Incandescent Light Bulb Ban Pushed Back

On Dec 23, 2:30*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, "Dr Jean Tant" wrote:





Looks like Jerry has been watching Fox News. There is no ACLU "war
against
Christmas." This is fiction
made up by Fox News and talk radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

....

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Breathe, good Doctor, breathe. *I can and have disagreed on political
points we discuss here, but I don't think I've ever been mean, nasty,
or resorted to name-calling. *I enjoy a good CIVIL debate. *And if
Merry Christmas bothers you, allow me to wish you and your family a
very Happy Holiday season.
Jerry
=================================

Where was she mean or nasty or resorting to name calling?

If anyone is, you're the mean & nasty one here - "Screw the ACLU"???- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never inferred the good Doctor to be mean and nasty. When
discussing issues here I do my best to refrain from doing so. There
are some things that really get my goat, though, and the ACLU's
selectivity on various issues is one of them. For example, they go to
battle for Freedom of Speech but only when it fits their agenda.
Where were they when Juan Williams was fired from PBS?

Jerry

On Dec 23, 2:33*pm, oly wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:28*pm, "Richard L. Hall" wrote:





"oly" wrote in message

...
On Dec 23, 10:25 am, Jerry Dennis wrote:

On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, "Dr Jean Tant" wrote:

Looks like Jerry has been watching Fox News. There is no ACLU "war
against
Christmas." This is fiction
made up by Fox News and talk radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Breathe, good Doctor, breathe. I can and have disagreed on political
points we discuss here, but I don't think I've ever been mean, nasty,
or resorted to name-calling. I enjoy a good CIVIL debate. And if
Merry Christmas bothers you, allow me to wish you and your family a
very Happy Holiday season.

Jerry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And speaking of potentially naughty wordplay, I just got a spam e-mail
entitled "Get Your Cut Rate Viagra and Cialis - CHRISTMAS IS COMING!"

========

Viagra and Cialis! *When I was a kid we had some great stuff that was a
combination of Viagra + Cialis. *Shorten the names, replace the "+" with a
look-alike "t" and you get Vi-t-alis. *I put some on my brush cut and it
stood right up. *And the girls used to love it too!

Merry Christmas everyone!

--
Richard
"Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and
leave a trail."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Vitalis is still available. *My dad always put some in his hair over
all these years, and when he went to the nursing home this year, I
went out to Walgreens and got him some to have for his use at the old
folks home. *Brylcream too (they even make a special variety for
silvery-haired folks).

oly- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A little dab 'ill do ya.

Jerry

On Dec 23, 2:26*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 22, 7:36 pm, Gary wrote:

On Dec 22, 4:22 pm, Jerry Dennis wrote:

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.

Why the remark against the ACLU?

No, no, my friends. *I subscribe to the Founding Fathers' idea that
the government will not ESTABLISH a national religion, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof..." *The ACLU will dump all over a school
district for invocations during a graduation ceremony (attempting to
stifle the "free exercise thereof") but doesn't have the gonads to
attack Congress or the Supreme Court when they open their official
sessions with a prayer. *And because Christmas is the celebration of
the birth of Jesus, it bothers the ACLU to be reminded of that fact.
They're not interested in protecting Americans' rights; they're only
interested in their own agendas.

Jerry
That's my opinion, and I approve this message.
================================

We've got a semantics/grammar problem here, Jerry.

The word "establishment" can be taken two ways. *You take it to mean a
gerundive form, "the act of establishing something". *However,
"establishment" is most commonly used as a noun form, "something that has
been established" as in "I created/built/own/run this here establishment,
and I'm telling you to leave it now."

The former has a much more limited scope than the latter. *Using the
former, it is clear that Congress cannot do anything to create, or aid and
abet in the creating, of any particular form of religion. *However, a
strict reading of that interpretation means that once a religion has been
"established," there is no prohibition (specific or implied) against aiding
and abetting it, even to the exclusion of other "established" religions.

