Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Seenterman on March 30, 2010, 01:18:45 PM
-
Damn I hate these people.
Marine's dad ordered to pay protesters' court fees
The Associated Press
BALTIMORE - The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters from Kansas was ordered to pay the protesters' appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps. Phelps is the leader of Topeka's Westboro Baptist Church, which conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.
The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.
Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.
The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.
Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/29/1246609/marines-dad-ordered-to-pay-protesters.html#ixzz0jgF1j78W
Why is the father of the Marine who's funeral they protested being ordered to pay their court fees? I thought this case was over and the father had won the suit, what happened? Yes I know its a bad article, not much information; only enough to get your blood boiling.
One commentor on the site had a very good point, What if I stood outside the NAACP all day screaming "God hates N-words" all "N-words are going to hell". Wouldn't that be harassment and possibly a hate crime? Heck wasn't a 16 year old kid arrested for asking "All black people to leave" at walmart not more than a month ago?
Then why is it legal to protest a funeral and shout even more insulting things to the grieving families of a fallen soldier? There is no legitimate reason to protest a funeral, I believe in the 1st just as strongly as all of you but this has nothing to do with peaceful assemble or petitioning the government hence it shouldn't fall under Constitution protection. Heck I have no problem with the KKK being given parade permits but this is just wrong. Its not censorship its harassment.
Al Snyder (the Marines father) has a web page with a legal defense fund which I encourage everyone to drop a few bucks into.
http://www.matthewsnyder.org/
-
[Henry_II]"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"[/Henry_II]
I jest, I jest. Phelps is just part of the wonderful mosaic of American diversity.(0)
Especially since he is a Democrat, has received awards form the NAACP, and was a supporter of Al Gore (as was courted by Al gore).
(0) Anyone have an anti-nausea med? I could use one after writing that.
-
(0) Anyone have an anti-nausea med? I could use one after writing that
.
Some Diphenhydramine HCL might help. But I doubt it.
I enjoyed standing back quietly and watching his group get laughed at and mocked Saturday night.
You can find Phelps daughter on twitter if you ever need someone to chat with. ;)
jim
-
Yup, this sure is one weird planet... =| [barf]
-
A little more to the story.
RELATED STORIES
Poll: Privacy vs. pickets
His $5M verdict overturned, dad of deceased Marine now owes Phelps
| EMAIL | PRINT | COMMENT | SHARE
BY PHIL ANDERSON
Created March 29, 2010 at 3:17pm
Updated March 29, 2010 at 9:50pm
Only a few months before both sides square off in the U.S. Supreme Court, the father of a slain Marine has been ordered to pay legal costs for a Topeka-based church after the $5 million judgment he won from the congregation in 2007 was overturned on appeal.
Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine who was killed in March 2006 in Iraq, learned late last week that he had been ordered to pay legal costs for Westboro Baptist Church in connection with a lawsuit he brought against the congregation after some of its members picketed his son's funeral in March 2006 in Westminster, Md.
Late Friday, Snyder learned he would be liable to pay the legal costs of the appeal by the Westboro church and the Phelpses in the amount of $16,500, said his attorney, Sean E. Summers, of York, Pa., in a phone interview late Monday night.
"We've been talking all day and all night," Summers said of himself and Snyder. "He is disappointed. It's kind of like rubbing his nose in it."
Members of the Westboro church have gained national and worldwide attention for their anti-homosexual protests, including at soldiers' funerals.
Some of the signs held by protesters include statements such as "America is Doomed," "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for 9/11" and "Thank God for IEDs," a reference to roadside bombs that have killed many U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The church maintains American war deaths are God's punishment for the nation's acceptance of homosexuality.
In 2007, Snyder sued Westboro Baptist Church Pastor Fred W. Phelps and two of his daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis, for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress after their protest at the funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died in March 2006 when his Humvee overturned.
In November 2007, a federal court jury in Baltimore awarded Snyder about $11 million, but subsequent court action reduced that amount to $5 million.
In September, the decision to award Snyder $5 million was thrown out on appeal by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which has jurisdiction in Maryland. A three-judge panel ruled that protest signs carried by church members in March 2006 were protected by the First Amendment.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the Westboro church protesters' messages, no matter how provocative or upsetting, are protected by the First Amendment, or if they are limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of mourners. The Supreme Court is scheduled to take up the case in the fall.
The justices also will hear an appeal from Snyder to reinstate the $5 million verdict against the protesters.
Summers said Snyder, who is struggling to come up with the fees associated with filing the brief with the high court, is accepting donations for his legal costs at www.matthewsnyder.org.
"Right now, we're actually seeking donations," Summers said. "We've had a lot of people ask if they could help. We get more outpouring of support from Kansas than from any of the other 50 states."
Phelps-Roper said Monday night the ruling by 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., was merely an outcome of the law being upheld, and a sign that First Amendment rights were still protected.
Of the lawsuit brought against Westboro Baptist Church and its members in 2007, she said, "This was an experiment, because they thought they could get the judicial branch of this government to thumb its nose at the Constitution, just as the legislative and executive branches have done. But it didn't work."
