It hurts, but the First Amendment Applies

[Leatherneck]

The Westboro group has every right in this America to spew their repulsive sputum anywhere they want. I hope they burn in eternal damnation for doing so, but unpopular speech is what the First Amendment is designed to protect. I also hope the judge will go easy when certain veterans and patriots let their feelings be known.

TC

PS: I don't like the faux-comparison of "privacy rights" vs. "Free speech rights." One is enumerated, the other is invented.

[Ned Hamford]

How about the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress? 

Going to funerals to tell strangers their dead X is going to hell? 

These groups are nothing but lawsuit mills, goading people into actions for suits and its outrageous. 

This isn't 'mere' unpopular speech.  It isn't for conversion, or to even spread information.  It is nothing but a sick goad when people are at their most vulnerable in order to line pockets.

[Leatherneck]

That all may be true, Ned. But irrelevant to the constitutional question.

TC

[Perd Hapley]

Rights enumerated are not more worthy than other rights.

[Jamisjockey]

The smart thing to do would be for groups to watch the obits for one of the Phelps loved ones passing.  Then, picket with signs that "god hates the phelps family" "thank god for dead phelps" and generally be obnoxious.  If they don't get the point, repeat. 

[grampster]

what fistful said.

What would the difference be between the distress cause by shouting fire in a theatre or the spewing of the venom they do at the funeral of my family's dead son.  There is risk of bodily injury in both cases among those who are not the speakers.

Freedom of speech has limits.  In fact the original intent of freedom of speech has more to do with political speech than the ability to say whatever one wants, no matter the circumstance.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yeah, I'm not of the opinion that our freedom extends so far as to allow us to deliberately harm others.

[Ned Hamford]

Yeah, I'm not of the opinion that our freedom extends so far as to allow us to deliberately harm others.

Especially when thats the purpose of the speech.  Classic example from law school was lying and telling someone an immediate family member has died.  In this case the purpose to to cause harm in an effort to incite an reaction and then collect civially from the provoked response.

Its sick.  Do you really think going to a soldiers funeral and shooting to his grieving mother than he is roasting in hell is the speech we 'disagree with but would die to defend?'

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Does freedom of religion protect human sacrifice?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Would anyone have a problem with a law banning protests within 1000 feet of a military funeral?

[Monkeyleg]

Would anyone have a problem with a law banning protests within 1000 feet of a military funeral?

That question raises a lot of other questions. What else besides the cemetery is within the 1000 feet? What if the military funeral is for somebody hated by the public? Maybe Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Kennedy (I probably shouldn't slander Dahmer like that).

I agree with the concept of banning protests that are directed at any funeral, but can't think of a way to do so that's completely "clean".

[RevDisk]

What would the difference be between the distress cause by shouting fire in a theatre or the spewing of the venom they do at the funeral of my family's dead son.  There is risk of bodily injury in both cases among those who are not the speakers.

Because the other is just a creative attempt at banning free speed on dubious grounds.

Yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater is a false statement.  An opinion is neither true nor false.  Holding someone responsible for every reaction to their opinion is insane and un-Constitutional.

Otherwise, I can say that person's stated opinion X caused me to burn down an orphanage and so that person should be held responsible for the actions I took. 

That makes no bloody sense.  People should be responsible for THEIR actions, not someone else's. 

[sanglant]

we should start giving the Honor Guard the option of using live ammo.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Because the other is just a creative attempt at banning free speed on dubious grounds.

Yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater is a false statement.  An opinion is neither true nor false.  Holding someone responsible for every reaction to their opinion is insane and un-Constitutional.

Otherwise, I can say that person's stated opinion X caused me to burn down an orphanage and so that person should be held responsible for the actions I took.  

That makes no bloody sense.  People should be responsible for THEIR actions, not someone else's.  

You can say anything you want.  Doesn't make it true.

People really can be harmed by this sort of thing.  I'm talking genuine diagnosable medical injuries here, not just "hey that hurt" type claims.  You can break someone's mind as surely as you can break their bones, and sooner or later these Westboro thugs are going to do it to someone (if they haven't already).

I think everyone can agree that we should hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting physical injuries on someone.  Why should we not hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting mental and emotional injuries?

[Ned Hamford]

Otherwise, I can say that person's stated opinion X caused me to burn down an orphanage and so that person should be held responsible for the actions I took. 

