Jake_Dragon
Member Posts: 33078
From: USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
| | | quote | Originally posted by Tytehead:
First, lets get one thing perfectly clear, the man who tackled the flag burner DID NOT violate his constitutional rights. Constitutional rights can truly only be violated by the government. Constitutional protections and limitations concern what rights the people have and what laws the government cannot break. That is why constitutional protections are codified in certain situations, like the civil rights act, and equal opportunity in housing act, because it allows the government to punish those who engage in discriminatory behavior. The man who tackled the flag burner violated local laws and ordinances against assault an battery. The man who tackled the flag burner can violate the man's right to free speech in any way he wants that does not violate the law. As a private business owner, I can restrict the speech of my employees and there is nothing they can do about it except quit, unless the speech I am trying to restrict is protected speech i.e whistlblowing, criminal, etc. I can discriminate against who ever I want as long as it doesn't violate state, local and federal laws that have been drafted regarding discrimination. I can violate any constitutional right or freedom I want as a private individualk, I cannot violate the laws that are put in place to protect those freedoms.
In this case, the Cuhurch's right to free speech was not violated. The government allowed them to protest, and afforded them the protection of the law, as evidence by the law enforcment officials who are there. The right to free speech does not mean that your speech may not have consequences attached to it, like a consumer not buying your product if you come out against gay marriage, a la Chick fil a, or getting tackled by an offended soldier, as here. In the Chick fil a case, the law cannot force people to eat chick fil a as a means to protect the owner of chick fil a's right to say what he wantsa about gay marriage, but they can require him to be non-discriminatory in his hiring practices and who he serves as customers, through the civil rights laws. the law CAN attempt to protect the Westboro speaker from getting assaulted, and can arrest the person who assaulted him, because the tackler violatred state statutes against assault and battery, not because the man vilated his free speech.
Addisitonally, if the state or local municipality can come up with a legitimate overluying public interest in restricting the time and place for certain times of speech, such as inflammatory speech, they can pass reasponable limits regarding the time and place of the speech.
Your "right" to free speech in this country is neither all encompassing nor does it apply to individuals, just to the laws that governmental entities pass in an attempt to restrict the speech.
I apologise for the spelling errors, I have been out of the office a few days and am attempting to multi-task....lol
|
|
Thank you for taking the time to write that and share with us.
IP: Logged
|
03:45 PM
|
|