She added, "The significance is at least through the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, the First Amendment is intact. If you're going to experiment with such things, it might cost you."
http://cjonline.com/news/state/2010-03-29/marine_dad_must_pay_phelps_fees (http://cjonline.com/news/state/2010-03-29/marine_dad_must_pay_phelps_fees)
jim
-
Sometimes you just gotta tell the federal judge "F.U."
-
I'm always surprised the Phelps clan hasn't had any "unfortunate accidents." Not suggesting they should, just surprised they haven't...
-
Updated.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/03/american-legion-picks-up-tab-for-lawyers-in-phelps-case.html#trackback
-
Updated.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/03/american-legion-picks-up-tab-for-lawyers-in-phelps-case.html#trackback
That's good, I was starting to look for a donate button...
-
Just hit Fox News that he has pretty much said they can shove it. He's not paying a cent unless it goes all the way to the top and SCOTUS tells him to ante up. Given the groups and emotions involved I can easily see this one getting ugly.
Brad
-
Updated.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/03/american-legion-picks-up-tab-for-lawyers-in-phelps-case.html#trackback
Thank you for posting that link.
I was looking for a way to stick it to the Phelps creature, the opportunity was too enticing too resist.
-
That's good, I was starting to look for a donate button...
Same here. Glad to see the vet orgs backing up the father.
-
Just hit Fox News that he has pretty much said they can shove it. He's not paying a cent unless it goes all the way to the top and SCOTUS tells him to ante up. Given the groups and emotions involved I can easily see this one getting ugly.
Brad
can't say that i blame him, i might even offer to pay for some jail time for them. >:D (not that it would do any good.)
-
I'm always surprised the Phelps clan hasn't had any "unfortunate accidents." Not suggesting they should, just surprised they haven't...
I'm not. Their modus operandi makes it so blatantly clear they ARE begging for it. And they wear that on their sleeve so prominently that even the most (justifiably) offended seem to get the idea to not give them what they want.
I suspect they're even actively hoping to get their kids hurt.
-
free speech is important, I feel we make a big mistake by playing their game ( going to court )
its quite clear they get all their funding from winning Court cases and lawsuits.
imao, they just need to suffer the consequences of their speech. they should be forced by municipalities to pay for the police protection they get.
The only way to stop them is by not protecting them from the people they torment. If they cant pay police overtime, they shouldn't get police protection.
If they cant afford 24/7 police protection? oh well, maybe stop tormenting people.
-
I am just trying to figure out why he should have to pay for them to appeal the decision. It isn't like he asked for them to appeal. If you don't have the money up front you shouldn't be able to play the game. Like I saw on another comment about this story is at least one good thing came out of this jerk Phelps, The Patroit Guard Riders.
-
Just hit Fox News that he has pretty much said they can shove it. He's not paying a cent unless it goes all the way to the top and SCOTUS tells him to ante up. Given the groups and emotions involved I can easily see this one getting ugly.
Brad
There is a certain anti-abortion activist, can't remember the name, who refused to pay the court costs in a suit with a pro-abortion group. I believe his solution was simply to divest himself of all property. His wife owns everything.
-
There is no Constitutional right to interfere with a soldier's funeral and harass the survivors. The 1st Amendment says that "the Congress" shall not enact any law infringing the freedom of speech. That in no way guarantees anyone the right to insinuate oneself into a family's time of mourning. The appeals judge clearly (IMHO) blew it. The purpose of the 1st Amendment was to prevent the government from punishing people for voicing opposition to government policies. It was never intended as a blanket permission for people to get in other people's faces.
-
In addition to Hawk, I would like to point out that the first amendment protects the family's right to practice religion. A funeral certainly qualifies as a religious ceremony, albeit a solemn one.
Wouldn't proetsters violate the family's first amendment rights by not being respectful of/interferring with the funeral?
What does protesting a military funeral have to do with Americas acceptance of homosexuality?
-
If anyone finds any actual details about the case, I would love to see them. I don't have enough information to be outraged yet :)
Although if I had to guess it would boil down to, "Phelps sucks".
-
Unfortunately, phelps and his scumbags have been found in court to have the right to do what they do. We test our belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights particularly by allowing vermin such as these to speak their opinion. But this has now gone way beyond a simple voicing of unpopular opinion, and into the uncharted territory of incitement to violence.
Don't forget that during the Revolutionary era when the BOR was born, dueling was accepted. Would that THAT custom was revived!
TC
-
We test our belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights particularly by allowing vermin such as these to speak their opinion.
Well, sure, but someplace other than a funeral.
-
At some point civil disobedience will be considered as a method of dealing with tyranny.
-
Well, maybe, Fisty. But if not there and then, where and when?
TC
-
Well, maybe, Fisty. But if not there and then, where and when?
Seriously? ???
-
I don't see this particular thing as tyranny, Waitone; this is simply uncivil behavior reinforced by the courts (so far).
TC
-
As much as I despise the message of WBC, I find I must support their right to deliver that message.
Having witnessed the folks from WBC in action, I can tell you that they are not really that loud or that disruptive. It is just that their message is abhorent. They have not, to my knowlege, actually entered into a cemetary or place of worship to chant and display their signs. They stand on the public right of way as close to the entrance of the venue as they can get. Since they do not, again to my knowlege, use loudspeakers or bullhorns their noise generally can be effectively muffled by shutting the door or by distance.