That makes no bloody sense.  People should be responsible for THEIR actions, not someone else's. 

Well, if I started expressing my opinion to you that our city would be much better off without that orphanage, and their fire insurance would permit them to rebuild in another area, and no one would see a person entering the orphanage if they did it after 9 and sundry other related opinions....

Yes, I think some prosecutors might find me responsible for expressing my opinions when you burn down that orphanage.  

Freedom of speech is about the marketplace of ideas, not shouting obscenities in peoples ears, committing fraud, or trying to make old women cry so grandsons sock you one and you can sue them rather than getting a real job.

[MicroBalrog]

I think everyone can agree that we should hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting physical injuries on someone.  Why should we not hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting mental and emotional injuries?

Because you do not have the right not to be upset or offended.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Because you do not have the right not to be upset or offended.

We're not talking about merely being offended or upset.

[RevDisk]

We're not talking about merely being offended or upset.

Yes, we are.  The Westboro people are not causing physical harm and are not advocating violence.  Their message is abhorrent, but by every rational take on the First Amendment, protected.

We are entirely talking about people's feelings.  Not conspiracy, which Ned used as an example.  Though conspiracy laws have gone WAY out of bounds as of late as well.  Ask Ned, he's leaning towards a prosecutor career path and he could probably tell you that a conspiracy charge is easy pickings.

[MicroBalrog]

We're not talking about merely being offended or upset.

Some people's health can be hurt by being offended or upset. Seeing a fearsome film can cause a person to have a heart attack. Some people can even be traumatised - for example, there are instances of people being seriously, heavily psychologically traumatized after watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

And yet we do not ban that.

[Ned Hamford]

Some people's health can be hurt by being offended or upset. Seeing a fearsome film can cause a person to have a heart attack. Some people can even be traumatised - for example, there are instances of people being seriously, heavily psychologically traumatized after watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

And yet we do not ban that.

Well, no one is making folks watch the movie.  But in the OP instance, folks are forcing traumatizing experiences on others.  The death of a loved one is hard, an unnatural death harder; there really isn't much in the way of a better example of a more universally understood position of suffering and weakness; emotional vulnerability. 

This is not a legitimate group.  There is only 6 of them, one family, not recognized by any other religious institution.  They purposely provoke confrontation to receive lawsuit settlements while ignoring laws themselves and rulings against them.  They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in their travels, having on average 6 protests a day.  It takes that many to incite the responses they require for the lawsuits and settlements to continue their lifestyle. They are nothing but locusts, exploiting misguided understandings of our free speech laws.   This isn't akin to folks staying up till 4am so they can write angry letters about what they see on tv.  These are people having screaming hate and filth during what would otherwise be solemn ceremonies as a career!

[BridgeRunner]

Some people's health can be hurt by being offended or upset. Seeing a fearsome film can cause a person to have a heart attack. Some people can even be traumatised - for example, there are instances of people being seriously, heavily psychologically traumatized after watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

And yet we do not ban that.

Check out the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, mentioned earlier in the thread.

IIED requires (reaching way, way back here...and googling  )

1) Outrageous conduct
2) Either the intent to cause emotional distress in the subject (not the general public) or a reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress
3) Emotional distress
4) That the emotional distress was actually and proximately caused by the outrageous conduct

In other words, it's not about a right to not be offended, but a right to not be intentionally hurt, and the recognition that hurt doesn't result exclusively from physical contact.

[RoadKingLarry]

This is not a legitimate group.  There is only 6 of them, one family, not recognized by any other religious institution.

There is more than 6 of the cretins.
I count 10 in this pic


Here is one of the clan

[Fitz]

They are protesting the wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknowns on nov 11th. Ill be there with my" this guy is a *expletive deleted*che" sign and a loud motorcycle

[Scout26]

They are protesting the wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknowns on nov 11th. Ill be there with my" this guy is a *expletive deleted*che" sign and a loud motorcycle

Lock your front brake and open the throttle to your rear wheel and throw gravel at these asshats for me ??

Yes, I fully believe that they can protest all they want.  And I also believe that James and his compadres can rev their engines all they want as well...

[Leatherneck]

Thank you all for the thoughtful comments.

Enlighten me, please (IANAL): Is not tort law dealing with civil, not criminal or Constitutional law?

TC