Does no one see that WBC is the good guy in this story?
You appear to be thinking inside the box that's been handed to you. That mistake goes deeper than merely overestimating the role of SCOTUS in interpreting the US constitution. You oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of legal documents, just as you oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of religious documents.
Hello again, Pi zero!
>> overestimating the role of SCOTUS in interpreting the US constitution
How can one overstate absolute power? We can argue about what the law SHOULD BE, but the Supreme Court exclusively decides what it IS.
>> You oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of legal documents
Two separate questions: Is WBC's speech method legal? Is it morally right? Note that I am talking about the speech method, not the viewpoint expressed.
>> just as you oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of religious documents
Now we're switching to consideration of the viewpoint. I propose that we keep the two considerations separate, and on this thread, focus on the speech method employed by WBC. They aren't saying anything new. They are just saying it in a novel, high nuisance, way. What should the community's response be when a speaker uses a high nuisance, yet legal, method?
The attack on WBC is motivated by a dislike for, and a desire to silence, their viewpoint. All of this business about nuisance is just being used as a smoke screen to conceal what is really going on: violent intolerance of a speaker with an unpopular viewpoint.
If you think that's what SCOTUS does, you're —just as I said— thinking inside the box given to you. You seem to be inclined to think legalistically; that mode of thinking is, by definition, moving in a curved spacetime with no way out of the box.
You started this thread by using a legal argument to call WBC the "good guys".
What am I not seeing, Pi zero? Is there a logical flaw in my reasoning, or do you object to my conclusions because you would alter my logical starting point? If the box that you are referring to is logic and reason, then what is the benefit or potential of thinking outside of that box?
My sense of your posts is that you are squirming to escape my logic but are too intelligent to delude yourself into believing that you have done so.
No, you've misapprehended me. I'm free of your logic; I think I may have been subject to the legalistic illusion once upon a time, but if so, I moved past that phase decades ago. If I seem circumspect on this thread, it's partly because I've had too much experience with the impossibility of arguing someone out of an intellectual trap once they're stuck in it; one can offer opportunities for the trapped party to find their way out, but the initiative to take those opportunities has to come from them.
Since you ask, I'll offer just a few additional remarks.
You're trying to base your view of things on an absolute foundation that's built of sand. Human institutions, including governments, are all about give-and-take. The legalistic viewpoint, which I'm quite familiar with, is very like computer programming (which I'm also familiar with), but actual human society is not altogether like computer programming. It may seem a convenient approximation to pretend government regulates society from outside, but tragic consequences can follow from forgetting that government is itself part of society.
It's comparatively incidental that the US constitution doesn't give SCOTUS the power to decide what the constitution means; that it couldn't do so even if it tried, if one accepts that the power of the government devolves from the people; and that historically, SCOTUS maneuvered to establish precedent "giving" itself final say (within the government) over constitutional interpretation.
One way to say what I think you're saying without us insulting each other is to agree that debate and argument is feasible only if all participants are within the same "school of thought" or "religion". Communication in any form requires much commonality (language, world view, values, mores), and vigorous intellectual debate depends exceptionally heavily on what is shared.
Let us agree that we will debate nothing here, but only listen to each other. I will do that so that you might be edified and so that I might learn something.
Let's explore what you and I (and others here) have in common. My goal as an activist is to promote liberty and justice and economic empowerment for every human being on the planet. Liberty, justice, and empowerment are my core values. Do you also embrace those ideals / values?
An "activist"?
No, you're being an apologist for Westboro. The case you cite above has the Phelps family kept an 'almost-respectable' distance from the funeral procession, and that puts the Supreme Court in a position where they did not have much choice in their ruling.
That does not make what they do any more-acceptable.
The only thing that can be admired from outside the US looking in, is that there has not been dramatic physical violence against the Phelps for their , ... 'fucktardery'. They are a hate group, clothed in old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ.
Thank you for reading Snyder v. Phelps (2011).
>> An "activist"? No, you're being an apologist for Westboro.
This is just more name calling. It is disrespectful and distracting.
>> That does not make what they do any more-acceptable.
What makes it acceptable is that this is a contest between those who would speak and those who would silence them. In the U.S., more than in any other country in the world, it is recognized in law, if not by the general population, that the freedom to speak and for all to hear what would be spoken is the freedom upon which our entire system of liberty, justice, and self government is built. It is this logic that compels us, in the U.S., to say to those mourners, "Be strong. Stand strong. You, like us, must tolerate this speech, because speech cannot be silenced."
> They are a hate group
That is debatable. Even if it is true, it is irrelevant. In the U.S., speech that is motivated by hate is fully protected, as it should be. Creating a "hate speech" exclusion would have the practical effect of gutting the First Amendment of much of its protection of controversial speech.
Saying one is in favor of justice is saying nothing. Saying one is in favor of promoting justice is saying so nearly nothing that the difference is of little interest.
People with open minds can discuss issues with people of other schools of thought. The thing is, not all schools of thought cooperate. Some schools of thought are what one might call 'closed meme-sets', an interlocking net of ideas that ensnare their host (the person in whose mind the memes have entrenched themselves) by guiding their thinking into directions that will not dislodge the meme-set. Religions do this. So-called 'cult' religions are notorious for it (though one might say a religion is a cult with social respectability). Modern US extreme right-wing ideology has managed it too; while before the election liberals suspected conservatives of knowingly making up fake "facts", after the election it became apparent that conservatives had been unknowingly making up fake "facts".
Throughout history, some very intelligent people have been ensnared by closed meme-sets; it's that difficult to escape once one is caught. So I don't necessarily hold it against an individual that they have been ensnared.
The fight for liberty and for justice is real for me. I am essentially under house arrest. The two year anniversary of my imprisonment is coming up on Jan. 14. I am a political prisoner in the United States. I am imprisoned because I am a speaker of unpopular ideas that threaten significant local economic interests. There is nothing abstract about my personal fight for liberty, and in particular the freedom to speak. I have announced to government that I intend to organize a lawful revolt and that I have chosen Mountain View, California to be the "viral insertion point".
Your intelligent post pleases me, but I think that you overestimate the ability of any human being to escape the "school of thought" effect. In particular, your insinuation that I am ensnared but that you are not makes me chuckle.
Pi zero, don't weasel out of my question. Do you stand for liberty? In particular, do you stand for the freedom to speak? If you say, "no", I will not debate it. I just want to identify our common ground so that we can build a friendship upon it.