First Amendment Right

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Yeah, see my Westboro example. It can't be all one-way for people of a religious persuasion.

Did. See my comment.

The Westboro case was about on whether the First Amendment protected public protestors at a funeral against tort liability for emotional distress. Synder couldn't prove that he was emotionally damaged to the court. The result of the case would be completely different if Snyder was able to see the protesters and their signs more up close and personal.

"Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself"

The judge is at fault.

It's always someone else's fault.

I hope you're not suggesting religious bigots or superstitious people are as dangerous as sharks?

They are worse...sharks have the advantage of naturally being thoughtless automatons.

A judge should be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law, certainly not what this joker did.

The judge did what he thought was best in the eyes of the law. The PA bar association is more than welcome to go after him.

No one was spat at, the guy went to a Halloween parade with his family and can't behave. What if he'd take exception to an angel or a devil costume? Great example to set to his kids.

In your eyes spitting on someone is worse than characterizing Prophet Mohammed. In a Muslim's eyes, there is nothing worse than poking fun at the prophet and depicting him in a negative stereotype . Right or wrong, the insulted determines what is offensive to them, not the offender. In this case I'm not sure if anyone can claim to be the victim.

At what point did common decency become so unfashionable?

Yes, where has it gone? Wait, are we talking about the decency to avoid insulting a whole lot of people or the decency of not getting attacked while insulting a whole lot of people?