The Patriot Guard riders do a wonderful job of blocking WBC from near access to where funerals are taking place and drowning out their chants as the family passes close to where they (WBC) are. The folks who need to revise their methods are, IMHO, the cops. Instead of arriving ahead of time and setting up barricades and boundaries they should wait until someone calls 911.
As for the general public that comes out to see the spectacle, I'd like to offer the following suggestion. Go to where the WBC members are standing and shouting, and surround them. Just stand next to them and do so in numbers sufficient to screen them and prevent them from moving. If they start to move laterally, either 1) (preferred) stand still and force them to assault you in order to move, or 2) (more likely how folks will react) move with them but do not break the screen.
But then I'm a veteran of non-violent civil disobediance from way back. And I hate Illinois Nazis.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Good thoughts, Skidmark. Lord help me, I might buy a Harley and resume riding just to join the Patriot Riders.
TC
-
Well, maybe, Fisty. But if not there and then, where and when?
TC
How about anywhere but there ??
-
Good thoughts, Skidmark. Lord help me, I might buy a Harley and resume riding just to join the Patriot Riders.
TC
Yea, I have to say that is ONE reason that could actually coerce me to do the same.
-
Good thoughts, Skidmark. Lord help me, I might buy a Harley and resume riding just to join the Patriot Riders.
TC
No need to buy a scooter to join them. As a matter of fact having a few cages riding along can be quite helpful -- think cargo-carrying capacity among other things.
I'm not anywhere as active as I ought to be, but I've showed up a couple of times and was welcomed.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Freedom of speech ends when that speech becomes disorderly conduct by creating a disturbance. Depends on local ordinances or state statutes. When I was in LE, we arrested people who's behavior by word or deed in my presence interfered with the peace of innocent bystanders. Perhaps that's subjective, but my judgment as LE is many times subjective when enforcing misdemeanors.
Whether the charges stuck or not was up to the prosecutor and or the court.
-
I think the fact that noone has taken any of them out yet is a testament to the will of the people to make this thing work the way it's supposed to. It shows what the good people in this country are made of.
-
As much as I despise the message of WBC, I find I must support their right to deliver that message.
As do I. In an appropriate time, place and manner, as with any other speech.
-
Go to where the WBC members are standing and shouting, and surround them. Just stand next to them and do so in numbers sufficient to screen them and prevent them from moving. If they start to move laterally, either 1) (preferred) stand still and force them to assault you in order to move, or 2) (more likely how folks will react) move with them but do not break the screen.
skidmark
I like that idea. Perhaps also carry your own large blank banners and picket signs? Just large blank pieces of canvas to obstruct the view of anything being held up by them.
As for getting a chopper and joining the riders, do you thinking hauling out my unmuffled M35A2 deuce and a half would be sufficient? It can block alot of view and is plenty loud. :lol:
-
just a mental image, it would be funny to see them roped off into a little freespeech zone and the Marines airdrop(or just quickly set up) a (really big) tent over them. :O
-
In addition to Hawk, I would like to point out that the first amendment protects the family's right to practice religion.
While I always appreciate a supporting opinion, I have to point out that the 1st Amendment does not protect anyone's freedom to practice a religion. The 1st Amendment says that "the Congress" shall not enact any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Incorporation of the 1st Amendment against the states via the 14th Amendment merely says that the states also may not enact any law establishing a state religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.
Any laws that protect individuals from religious interference by other individuals (not the State) derive from other laws, if any, NOT from the 1st Amendment.
-
....point out that the 1st Amendment does not protect anyone's freedom to practice a religion.
....
The 1st Amendment says that "the Congress" shall not enact any law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How does that work again?
-
Free speech does not grant you license to disturb the peace or cause pain and suffering to others.
-
.
-
Well, maybe, Fisty. But if not there and then, where and when?
TC
Federalism means not everything is a federal case. Let the locals determine what sort of public disruption of lawful religious observance is allowable.
-
Perhaps an ordnance prohibiting demonstrations within a certain radius of cemeteries and/or religious structures. ???
-
Free speech does not grant you license to disturb the peace or cause pain and suffering to others.
Beg to differ with you on that last part. There are reasonable restrictions on "free speech" such as not inciting to riot, not uttering a liable or slander, and not advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Causing "pain and suffering" is not one of the things the .gov can resasonably restrict me from doing. Your recourse for hurt feelings is to seek redress through the civil processes.
As for "disturbing the peace" -- let's start with the wiki definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disturbing_the_peace "Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence."
Nothing the WBC folks do at funerals even comes close to the above behaviors. Their chanting does not rise to the decible level of excessive noise, and the words they say do not challenge to fight and are not anywhere near as offensive as the common (in both senses of the word) conversations of many. They do not hurl insults likely to incite violence, although there are some who apparently would respond with violence against them.
The WBC folks express their opinion on the difference between their (WBC's) religiously-derived beliefs and the policy of the .gov. They also offer their opinion/speculation on the behavior of persons who hold religious beliefs different from their own.
And as for the notion of an ordnance prohibiting demonstrations within a certain radius of cemeteries and/or religious structures
-- aren't we already upset by the establishment of "free speech zones", complete with chain link fencing, set aside where they cannot be seen or heard from where our .gov officials are speechifying? What makes doing that to the WBC acceptable but otherwise a trampling of First Amendment rights for the rest of us?
