But he considers it portrayal in a false light. And I disagree.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I don't know about a violation of free speech, but it does seem a bit disrespectful.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I view it as disrespectful, too. But we have to protect the most vile of free speech if we want all free speech to continue. The proper place for the law to protect the families in this case is in the civil courts. I hope the families have good attorneys.

Unfortunately, we can't legislate respect.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'm disappointedr in this thread - the title is much juicier than the content. Seems like the State is just over reacting.

SCOTUS is correct, even if it is wrong.

This is one of the fundamental truths of law: the highst judicial authority of the land is correct, even if it is wrong. Thus, you must follow the legal precedenc of SCOTUS as an American, no matter how wrong you consider them to be.

If you think SCOTUS is wrong, you have to try to chang the law. There are ways of doing that.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

By banning "anti-war speech," they mean "the pissing on the flag at the feet of a family during the private funeral of a US soldier by anti-war/anti-religious zealots."

Speech.

Right.

__________________

Well, that's more of a matter of having the right to destroy your own property (the flag).

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Except for the executive branch.

__________________

Those who are paying attention will note that there have been several court cases in which the current administration has lost.

True, reality isn't as fun as posting little one line snippets of silliness, but it does have the virtue of not making the poster look like a fool.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Belief doesn't equal refutation ..their names are not in the public domain as say ruling that found the uses of names due to celebrity, self aggrandizement etc. are........to me it appears a huge stretch of the 1st amendment...and now you will tell me I suppose that their names being published in a hometown newspaper rises to such, I believe not....and in the end, I think it in horribly bad taste....


I view it as disrespectful, too. But we have to protect the most vile of free speech if we want all free speech to continue. The proper place for the law to protect the families in this case is in the civil courts. I hope the families have good attorneys.

Unfortunately, we can't legislate respect.
07-18-2007 03:49 PM

how true...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

They are using the names of people who work for the government in a way that is not slanderous. How is it a stretch? If they were using the names on a war-supporting monument, would you consider that a stretch, too?Why don't you think so? Does free speech stop when it becomes anti-war?I don't get it. First you say the position was not refuted, now you agree with me?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

No, by "anti-war speech", we mean an attempt to keep our boys overseas from dying in a cause that is not this country's, much less their own. Unless they're Blackwater mercenaries.

__________________
War is a racket, no more. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that the vast majority of the people don't know about, and that only a small inside group understands. A racket is designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

-Smedley Butler, who saved America from fascism in the 30's.

Those who are paying attention will note that the current administration routinely ignores laws, thus rendering all court decisions irrelevant.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

To be fair, ALL administrations have ignored laws, and court cases. Bush, for all his failures, is hardly the first. Not excusing the behavior mind you, but pointing out that this is consistently done by all governments at every level.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Pissing on the flag 6 feet from a man who is mourning the loss of his soldier-son, whose coffin is about to be lowered into his grave is a damned funny way to show you care about ANY soldier's life.

It is utter bullshit.

Free speech my ass.

__________________