But using the latter interpretation covers not only the above situation
(the "act of establishing") but also aiding and abetting any already
"established" religion. *It does not seem logical that the Founding Fathers
intended only to prohibit the former but allow the government to create
laws and spend money that favors one established religion over the other -
or even designate an *already established* religion as the official state
religion.

As to the ACLU, did you even bother to watch the link? *The author
delivered a calm, factual refutation of the Fox canards regarding ACLU and
Christmas. *If you have an equally factual refutation of their refutation,
now is the time to pony up with facts and not just the warped descriptions
and opinions of professional demagogues like O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

I can agree with your points, Oly. My own view of "establish" is the
verb form which I believe was what the Founding Fathers' intended.
They didn't want the government to establish a Church of the United
States like Henry VIII did with the Church of England. As for the
noun form, I would consider that meaning covered in "free exerise
thereof."

Concerning the ACLU's representative on Fox News, I may or may not
have seen that particular segment. In truth, there have been some
guests from the ACLU that have been very civil and convincing. It's a
pleasure and informative to hear opposing views without rudeness,
interruptions (on both sides) and name calling, as we do here
(sometimes, at least).

Jerry.

On Dec 23, 2:26*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 22, 7:36 pm, Gary wrote:

On Dec 22, 4:22 pm, Jerry Dennis wrote:

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.

Why the remark against the ACLU?

No, no, my friends. *I subscribe to the Founding Fathers' idea that
the government will not ESTABLISH a national religion, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof..." *The ACLU will dump all over a school
district for invocations during a graduation ceremony (attempting to
stifle the "free exercise thereof") but doesn't have the gonads to
attack Congress or the Supreme Court when they open their official
sessions with a prayer. *And because Christmas is the celebration of
the birth of Jesus, it bothers the ACLU to be reminded of that fact.
They're not interested in protecting Americans' rights; they're only
interested in their own agendas.

Jerry
That's my opinion, and I approve this message.
================================

We've got a semantics/grammar problem here, Jerry.

The word "establishment" can be taken two ways. *You take it to mean a
gerundive form, "the act of establishing something". *However,
"establishment" is most commonly used as a noun form, "something that has
been established" as in "I created/built/own/run this here establishment,
and I'm telling you to leave it now."

The former has a much more limited scope than the latter. *Using the
former, it is clear that Congress cannot do anything to create, or aid and
abet in the creating, of any particular form of religion. *However, a
strict reading of that interpretation means that once a religion has been
"established," there is no prohibition (specific or implied) against aiding
and abetting it, even to the exclusion of other "established" religions.

But using the latter interpretation covers not only the above situation
(the "act of establishing") but also aiding and abetting any already
"established" religion. *It does not seem logical that the Founding Fathers
intended only to prohibit the former but allow the government to create
laws and spend money that favors one established religion over the other -
or even designate an *already established* religion as the official state
religion.

As to the ACLU, did you even bother to watch the link? *The author
delivered a calm, factual refutation of the Fox canards regarding ACLU and
Christmas. *If you have an equally factual refutation of their refutation,
now is the time to pony up with facts and not just the warped descriptions
and opinions of professional demagogues like O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

Oops, sorry, Maz. I was reading one of Oly's responses and had him on
my mind. My response above was to your reply. Again, my apologies.

Jerry

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

never inferred the good Doctor to be mean and nasty. When
discussing issues here I do my best to refrain from doing so. There
are some things that really get my goat, though, and the ACLU's
selectivity on various issues is one of them. For example, they go to
battle for Freedom of Speech but only when it fits their agenda.
Where were they when Juan Williams was fired from PBS?

Jerry

Juan Williams was fired for violating corporate policies. The ACLU protects
the Constitution, which exists to protect citizens from the GOVERNMENT.
Companies can routinely monitor employee emails, listen in on phone
calls, fire people at will for any or no reason, and other activities which
the
government cannot do (without a warrant.)