As long as the WBC folks do not block traffic or create a safety hazzard by their physical actions, and they do not commit criminal trespass on private property, they should be free to make asses of themselves no matter how much you may disagree with or dislike what they are saying. And I will, to repeat the statement of someone whose name eludes me at the moment, defend to the death their right regardless of the fact that I totally disagree with what they are saying.
For me the bottom line is that it is not the place for .gov to attempt to restrict or mediate the speech of WBC because some find it offensive or disagree with their opinions. It is, however, the right and duty of every individual to demonstrate by peaceful means their disagreement with both the message and the way in which the message is delivered. I am not aware that WBC obtains parade or demonstration permits, so there is little risk of law enforcement stepping in to preserve a privilege granted to them by the .gov.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
There is no legitimate reason to protest a funeral,
I hope to be in good enough shape to protest mine.
-
That is a very good post Skid, but I think I should make mention of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942. The SCOTUS determined nine to zero that words or messages that by their very nature would incite violence or a breach of the peace are among the few not covered by the First Amendment. This is well known as the "fighting words" doctrine, and well, I'm not sure about you, but I think I can safely say for every current or former member of the military I have ever met, holding a sign at a soldier's funeral proclaiming....
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwwimage.cbsnews.com%2Fimages%2F2007%2F10%2F31%2Fimage3438410g.jpg&hash=64fc3d6e0b81e206dfc5fffa716b96dfdf038066)
..and..
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F34%2F118369256_8ca20f9bd8_m.jpg&hash=bbf5d3d1d09895176d41d970adfed026bdea316b)
...would incite more than a little violence or a breach of the peace. While I do feel a little cross with myself for taking this position, I do have to remind myself that liberty is being free to do what you will so long as you do not harm others. In this case I can find no way to defend WBC under the first amendment.
-
Before I continue, let me plainly express the following:
1) I am not advocating violence against the group.
2) I would not condone violence against the group.
However,
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F34%2F118369256_8ca20f9bd8_m.jpg&hash=bbf5d3d1d09895176d41d970adfed026bdea316b)
Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if someone "pushed too far" (disregarding the above legal debate over whether their signs are capable of driving someone to that point) implemented the object referenced in the image against the group? ;/
-
Now, I served (if it can so be called, given the nature of my service) in a different military, and I am myself a member of the group the Phelpsians hate. I am not sure I agree with banning their protests, but I have a question:
Isn't America at war in Iraq?
Wouldn't it be arguably illegal to actively cheer on the enemy in time of war and to openly state that you want as many soldiers killed as possible?
-
CNN is conducting a poll. Even their decidely liberal viewership is well over 80% in the "this is a really boneheaded decision" category.
What's really telling is how CNN has the poll question worded...
"Should the dad of a dead Marine be forced to pay legal costs for funeral protesters he sued unsuccessfully?"
(bolding mine -Brad)
Jeez, these unabashed haters even tried to put a twist on this.
Brad
-
just for some perspective(yes i have watched ratatouille to much :angel:), where would the press and courts be if the graveyards in question were planed parenthood building? :angel: please don't reply to this, not trying to get the thread locked. i just meant it as a what's the word ehh something to think about.[popcorn] really any of the left's(or the right if they ever get to the point they own most of the media :P) special children's groups could be substituted. =D
mods, what would you(as a group) think of having a option to mark a post for review before it's posted. :laugh: some days it would be nice to have some(of mine at least) posts nuked before they go live. [tinfoil] just an side effect of the drugs i guess. :facepalm:
-
One commentor on the site had a very good point, What if I stood outside the NAACP all day screaming "God hates N-words" all "N-words are going to hell".
Suddenly I see an opportunity to put the KKK on the front lines; make them some signs identical to the WBC ones except for replacing "soldiers" with the obvious epithet, send them to some black funerals, and see how the courts try to justify treating the two any differently.
-
kgbsquirrel -
Let's look at what "fighting words" are. SCOTUS said "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.[note 5] "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument."
"Thank God for IEDs" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
"Thank God for Dead Soldiers" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
"God Hates Fags" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
"USA Fag Nation" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
"God is Your Enemy" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
"America Is Doomed" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
"Fags Doom Nations" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
"Thank God for Dead Soldiers" - lewd and obscene - NOPE profane - NOPE libelous - NOPE insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury - MAYBE or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace - NOPE
We need to remember that Chaplinski was decided in 1942, when being called a fascist was more than just saying someone held certain political ideas - at that time it was calling someone a current enemy of the State currently engaged in open war against the State.
And I disagree with your contention that "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would incite to violence based on nothing except the recorded fact that no soldiers - current or former - have resorted to violence upon seeing those words displayed at a funeral. The words may inflict injury (if emotional distress is in fact an "injury").
Without a doubt they "hurt the feelings" of the bereaved and the mourning. But hurt feelings do not in my mind rise to the level of injury the Chaplinski court was considering. SCOTUS said "On the authority of its earlier decisions, the state court declared that the statute's purpose was to preserve the public peace, no words being "forbidden except such as have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually [emphasis added, the remark is addressed." It was further said: "The word 'offensive' is not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks. . . . The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile. . . . Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight. So are threatening, profane or obscene revilings. Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute as heretofore interpreted only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . . The statute, as construed, does no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker--including 'classical fighting words', words in current use less 'classical' but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats."
