Free Speech rights at funerals comes to U.S. Supreme Court

Fred Phelps, who has a church with about 75 members, mostly his family, protest at funerals.  Really?  Are they protesting the way the funeral is held?  Or the funeral company?  Or an individual?

No, they protest because the federal government (and America in general) embraces gays.  And gays are bad.  And God is killing American soldiers because he's upset about the gay embracing.

They also protest at music concerts, sporting events and even a Holocaust Museum.  Reprehensible as their proclamations and signs are ("Fags Doom Nations") they have a right to Free Speech under the First Amendment.

As disgusting and anti-Christian as they are (God DOES love everyone), someone has died.  Whether you like or dislike the person, their attitudes, or actions, they have died.  Their family should be allowed respect to bury them; without anyone disturbing them.

Phelps and his religious family are smart about it, though.  They don't protest right next to the funeral.  They are some distance away.  They don't target any individual person (dead or alive).  They protest generically, holding up signs and chanting things such as "God Hates Fags"; and "God Bless IEDs".

This case isn't about simply protesting at a funeral, it is specifically about speech directed at an individual, in this case, the soldier's father. 

Having said all of this, I know the U.S. Supreme Court will fall on the side of Free Speech, as they should.  Fred Phelps and his followers will probably be allowed to continue their homophobic hate speech.  And gay soldiers will continue to die for our freedoms.  And America will embrace gays more and more over the years, just as they did with Civil Rights and Women's Rights. 

Maybe Fred Phelps will pass soon, and his followers will disperse, with no one taking the reigns.  Then there will be no more media coverage of this loony-toon.  One can only hope.

US weighs rights for anti-gay church (The Age)

Here is a good article on Fred Phelps and his beliefs:  Fred Phelps and Goodness (InSearchOfGoodness)

Even the hatefulness of Fred Phelps is protected by this country’s free speech (KansasCity.com)

When is the word 'boy' derogatory?

My family is from Arkansas.  I don't recall ever hearing them refer to a black man as 'boy'.  But while visiting Arkansas for many family reunions, I know that the word 'boy' is not used in a good way, though usage has waned over the years.  It's not always meant in a bad way, but is part of the language spoken in the South and, when spoken to an adult, is exclusively used when talking to black men.  Some people say it because that is what their family and friends do.  Not an excuse, but rather what happens.  I'd like to believe that once most people hear that 'boy' is demeaning to a black man, they would stop using it.

Which is why I found this article about the use of 'boy' at a Tyson Foods plant in Alabama interesting.  The Supreme Court said there were 'no racial overtones' in using the term.  Read the entire article and see what you think.

Appeals Court in Atlanta Again Rejects Racial Discrimination Claim (NY Times)

My question would be, did the managers call any white men 'boy'?  If they did, then there is probably not much of a case.  If they did not, as seems the case, then the case is stronger.

Do you have 'privacy' for personal messages when using company phone or computer?

Imagine three scenarios:

1) You use your cell phone at work. 
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

2) You are using your company cell phone at work.  
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

3) You are using your company cell phone at home. 
You send a text message to your spouse. 
Your spouse sends a text message to you.

If you were never told of the company policy about cell phones, should you get in trouble for any of these?  Using your own phone at work, to make or receive a short text is not an issue.  And as long as you didn't use the company cell phone excessively, there probably wouldn't be an issue.  You send and receive a couple of text messages a day, no one cares.

Now, what if you were told the company policy.  And the policy states you cannot use the company cell phone for personal business.  Again, as long as you don't abuse the privilege, probably no one will care.

Now, you've been told the company policy stating you can use the cell phone for personal calls and text on your own time, but you need to pay for it.  Then there is no issue if you text during your off hours.  If you use it for personal calls and texts during business, you could, and should, get in trouble.

Lastly, you've been told you can use the company cell phone for personal calls and text during your off hours, but during your off hours, you send sexually explicit texts to your spouse.  Now what?  You are using it as instructed, you are paying to use it, should the company care what type of messages you are sending?

If you are using a company phone, don't expect to have everything you text as private.  It is there phone.  Even if you are paying for the texting you do during your off hours, it is their phone and the expectation should be that they will be monitoring communications.

Here is a news item before the ruling:  Justices hear case of Ontario police officer who sent risque messages (LA Times)

And here is a news item on the ruling:  Supreme Court allows reasonable searches of private texts on work-issued devices (Jurist.org)

Should juveniles ever be given 'life without parole'?

In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that juveniles, convicted of committing heinous crimes, cannot be given 'life without the possibility of parole'. Everyone knows that youths are less likely to make 'adult decisions' because they lack the experience and ability to assess risk, among other factors. While adults are also likely to make 'bone-headed mistakes', youths are more likely, but not because they 'know better'.

The Supreme Court says that youths must be given a 'meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.' But serving their time behind bars, will they be able to mature in anything that resembles 'normal'? And how will 'maturity' and 'rehabilitation' be measured?

Here's a full article on the decision. Supreme Court moves in right direction (The Christian Science Monitor)

And an article on why 'kids' should not be 'thrown away'. Kids Incarcerated -- Forever? (Huffington Post)

What do you think? Should youths be put behind bars forever for being a lookout during a murder? What about if they did the premeditated murder? Is there a chance they could mature and be rehabilitated? Or are they 'just as lost' as adults who do the same crime?