Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick AndersonNo Zoom

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. W(ar).Crime

    W(ar).Crime said, almost 4 years ago

    This is horrible. That means that a group of idiots can get together and say anything, like mentally ill kids are God’s punishment for not being faithful.

    Apologies to anyone with such children or family members.

    Just sick.

  2. DjGuardian

    DjGuardian said, almost 4 years ago

    Point for Nick. :)

    ^ While I admire our freedoms, we did also have something regarded as decency laws. If only we cared about being decent nowadays.

    The reality is that the secular world will have no effect on the minds and convictions of these horrible people. Only a large, strong movement of the church body, as a whole, could have any meaningful effect. And while I agree that not covering these dregs would be a good thing, I don’t think it would be as effective as it is with many other things. LIKE STOP COVERING CHARLIE SHEEN! please…

  3. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    The Lawyers should have gone after Phelps and family for their continual libel and slander against the INDIVIDUAL soldiers, and their families, not for when they finally did comply with “rules for public demonstrations”. Disgusting “public speech” is still, “protected”, but those slanderous and libelous comments aimed at “NON-public figures” is not. SCOTUS was probably Constitutionally correct with what they were given.

    But “the Phelps family” should be granted free tickets to a place to demonstrate- like Gitmo or Kandahar.

  4. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, almost 4 years ago

    The most basic decency says that one should never speak ill of the dead, one should emphasise their virtues and forget their foibles.

    However, as my friend, the late Mark Anthony said, basic decency doesn’t always apply: ‘The evil that men do gets trumpeted about after them, and even evils they didn’t do and can’t defend themselves against, while the good is oft interred with them.’

    The Supreme Court declared that it is protected speech to attack the dead, provided the attack is from a decent distance. Any municipality is free to make funerals private, to bar uninvited people from coming and saying bad things about the deceased at the actual funeral, but they must set a limit: 1 mile, 5 miles, whatever, and anyone beyond that limit must be allowed to condemn the dead.

    Always bad taste, but protected by the Constitution.

    (Personally, a limit of at least 35,000 miles away sounds about right.)

  5. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    If their god existed he would strike them down.

  6. DjGuardian

    DjGuardian said, almost 4 years ago

    ^^ LOL at the last line.

  7. walruscarver2000

    walruscarver2000 said, almost 4 years ago

    “Freedom of speech does not give one the right to cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”, but apparently this court (and I use the word loosely) thinks it is ok to bring more grief to the suffering. Just don’t use “hate speech” when you do it. I wonder who bought them this time.

  8. DjGuardian

    DjGuardian said, almost 4 years ago

    ^^ actually Radish, scripture puts a large focus on being people of character and that character being a reflection of one’s salvation and faith in God. If they bare not good fruit, then their roots are not ground in God. While only God knows whether any of these people are truly people who have received saving grace, none seem to display the fruits of such a grand virtue and none seem to reflect the character of Christ. Thus, they should all question their salvation, with fear and trembling.

  9. pirate227

    pirate227 said, almost 4 years ago

    The problem with these religious zealots is that they believe whatever they do is sanctioned by their non-existent deity so, there’s no deity to tell them they’re wrong. Go figure.

  10. Bluejayz

    Bluejayz said, almost 4 years ago

    Walrus, I share your moral outrage, but this was not a case of crying “Fire!” in a crowded threater

    Iin the case in question, the protesters were on a corner across the street 300 yards from the gathered mourners, and the soldier’s father, who brought the suit against Westboro Baptist Church and Phelps, didn’t know the protest was occurring until he was told about after the ceremony. Yes, he was rightfully offended and felt violated, but does his moral outrage out-weigh the 1st Amendment protection of free speech? Given the facts of this case, I think not.

    As much as I abhor and disapprove of the hateful, bigoted lies spouted out by certain members of our society, I’ve still got to defend their right to freedom of speech.

  11. walruscarver2000

    walruscarver2000 said, almost 4 years ago

    BJ, The question is not one of distance but of damage. These aholes inflict pain on people at their weakest moment. I daresay I’m a few miles away from you, but that doesn’t give me the right to publicly rejoice in the suffering you experience when a loved one dies serving his country. Our courts long ago established that their are limits on free speech and those include speech that is potentially harmful to others. I believe that psychological pain is far more damaging than physical pain.

  12. W(ar).Crime

    W(ar).Crime said, almost 4 years ago

    ^I agree with the bird on this one. Its not yelling fire in a crowded theater. I believe that dtrout made a great case about suing these guys for slander but dammit…(grits teeth). In the words of Motive: Grrrrr…

  13. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    If only the law protected gays as well as it protects bigots.

  14. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    DJG, define god.

  15. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    ^^^I never thought I’d agree with Alito, but Alito’s dissent sums up this was a libelous and intentional attack on an INDIVIDUAL, not a “public figure” or public speech. HE therefore leaves open they should be able to sue for damages, or prosecute for libel and slander, I agree.(Just read his full dissent, it’s pretty good.)

    Breyer also draws closer to saying maybe the majority screwed up by only considering the “public demonstration” as falling (just barely) within legal “guidelines”.

    “Damage” is also better addressed by Alito than the majority. Wow, NEVER thought I’d be saying that!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).