Points for knowing of Chaplinski but BZZZZ no Kewpie doll. SCOTUS says the words need to be spoken to a clearly identifiable individual. Signs do not speak, and chants are not addressed to a single clearly identifiable individual. Thus the case is irrelevant.
And I still hate Illinois Nazis and WBC. But they have a protected right to demonstrate and display their signs, and I see the need to continue to protect that right regardless of how offensive the message the signs convey.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Suddenly I see an opportunity to put the KKK on the front lines; make them some signs identical to the WBC ones except for replacing "soldiers" with the obvious epithet, send them to some black funerals, and see how the courts try to justify treating the two any differently.
True. The courts I think would go out of their way to declare this hate speech and side against them.
I really don't see why states couldn't simply restrict protests/demonstrations at grave sites or at least within a certain distance of funerals. IMO, what these people are doing is a bit beyond simply free speech.
-
True. The courts I think would go out of their way to declare this hate speech and side against them.
I really don't see why states couldn't simply restrict protests/demonstrations at grave sites or at least within a certain distance of funerals. IMO, what these people are doing is a bit beyond simply free speech.
Legislation
On May 24, 2006, the United States House and Senate passed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which President Bush signed five days later. The act bans protests within 300 feet of national cemeteries—which numbered 122 when the bill was signed—from an hour before a funeral to an hour after it. Violators face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.[85]
As of April 2006, at least 17 states have banned protests near funeral sites immediately before and after ceremonies, or are considering it. These are: Illinois,[86][87] Indiana,[88] Iowa,[89] Kansas,[90] Kentucky,[91] Louisiana,[92] Maryland,[93] Michigan,[94] Missouri,[95] which passed the law, and Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,[96] South Carolina,[97] South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.[98] Florida increased the penalty for disturbing military funerals, amending a previous ban on the disruption of lawful assembly.[99]
These bans have been contested. Bart McQueary, having protested with Phelps on at least three occasions,[100] filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Kentucky's funeral protest ban. On September 26, 2006, a district court agreed and entered an injunction prohibiting the ban from being enforced.[100] In the opinion, the judge wrote:
“ Sections 5(1)(b) and (c) restrict substantially more speech than that which would interfere with a funeral or that which would be so obtrusive that funeral participants could not avoid it. Accordingly, the provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest but are instead unconstitutionally overbroad. ”
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Missouri on behalf of Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church to overturn the ban on the picketing of soldier's funerals.[101] The ACLU of Ohio also filed a similar lawsuit.[102]
jim
-
Okay, so it is tied up in court. Glad they tried.
If the 1st amendment is going to be treated as a near infinitely unlimited right, then so should the 2nd.
-
One commentor on the site had a very good point, What if I stood outside the NAACP all day screaming "God hates N-words" all "N-words are going to hell".
Well, wouldn't liberals be as upset (rightly IMO) by 'God hates fags' as 'God hates N-s'?
-
Well, wouldn't liberals be as upset (rightly IMO) by 'God hates fags' as 'God hates N-s'?
No, despite contemporary attempts to elevate those who are practicing(0) homosexuals to the status of secular saints, blacks still rate higher in the liberal cosmology.
For examples, see:
1. The Wash DC gov't firing of the homosexual employee who used "niggardly" and was misunderstood by black DC city employees...
2. Perez Hilton vs some thuggish black entertainer, where Hilton tossed verbiage & the thug tossed fists...
The "Numinous Negro" trumps all others seeking preferred victim status.
(0) "Practicing," because, well, they just can't get it right ;)
-
Points for knowing of Chaplinski but BZZZZ no Kewpie doll. SCOTUS says the words need to be spoken to a clearly identifiable individual. Signs do not speak, and chants are not addressed to a single clearly identifiable individual. Thus the case is irrelevant.
And I still hate Illinois Nazis and WBC. But they have a protected right to demonstrate and display their signs, and I see the need to continue to protect that right regardless of how offensive the message the signs convey.
stay safe.
skidmark
Good point and if people are interested in this, they should read R.A.V v. City of Saint Paul 505 U.S. 377 (1992). The Court, referencing Chaplinksi, said that placing a burning cross in the yard of a black family was protected speech. I should not that they also said there were other ways that Minnesota could have handled this that didn't infringe on the 1st Amendment.
-
I predict the USSC will side with the Father. Sure this idiots have a right to their speech. But something called Time, Place and Manner will have an entrance.
If they don't side with the Father. Boy ate they opening the floodgates for all sorts of N-word protests protected.
-
If they don't side with the Father. Boy ate they opening the floodgates for all sorts of N-word protests protected.
Not new. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie)
-
^
MB
I was meaning worse that that. Much worse.
-
Beg to differ with you on that last part. There are reasonable restrictions on "free speech" such as not inciting to riot, not uttering a liable or slander, and not advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Causing "pain and suffering" is not one of the things the .gov can resasonably restrict me from doing. Your recourse for hurt feelings is to seek redress through the civil processes.
Regardless of where your recourse lies, you are not permitted to injure another person. It doesn't matter whether you use fists or guns or words to harm people, it's wrong.
