Prometheus1 Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 I have finished reading this article http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Cou...ory?id=10770402 and I have a question about the proper resolution to this conflict. The conflict should be resolved by property rights (the owner would decide who to let on their property or not). So this is another example of how public property works to destroy our other rights? I am assuming that cemetaries are public property. David McBride Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 I am assuming that cemetaries are public property.No, they are private property (though there may be public cemeteries, such as military cemeteries, and historic ones which become public property). Phelps often holds his demonstrations as close as possible off-site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 Phelps often holds his demonstrations as close as possible off-site. Correct, but this should properly be held as illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 Correct, but this should properly be held as illegal. Why? They get permits to hold demonstrations on public property near private property. Unfortunately one part of individual rights is the right to be a complete asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) Why? For the same reason stalking should properly be held as illegal. It's forceful intrusion on the life of another. Holding a protest near a funeral with the intention of disturbing and upsetting the attendees is nothing more than that. Unfortunately one part of individual rights is the right to be a complete asshole. Not to harass people. I don't know the most widely accepted Objectivist view regarding harassment, only Peikoff's statement regarding telemarketers in a podcast (saying that he considered telemarketing a "physical intrusion" and "harassment"). I agree, though I'm not sure if he'd hold the same view in regard to protesting at funerals. I most certainly do. Edited June 1, 2010 by Minarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianleepainter Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 Minarchist, I assume that you support the "Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act", which was created largely in part to help stem the tide of the Followers of Phelps? Wiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 (edited) Minarchist, I assume that you support the "Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act", which was created largely in part to help stem the tide of the Followers of Phelps? Wiki I don't think such conditions (300 feet / for an hour before and an hour after the funeral) are proper. As much as I'd like to keep things in objective measurements where possible, this is just one of those cases where a more broad anti-harassment law will have to suffice. I haven't put much thought into the specifics of enforcement, though. I just believe that it's immoral to harass people, and should be illegal as well. Edited June 1, 2010 by Minarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 I don't think such conditions (300 feet / for an hour before and an hour after the funeral) are proper. As much as I'd like to keep things in objective measurements where possible, this is just one of those cases where a more broad anti-harassment law will have to suffice.Why are those conditions not proper? They are objectively stated and, given the intent of disallowing harassment which you accepted, objectively justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minarchist Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Why are those conditions not proper? They are objectively stated and, given the intent of disallowing harassment which you accepted, objectively justified. Simply, what constitutes harassment should be defined in plain language, and free of arbitrary numbers such as these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Simply, what constitutes harassment should be defined in plain language, and free of arbitrary numbers such as these.The language is completely plain. As for being free of arbitrary numbers, you're simply rejecting the concept of objectivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vik Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 I have finished reading this article http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Cou...ory?id=10770402 and I have a question about the proper resolution to this conflict. The conflict should be resolved by property rights (the owner would decide who to let on their property or not). So this is another example of how public property works to destroy our other rights? I am assuming that cemetaries are public property. David McBride ``Now, all but two state attorneys general have signed a "friend of the court" brief, to be filed tomorrow, that argues the First Amendment should not apply to some "intrusive and harassing" forms of expression.`` This seems to package speech/assembly against the government with speech/assembly against private citizens. That would be a scary precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vik Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 I know of the following exceptions to freedom of assembly: infringing upon the free movement of goods or people causing personal injury physically endangering others damaging property national security interfering with proceedings In order to determine whether there are any others that can be put into place without infringing on the right of assembly, it will be necessary to identify the similarities among these exceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 This seems to package speech/assembly against the government with speech/assembly against private citizens. That would be a scary precedent.All criticism of candidates for public office is speech against private citizens. It is a good thing that freedom of speech is not limited to speech against government action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.