The ACLU DID defend Rush LImbaugh when the GOVERNMENT tried to seize his
medical records to use as evidence to convict him of "doctor shopping"
(looking for
a doctor willing to prescribe the prescription drugs he wanted.)

You might be surprised to know that the ACLU opposes Hate Crime laws:

Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel:


"It has been our experience that the fight for better and stronger civil
rights protections

is more successful when free speech and association are protected along the
way.

Fierce protection of free speech rights has historically created the space
for the improvement

of civil rights protections. Unless amended to block evidence of speech and
association

not specifically related to a crime, the Senate hate crimes amendment could
chill

constitutionally protected speech and association. An otherwise unremarkable
violent

crime should not become a federal hate crime simply because the defendant
visited the

wrong website, belonged to a group espousing bigotry, or subscribed to a
magazine

promoting discriminatory views, however wrong and repugnant those beliefs
may be."

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 2:30 pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, "Dr Jean Tant" wrote:

Looks like Jerry has been watching Fox News. There is no ACLU "war
against Christmas." This is fiction
made up by Fox News and talk radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Breathe, good Doctor, breathe. I can and have disagreed on political
points we discuss here, but I don't think I've ever been mean, nasty,
or resorted to name-calling. I enjoy a good CIVIL debate. And if
Merry Christmas bothers you, allow me to wish you and your family a
very Happy Holiday season.
Jerry
=================================

Where was she mean or nasty or resorting to name calling?

If anyone is, you're the mean & nasty one here - "Screw the ACLU"???-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never inferred the good Doctor to be mean and nasty. When
discussing issues here I do my best to refrain from doing so. There
are some things that really get my goat, though, and the ACLU's
selectivity on various issues is one of them. For example, they go to
battle for Freedom of Speech but only when it fits their agenda.
Where were they when Juan Williams was fired from PBS?

Jerry
===========================

There was no context to indicate anyone else whom you inferred to be mean
and nasty.

As to ACLU, their "agenda" is *civil rights* so they presumably were at the
same place when Howard Stern, O'Reilly and other employees of
non-government employers got the heave-ho: The expectation not to be fired
by a private employer for violating their standards that relate to speech
is not a civil right.

OTOH, ACLU defended the KKK when their civil rights were infringed. Hardly
the hallmark of a bleeding liberal outfit.

So what it is about ACLU that really (and legitimately) sticks in your
craw? I have my own conjectures but you should be the source.

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 2:26 pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 22, 7:36 pm, Gary wrote:

On Dec 22, 4:22 pm, Jerry Dennis wrote:

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.

Why the remark against the ACLU?

No, no, my friends. I subscribe to the Founding Fathers' idea that
the government will not ESTABLISH a national religion, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof..." The ACLU will dump all over a school
district for invocations during a graduation ceremony (attempting to
stifle the "free exercise thereof") but doesn't have the gonads to
attack Congress or the Supreme Court when they open their official
sessions with a prayer. And because Christmas is the celebration of
the birth of Jesus, it bothers the ACLU to be reminded of that fact.
They're not interested in protecting Americans' rights; they're only
interested in their own agendas.

Jerry
That's my opinion, and I approve this message.
================================

We've got a semantics/grammar problem here, Jerry.

The word "establishment" can be taken two ways. You take it to mean a
gerundive form, "the act of establishing something". However,
"establishment" is most commonly used as a noun form, "something that has
been established" as in "I created/built/own/run this here establishment,
and I'm telling you to leave it now."

The former has a much more limited scope than the latter. Using the
former, it is clear that Congress cannot do anything to create, or aid
and
abet in the creating, of any particular form of religion. However, a
strict reading of that interpretation means that once a religion has been
"established," there is no prohibition (specific or implied) against
aiding
and abetting it, even to the exclusion of other "established" religions.

