Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

Thank you, again, for the debate. Con, I am not saying they do not have a right to free speech. They have a right to shout what they said to the high heavens if they so please. However, the do not have the right to infringe upon others. This is not a common case, and therefore can not be defined by the common factor of general free speech. In wartime, this same principal applies that the government can deny certain rights. This too is not a common case, so it can not be commonly viewed. The extenuating circumstances provide for a broader view of things. The entire reason the government, in wartime, denies rights is when it serves to "protect the people", the first and formost job of government. In this, they CAN DENY rights based on the principal of "domestic tranquility" and "protect(ing) the people". The question is not whether or not they have the right to free speech just as the question is not they have the right to privacy and to grieve, the question is "Which right has more precedence?" In this, I believe it is Snyder, for the protest staged did not promote "domestic tranquility" nor to have many departments of police and ambulances there because of their outrages immorality. Morality, I will concede, is not the primary defense of mine, but when it causes and INTERNATIONAL UPROAR, the public view must be taken into account, for their actions created a civil disturbance. Yes, they have the right to say what they want, but it is not every day that the 1st Amendment is taken to such an extreme that it invokes the attention of the world, the Supreme Court, and infringes upon the rights of others. Again, this case can not be viewed commonly by saying, "They can say what they want because it's in the 1st Amendment". On the basis of "domestic tranquility", I stand in the Affirmitive of this resolution. Again, I would like to emphasize to my opponent that just saying they have the right to free speech does not mean that is a contention. I could say you are wrong, Con, by stating they have the right to privacy, but where would that get us? You must provide more evidence! The right to speech is not key to preservation of a society. They key is "domestic tranquility". To do that, some rights have to be garunteed. In extreme circumstances, such as this, they must be limited or revoked. Yes, some rights in some circumstances, must be revoked or limited, and they have, as I have proven. Doing this IS, I repeat, IS legal in extreme cases! My opponent misunderstands me when I say the right to freedom of speech is irrefutable and undeniable, for he failed to mention the next sentence which states "There are, however, many cases that have questioned the freedom of speech in extenuating circumstances." My opponent agrees here with the very point I'm trying to make. "...there are clearly cases in which the government has the right to limit speech, however, the situation in discussion is not such a case." I contend, yes, this is a case. If it is taken to the Supreme Court because the extreme action is was taken out and nationally caused offense, yes, this right must be limited or revoked. Right after you said they have the right to limit speech you stated, "Pro, free speech cannot be both "undeniable" and denied in certain cases." Yes, it can, and you contradicted yourself. This debate is NOT about free speech, it just includes it. The debate is about which right has more presendence. Imagine a boxing match, with the ring as the Supreme Court and the ref the Judges. The two contenders are Privacy vs. Speech. They're both there, they both have a right to be there, but which is stronger? That one will win, and I believe it lies with Privacy. The gloves on Speech were injected with mercury, to extremize Speech's game. This, in boxing, is declared unfair, such as it is in reality. My opponent contends that free speech is essential to government policies. It is a part, but it is not the primary. That is the right to petition. Furthermore, this funeral was NOT private. It was public, else they would not have known about it and the WBC stated that if miliitary funerals will be held PUBLIC, they will be there to protest. You fail to mention, as well, that they were not protesting military honors, nor were they protesting soldiers, but they stated their beliefs that it is God's will that they die if they fight for a country that tolerates homosexuals. They did not argue a specific policy, so how am I to know what their specific intentions were other than to harass this soldier by screaming that he'll burn in hell? You even state, "... Since the WBC protestors were expressing statements of belief rather than fact..."! The cases mentioned were of slander, and that is not the case here. I am not saying they slandered him, even you agree by stating he was not called by name. My case is that they disrupted the right to privacy, not that they comitted the criminal offense of slander. While I can not sufficently prove that they were intending to damage the memory of the soldier, it is beyond reasonable doubt. They targeted the funeral, shouted that he'll "Burn in hell" with picket signs and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers!". They targeted the funeral with signs like this, but since they did not call him by name, it would have to be a court decision whether it was slander, and that isn't the question in this case that was asked by Snyder. The right to privacy is here, in the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment IX "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X In this case, it is reserved for the people, particuarly Mr. Snyder. I repectfully assert that this debate and Court case is not "soley on freedom of speech", I never contradicted myself, that their right should be restricted in this case, I have given the right to grieve, and I firmly (somewhat indignantly) assert that I have not, in any way, abused anything to reframe the debate. I never supported you, Con. I stated, in ordinary cases, the right to freedom of speech is essential, undeniable, and irrefutable. However, I have proven, and it stands proven on the Supreme Court floor, that this is NOT an ordinary case. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com... http://www.law.umkc.edu... =VOTE PRO=