And yes, the things the WBC people say and write on their signs, and the time/place/manner in which they do their protests, is easily injurious to a grieving family member. The lower court was right to award the father $5mil for the emotional pain the WBC sought to inflict on him.
What you seem to be saying is that someone's right to free speech trumps other peoples rights not to be injured. Well, if that's true, then what's to say I couldn't perform a human sacrifice in the name of my religion?
-
.... SCOTUS said "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.[note 5] "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument."
"...social interest in order and morality." I'd just like to point out that I dislike this part of the ruling because this necessitates that someone apply their personal opinion to the matter. Morals are not a universal constant. The bold section however is applicable below.
And I disagree with your contention that "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would incite to violence based on nothing except the recorded fact that no soldiers - current or former - have resorted to violence upon seeing those words displayed at a funeral. The words may inflict injury (if emotional distress is in fact an "injury").
May 21st, 2006, WBC's message incited a mob to form and overrun the police lines keeping WBC separated from counter protesters. WBC had to be rapidly by the police. After they got into the van it was beat upon by the mob resulting in at least one broken window. Other violence has been directed at them in the form of arson and other petty manners such as having drinks thrown at them from passing vehicles and being spit upon, which if my memory serves is legally considered assault. If these different spontaneous violent acts, up to and including a riotous mob, do not count for a breach of the peace, then what does?
Without a doubt they "hurt the feelings" of the bereaved and the mourning. But hurt feelings do not in my mind rise to the level of injury the Chaplinski court was considering. ...
Chaplinsky called the Marshall a fascist and a racketeer. Focusing on the fascist remark and in the context of 1947 this man was equating the Marshall with a foreign power that we were recently at war with. Today, while WBC is not calling anyone Taliban or Al Qaeda, that they are espousing a position of being grateful for a foreign power/entity killing our soldiers, who are actively engaged in combat, would seem to be in a similar vein. I should note that this also opens up other avenues of prosecution for things such as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Now in that light, essentially acting as a cheer leader for a current foreign enemy, would you still consider it protected speech?
What a wonderfully convoluted era in which we live eh? Here's a thought though. The first amendment, in my layman's understanding, is there to protect the minority opinion, but it does not compel one to listen to it. Do you think it be considered a breach of the 1st amendment to say, have a military commander of the local reserve or guard post send a train of 5-ton cargo trucks to line the street completely obstructing the funeral procession/motorcade from being able to see or hear the protesters? It would be part of rendering honors at a military funeral of course. :lol: They still get to go off with their rants, it's just that nobody is gonna see it.
-
And yes, the things the WBC people say and write on their signs, and the time/place/manner in which they do their protests, is easily injurious to a grieving family member. The lower court was right to award the father $5mil for the emotional pain the WBC sought to inflict on him.
How is what the WBC wrote on their signs worse than a burning cross on a black man's lawn?
-
How is what the WBC wrote on their signs worse than a burning cross on a black man's lawn?
To me, the WBC signs don't amount to much. No personal investment for me, other than the annoyance 'tards excelling at their craft.
But for a grieving family laying their son/husband/father/brother to rest...? That could induce a serious emotional injury. I've known people who required years and years of medical help over lesser emotional distresses than that.
Worse, I think the WBC people do their deeds deliberately with emotional distress for family members as a goal and a purpose. It may not be their primary purpose, but it is intentional nonetheless.
Can burning a cross cause the same sort of damage? I dunno. I suppose it could, potentially. Or maybe not. I suppose it all depends on the particular individual being targeted, and the related circumstances.
-
Burning a cross at the funeral of a black person that had been hung by the clan.
That would equal what the WBC is doing.
-
Burning a cross at the funeral of a black person that had been hung by the clan.
Carrying a swastika through a town where Holocaust survivors live?
Yes, some opinions are amazingly hurtful and disgusting and so forth. But this is exactly the sort of rationale behind hate speech codes in Canada, just taken to a different level.
There is no right, to my knowledge, to be free from emotional distress. It's tragic, it's disgusting, it's sad but it's true.
-
Skidmark that was an great post in regards to the legality of "fighting words" but I still have to disagree with you. If praising how your son / father / daughter / mother died at their funeral arn't fighting words I don't know what could be considered fighting words.
-
Carrying a swastika through a town where Holocaust survivors live?
No not the same. How about holding a neo Nazi rally at the funeral of a Holocaust survivor?
-
So a man can't bury his child with peace and respect, quietly, bothering no one. Interesting.
Please. Any of you that think this is ok, and are having a funeral in the future, let me know. I have an experiment I'd like to try, involving signs and yelling during your funeral.
-
So a man can't bury his child with peace and respect, quietly, bothering no one. Interesting.
Please. Any of you that think this is ok, and are having a funeral in the future, let me know. I have an experiment I'd like to try, involving signs and yelling during your funeral.
Feel free to yell as loudly as you can during my funeral. =D
-
Yes, some opinions are amazingly hurtful and disgusting and so forth. But this is exactly the sort of rationale behind hate speech codes in Canada, just taken to a different level.
There is no right, to my knowledge, to be free from emotional distress. It's tragic, it's disgusting, it's sad but it's true.
And there is the crux of the matter.