But using the latter interpretation covers not only the above situation
(the "act of establishing") but also aiding and abetting any already
"established" religion. It does not seem logical that the Founding
Fathers
intended only to prohibit the former but allow the government to create
laws and spend money that favors one established religion over the
other -
or even designate an *already established* religion as the official state
religion.

As to the ACLU, did you even bother to watch the link? The author
delivered a calm, factual refutation of the Fox canards regarding ACLU
and
Christmas. If you have an equally factual refutation of their refutation,
now is the time to pony up with facts and not just the warped
descriptions
and opinions of professional demagogues like O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

I can agree with your points, Oly. My own view of "establish" is the
verb form which I believe was what the Founding Fathers' intended.
They didn't want the government to establish a Church of the United
States like Henry VIII did with the Church of England. As for the
noun form, I would consider that meaning covered in "free exerise
thereof."

Concerning the ACLU's representative on Fox News, I may or may not
have seen that particular segment. In truth, there have been some
guests from the ACLU that have been very civil and convincing. It's a
pleasure and informative to hear opposing views without rudeness,
interruptions (on both sides) and name calling, as we do here
(sometimes, at least).

Jerry.
=====================

Re your view on the noun form, forbidding anything that prevents the "free
exercise thereof" does nothing to curb the "aiding and abetting any already
'established' religion" that I noted would be perfectly legal using the
verb form interpretation. If the government gives $100 million to Islamic
mosques, that in no way infringes on your right to freely practice your
flavor of religion. That can hardly be the intent of the First Amendment.

On Dec 26, 1:11*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 23, 2:30 pm, "mazorj" wrote:

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

....
On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, "Dr Jean Tant" wrote:

Looks like Jerry has been watching Fox News. There is no ACLU "war
against Christmas." This is fiction
made up by Fox News and talk radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

....

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Breathe, good Doctor, breathe. I can and have disagreed on political
points we discuss here, but I don't think I've ever been mean, nasty,
or resorted to name-calling. I enjoy a good CIVIL debate. And if
Merry Christmas bothers you, allow me to wish you and your family a
very Happy Holiday season.
Jerry
=================================

Where was she mean or nasty or resorting to name calling?

If anyone is, you're the mean & nasty one here - "Screw the ACLU"???-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never inferred the good Doctor to be mean and nasty. *When
discussing issues here I do my best to refrain from doing so. *There
are some things that really get my goat, though, and the ACLU's
selectivity on various issues is one of them. *For example, they go to
battle for Freedom of Speech but only when it fits their agenda.
Where were they when Juan Williams was fired from PBS?

Jerry
===========================

There was no context to indicate anyone else whom you inferred to be mean
and nasty.

As to ACLU, their "agenda" is *civil rights* so they presumably were at the
same place when Howard Stern, O'Reilly and other employees of
non-government employers got the heave-ho: *The expectation not to be fired
by a private employer for violating their standards that relate to speech
is not a civil right.

OTOH, ACLU defended the KKK when their civil rights were infringed. *Hardly
the hallmark of a bleeding liberal outfit.

So what it is about ACLU that really (and legitimately) sticks in your
craw? *I have my own conjectures but you should be the source.

Their defense of hate speech under any of its guises. The classic
example of my dislike for the ACLU is from the recent Supreme Court
decision, Westboro Baptist Church v. Al Snyder. In that case the SC
ruled that the WBC had the right to protest at military funerals with
some of the most insensitive and abhorrent speech and sign-waving. No
respect whatsoever for the deceased or their grieving families. The
ruling was, basically, that they had that right under the First
Amendment.

Mr. Snyder originally filed charges against the WBC for emotional
distress (and other charges). He won his case in his local court.
The ACLU got involved and helped the WBC appeal that decision. The
Appellate Court overturned the lower court's decision. Mr. Snyder
then filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even though the WBC
are all primarily lawyers and represented themselves, the ACLU was
there, providing assistance.

What the Courts have ALWAYS ignored is the fact that when this type of
free speech is abused, it can reasonably be considered to incite a
riot (similar to yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire).
There are other minor instances that I can't remember right now.

