

The point Mike made was not that there isn't public outcry, but that with each decade of free speech zones, there is less and less public outcry. Again, it's a slippery slope, not a slippery cliff.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Abuse is not free speech.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Abuse is not free speech.

---

What is the difference between abuse and dissent?




Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
But as to it starting in the '60s and '70s, I sure never encountered it done by the GOVERNMENT, and what I found was

Quote:

---

Some universities resorted to limiting student protests and demonstrations to certain select areas of the campus called free-speech zones in the 1960s and early 1970s

---

The first mention I find of the GOVERNMENT using them is

Quote:

---

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area" so the convention would not be disrupted.

---

---

Quote:

---

CTS: Free speech zones started on college campuses in the 60s and 70s with protests against Vietnam. The govt didn't start doing it until the late 80s.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.

---

Quote:

---

to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.

---

Quote:

---

to commit sexual assault upon.

---

Quote:

---

to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.

---

Quote:

---

to differ in sentiment or opinion,...
to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government...
to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Now, let's take some examples.

1. "Bush is the worst fucking president ever because he fucking lied about WMDs to take his country to war."

Is this "abuse" or "dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

2. "The Bush administration is comprised of dirty, rotten, immoral war criminals who instituted torture as an acceptable method of interrogation."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

3. "God hates Bush. No one who kills Iraqi babies can be a Christian."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

4. "If there is such a thing as a deity, it must be grievously angered by the collective actions of the Bush administration, perhaps so much it might send Bush to an agonizing eternity."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry CTTS, I misread,

---

Quote:

---

I still don't see Westboro as deserving the right to put their little play on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Getting attention is fine with me, but deliberately targeting those they do is unconscionable TO ME.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
What was wrong with what you typed? I think it was right on in explaining the definition, so it answered the question.

I looked into a bit more deeply...was typing as you posted this last, just FYI.

---

I just noticed a typo

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:


Now, let's take some examples.

1. "Bush is the worst fucking president ever because he fucking lied about WMDs to take his country to war."

Is this "abuse" or "dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

2. "The Bush administration is comprised of dirty, rotten, immoral war criminals who instituted torture as an acceptable method of interrogation."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

3. "God hates Bush. No one who kills Iraqi babies can be a Christian."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

4. "If there is such a thing as a deity, it must be grievously angered by the collective actions of the Bush administration, perhaps so much it might send Bush to an agonizing eternity."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

-------

The differences are subjective, mostly based on whether the audience agrees with the message and its delivery. It is impossible to legally distinguish between the two.

There are some laws against verbal abuse, mostly dealing with the abuse of authority (such as verbal abuse by a boss) or defamation in a publication (very difficult to prove). But there are no laws against someone calling you "stupid" to your face. As abusive as Kaneman is towards Niki, there are no laws making what he says illegal, unless you want to pursue his threats of rape as assault.

The fact of the matter is, NEITHER verbal "abuse" nor verbal "dissent" (of the protesting type) is illegal under United States law. What we've done is simply put legal limitations of either "abuse" or "dissent," by limiting any undesirable messages to areas outside the line of sight.

The slippery slope is this: today I might agree the message is undesirable. Tomorrow, I might not, but it will be too late for my desirable message to be seen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?

---

Quote:

---

if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?

---

Quote:

---

If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?

---

No.

Quote:

---

if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?

---

No.

Quote:

---

If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,

---

There you run into health regulations, so yes, they can stop this.



Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.

---