Canada, without the protection speech has in the USA, is able to legislate what you can say as well as where you can say it. And that legislation can be, and is, based on the dual notions that 1) folks should not have their feelings hurt and 2) that certain people are deserving or needful of protections above and beyond the protections afforded the rest of the society. Both notions, to my mind, suggest that the Canadian society is based on class and privilege - a concept anathama to the USA's basic foundational philosophy.
If you can prove, either here or in a court of law, that WBC sets out intentionally to inflict emotional distress upon another, then you have proved battery which is punishable under both criminal and civil law. Unless you can establish a nexus of conspiracy to breach the law(s) on battery, there is damn-all you can do to restrain WBC until they actually breach the law(s). Again, we are approaching the Free Speech Zones that were set up blocks away from the recent election campaign activities - places that preserved the right of free speech but in a place and manner which made the speech irrelevant. (You have the right to speak your mind, but only in a place where nobody else can hear you.)
stay safe.
skidmark
-
May 21st, 2006, WBC's message incited a mob to form and overrun the police lines keeping WBC separated from counter protesters. WBC had to be rapidly by the police. After they got into the van it was beat upon by the mob resulting in at least one broken window. Other violence has been directed at them in the form of arson and other petty manners such as having drinks thrown at them from passing vehicles and being spit upon, which if my memory serves is legally considered assault. If these different spontaneous violent acts, up to and including a riotous mob, do not count for a breach of the peace, then what does?
You make your point in your closing question -- WBC committed no breach of the peace. Those who disagreed with them certainly did. You provide nothing to support a contntion that WBC intended those events/that response.
Chaplinsky called the Marshall a fascist and a racketeer. Focusing on the fascist remark and in the context of 1947 this man was equating the Marshall with a foreign power that we were recently at war with. Today, while WBC is not calling anyone Taliban or Al Qaeda, that they are espousing a position of being grateful for a foreign power/entity killing our soldiers, who are actively engaged in combat, would seem to be in a similar vein. I should note that this also opens up other avenues of prosecution for things such as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Now in that light, essentially acting as a cheer leader for a current foreign enemy, would you still consider it protected speech?
Actually, the event occurred while we were warring with the fascists, which made the utterance more reprehensible and thus the SCOTUS support for the notion of "fighting words".
No, I do not equate calling someone a fascist while we are at war with fascism with "espousing a position of being grateful for a foreign power/entity killing our soldiers, who are actively engaged in combat." And besides, you seem to refuse to accept the notion of "fighting words" needing to be uttered as opposed to being displayed on a sign. There is a difference.
What a wonderfully convoluted era in which we live eh? Here's a thought though. The first amendment, in my layman's understanding, is there to protect the minority opinion, but it does not compel one to listen to it. Do you think it be considered a breach of the 1st amendment to say, have a military commander of the local reserve or guard post send a train of 5-ton cargo trucks to line the street completely obstructing the funeral procession/motorcade from being able to see or hear the protesters? It would be part of rendering honors at a military funeral of course. :lol: They still get to go off with their rants, it's just that nobody is gonna see it.
Actually, I would find it improper for a military commander to take such an action because it would be a governmental action. If you will recall, I have actively made suggestions of how non-governmental actors might effectively drown out/screen out WBC's speeh and signs. And no, routing a convoy of trucks along the curb has nothing to do with rendering military honors to the deceased. Had you instead mentioned that the local military commander found it convenient to transport the honor detachment via one vehicle per military participant, and to park said vehicles on the street rather than in the church parking lot or along the cemetary road I would have had no objection. You need to start thinking like a bureaucrat. :angel:
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Actually, I would find it improper for a military commander to take such an action because it would be a governmental action. If you will recall, I have actively made suggestions of how non-governmental actors might effectively drown out/screen out WBC's speeh and signs. And no, routing a convoy of trucks along the curb has nothing to do with rendering military honors to the deceased. Had you instead mentioned that the local military commander found it convenient to transport the honor detachment via one vehicle per military participant, and to park said vehicles on the street rather than in the church parking lot or along the cemetary road I would have had no objection. You need to start thinking like a bureaucrat. :angel:
stay safe.
skidmark
Ack, evil yellow text, my eyes!! :P
As for the "governmental affair" isn't a military funeral already a governmental affair? :)
So, aggravating messages and the protection of minority opinions aside, did you have any thoughts regarding the aid and comfort aspect of publicly praising the actions of a nations enemy during a time of war? I haven't gone and read much on it yet.
-
If you can prove, either here or in a court of law, that WBC sets out intentionally to inflict emotional distress upon another, then you have proved battery which is punishable under both criminal and civil law. Unless you can establish a nexus of conspiracy to breach the law(s) on battery, there is damn-all you can do to restrain WBC until they actually breach the law(s).
I'm not familiar with this particular case, but isn't that what the father did prove in order to be awarded the settlement for emotional suffering the WBC inflicted on him?
We're not talking merely offending someone here. We're talking injuring someone, inflicting a bona fide diagnosable medical injury.
Hell, people are routinely jailed for failing to prevent this sort of injury. Negligence and whatnot.
And if it's somehow OK to hurt someone with speech simply because free speech is respected, does that mean that it's ok to hurt someone with a gun because RKBA is protected?
Seems to me your rights to speech, or religion, or a gun, or whatever else, do not grant you license to use those rights to attack and injure others.
-
HTG. You are right.
Your right ends when it begins to infringe on my rights.