Jerry

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 1:11 pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 23, 2:30 pm, "mazorj" wrote:

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, "Dr Jean Tant" wrote:

Looks like Jerry has been watching Fox News. There is no ACLU "war
against Christmas." This is fiction
made up by Fox News and talk radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Breathe, good Doctor, breathe. I can and have disagreed on political
points we discuss here, but I don't think I've ever been mean, nasty,
or resorted to name-calling. I enjoy a good CIVIL debate. And if
Merry Christmas bothers you, allow me to wish you and your family a
very Happy Holiday season.
Jerry
=================================

Where was she mean or nasty or resorting to name calling?

If anyone is, you're the mean & nasty one here - "Screw the ACLU"???-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never inferred the good Doctor to be mean and nasty. When
discussing issues here I do my best to refrain from doing so. There
are some things that really get my goat, though, and the ACLU's
selectivity on various issues is one of them. For example, they go to
battle for Freedom of Speech but only when it fits their agenda.
Where were they when Juan Williams was fired from PBS?

Jerry
===========================

There was no context to indicate anyone else whom you inferred to be mean
and nasty.

As to ACLU, their "agenda" is *civil rights* so they presumably were at
the
same place when Howard Stern, O'Reilly and other employees of
non-government employers got the heave-ho: The expectation not to be
fired
by a private employer for violating their standards that relate to speech
is not a civil right.

OTOH, ACLU defended the KKK when their civil rights were infringed.
Hardly
the hallmark of a bleeding liberal outfit.

So what it is about ACLU that really (and legitimately) sticks in your
craw? I have my own conjectures but you should be the source.

Their defense of hate speech under any of its guises. The classic
example of my dislike for the ACLU is from the recent Supreme Court
decision, Westboro Baptist Church v. Al Snyder. In that case the SC
ruled that the WBC had the right to protest at military funerals with
some of the most insensitive and abhorrent speech and sign-waving. No
respect whatsoever for the deceased or their grieving families. The
ruling was, basically, that they had that right under the First
Amendment.

Mr. Snyder originally filed charges against the WBC for emotional
distress (and other charges). He won his case in his local court.
The ACLU got involved and helped the WBC appeal that decision. The
Appellate Court overturned the lower court's decision. Mr. Snyder
then filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even though the WBC
are all primarily lawyers and represented themselves, the ACLU was
there, providing assistance.

What the Courts have ALWAYS ignored is the fact that when this type of
free speech is abused, it can reasonably be considered to incite a
riot (similar to yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire).
There are other minor instances that I can't remember right now.

Jerry
=============================

Re "Their defense of hate speech under any of its guises," and the
probability of it inciting a riot, their defense of the KKK's right to hold
a demonstration most certainly fits both descriptions. You skipped right
past that part, but no matter.

Let me first say that the WBC demonstration was one of the sickest and most
sickening demonstrations I have had the misfortune to see in the news. The
only remotely positive thing I can say about this is that it illustrates
that the First Amendment is one of our dearest rights ("dear" as in costly)
because this is part of the price we pay for it.

Second, I do not agree with what I perceive to be your legal line of
reasoning. For example, if there were any riots or even violent
demonstrations against the WBC and its hateful actions, I must have missed
them. Nor do I think that the WBC's actions were as likely to cause them
compared to the much higher probability arising from the KKK demonstration.
My analysis would take us into the SCOTUS case that was the origin of "You
can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," the government's prohibition
only being applicable to exercising prior censorship, and the many
post-speech torts (defamation, libel, infringement of copyrights and
trademarks, etc.) and criminal penalties for violations of law (perjury,
giving false information to a law enforcement officer, et al.) that
infringe on our right to say anything we damn please, any time and
anywhere.

However, while I'm not averse to OT postings, as I noted, this thread is
careening way off into the weeds. We should either take it off-line
(e-mail me if you're interested) or say we have reached a point to agree
that we disagree.

In closing. it's been interesting, Jerry. And not in spite of but because
of our differing views on some subjects, it's always been a welcomed
opportunity to conduct a civil, focused Internet discussion.

P.S. - Shamelessly pathetic attempt to inject some on-topic: To my
knowledge, ACLU has not taken a stand on dollar coins replacing bills.

On Dec 27, 4:06*am, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 26, 1:11 pm, "mazorj" wrote:





"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Dec 23, 2:30 pm, "mazorj" wrote:

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

....
On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, "Dr Jean Tant" wrote:

Looks like Jerry has been watching Fox News. There is no ACLU "war
against Christmas." This is fiction
made up by Fox News and talk radio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...

I love this group. Merry Christmas to all.

Jerry
Screw the ACLU.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Breathe, good Doctor, breathe. I can and have disagreed on political
points we discuss here, but I don't think I've ever been mean, nasty,
or resorted to name-calling. I enjoy a good CIVIL debate. And if
Merry Christmas bothers you, allow me to wish you and your family a
very Happy Holiday season.
Jerry
=================================

Where was she mean or nasty or resorting to name calling?

If anyone is, you're the mean & nasty one here - "Screw the ACLU"???-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never inferred the good Doctor to be mean and nasty. When
discussing issues here I do my best to refrain from doing so. There
are some things that really get my goat, though, and the ACLU's
selectivity on various issues is one of them. For example, they go to
battle for Freedom of Speech but only when it fits their agenda.
Where were they when Juan Williams was fired from PBS?

Jerry
===========================

There was no context to indicate anyone else whom you inferred to be mean
and nasty.

As to ACLU, their "agenda" is *civil rights* so they presumably were at
the
same place when Howard Stern, O'Reilly and other employees of
non-government employers got the heave-ho: The expectation not to be
fired
by a private employer for violating their standards that relate to speech
is not a civil right.

OTOH, ACLU defended the KKK when their civil rights were infringed.
Hardly
the hallmark of a bleeding liberal outfit.

So what it is about ACLU that really (and legitimately) sticks in your
craw? I have my own conjectures but you should be the source.

Their defense of hate speech under any of its guises. *The classic
example of my dislike for the ACLU is from the recent Supreme Court
decision, Westboro Baptist Church v. Al Snyder. *In that case the SC
ruled that the WBC had the right to protest at military funerals with
some of the most insensitive and abhorrent speech and sign-waving. *No
respect whatsoever for the deceased or their grieving families. *The
ruling was, basically, that they had that right under the First
Amendment.

Mr. Snyder originally filed charges against the WBC for emotional
distress (and other charges). *He won his case in his local court.
The ACLU got involved and helped the WBC appeal that decision. *The
Appellate Court overturned the lower court's decision. *Mr. Snyder
then filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. *Even though the WBC
are all primarily lawyers and represented themselves, the ACLU was
there, providing assistance.

What the Courts have ALWAYS ignored is the fact that when this type of
free speech is abused, it can reasonably be considered to incite a
riot (similar to yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire).
There are other minor instances that I can't remember right now.

Jerry
=============================

Re "Their defense of hate speech under any of its guises," and the
probability of it inciting a riot, their defense of the KKK's right to hold
a demonstration *most certainly fits both descriptions. *You skipped right
past that part, but no matter.

Let me first say that the WBC demonstration was one of the sickest and most
sickening demonstrations I have had the misfortune to see in the news. *The
only remotely positive thing I can say about this is that it illustrates
that the First Amendment is one of our dearest rights ("dear" as in costly)
because this is part of the price we pay for it.

Second, I do not agree with what I perceive to be your legal line of
reasoning. *For example, if there were any riots or even violent
demonstrations against the WBC and its hateful actions, I must have missed
them. *Nor do I think that the WBC's actions were as likely to cause them
compared to the much higher probability arising from the KKK demonstration.