-
Feel free to yell as loudly as you can during my funeral.
Yes, mine too along with copious amounts of drinking till you [barf]. The resulting hangover will be my last gift to you all. =)
I'm surprised their use of the word "fag" is not considered to be a hate crime. Now that I think about it, I'm kind of surprised the gay community hasn't been all over their asses as well.
-
How does that work again?
The Constitution says that the government shall not enact any law establishing a [state] religion or prohibiting you from practicing the religion of your choice. It does NOT say anything about individuals mocking you for your religion, nor does it say anything about private corporations. There are other laws, anti-discrimination laws, that prohibit discrimination on the basis of creed (religion), but that's not in the Bill of Rights. Further, those laws prevent discrimination on the basis of religion. That just means all religions must be treated the same. If I own a business and I establish a rule that nobody may pray on my corporate premises and that nobody may mention the deity of their choice on my property -- I haven't discriminated against anyone. The rule applies equally.
To forestall the anticipated vitriolic backlash, it happens that I am an ordained minister, I do not own a corporation, and I would not impose such a rule if I did. I used that as an example simply to show that it appears the limitations of the 1st Amendment are not at all understood. It originally applied only to the Federal government. After incorporation of the 1st through the 14th, it also applies to the states. That's where it ends. It is not a blanket protection of a right to practice ones religion anywhere, any time.
-
The crux of the matter to me, and IMO the best argument the father has against these loons are that they are disrupting his religious practices. No one hear is trying to stop them from spreading their vile, yes it is protected under the First but the unacceptable part is where their protesting, at a funeral. Where does Westboro's 1st Amendment protections end and where do Mr. Snyder's begin? Everyone should be able to conduct the last religious rite of a loved one in peace.
I can't wait until one of these Westboro people die, everyone else should stage a protest at their funerals and see how they enjoy that.
-
I can't wait until one of these Westboro people die, everyone else should stage a protest at their funerals and see how they enjoy that.
That would be giving them more attention than they deserve. Far better to visit their graves in private after the funerals -- and spit on them.
-
Urination lasts longer and is more satisfying. Just sayin' :angel:
-
May 21st, 2006, WBC's message incited a mob to form and overrun the police lines keeping WBC separated from counter protesters. WBC had to be rapidly by the police.
You're also leaving out how many of the Phelps flock are lawyers. IMO, what they're doing is roughly equivalent to buying several cups of McDonalds coffee every day, immediately dumping each one in your lap until you find one hot enough to do real damage so you can sue.
-
You're also leaving out how many of the Phelps flock are lawyers. IMO, what they're doing is roughly equivalent to buying several cups of McDonalds coffee every day, immediately dumping each one in your lap until you find one hot enough to do real damage so you can sue.
Are courts/juries allowed to consider the lawsuit history of these groups or individuals and take that into account with determining awards. I think these people are just fishing for lawsuit opportunities and it seems to me that courts ought to be able to consider that.
-
If you can prove, either here or in a court of law, that WBC sets out intentionally to inflict emotional distress upon another, then you have proved battery which is punishable under both criminal and civil law. Unless you can establish a nexus of conspiracy to breach the law(s) on battery, there is damn-all you can do to restrain WBC until they actually breach the law(s). Again, we are approaching the Free Speech Zones that were set up blocks away from the recent election campaign activities - places that preserved the right of free speech but in a place and manner which made the speech irrelevant. (You have the right to speak your mind, but only in a place where nobody else can hear you.)
stay safe.
skidmark
There is a tort called intentional infliction of emotional harm. My understanding is that it is not very easy to win, as there has to be some compensable harm (such as depression that is directly linked to the intentional act) and that it has to be more than hurt feelings. I am not aware of any comparable criminal act. Battery is an offensive physical contact. Can you provide a link to a statute for emotional battery?
As for Phelps, he is disbarred. I don't know about the rest of his idiot mob.
-
Emotional barrery is not a crime, so no statute to cite. It's all found in case law - what the courts will allow. Who was the first lawyer to float the concept of loss of consortium? How well did that go over the first time it was tried?
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Guess "loser pays" doesn't always look like such a good system to adopt as a means of reducing lawsuits.
You can't do an end-run around the first amendment by alleging emotional distress, as Jerry Falwell found to his dismay in trying to teach Hustler magazine a lesson.
-
I for one am fine with this.
The Phelps are disgusting loathesome people. But while what they are doing is awful, they didn't say anything that is libelous or slanderous. Picking and choosing what first amenedment rights should be protected is just as awful as signs that say thank god for dead soldiers.
-
They have a right to picket. But I don't think they should be reimbursed if they appeal a decision.
-
Picking and choosing what first amenedment rights should be protected
That's not what's going on here, and you know it. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your commitment to free speech. Aren't you just special?
-
I cant help but think that the best response to WBC picketing military funerals is just to have no cops in attendance, nor any members of the press, an agreement amongst all the funeral guests that "what goes on tour, stays on tour" and a friendly local jury pool.
-
With everyone having video on their phones and such, I'm not sure that would work anymore.
-
Personally, I don't think prohibiting protesting/picketing at at funeral to be a breech of free speech.
-
With everyone having video on their phones and such, I'm not sure that would work anymore.
thats why you would need the friendly jury pool
=D
-
That's why I like the groups like "Patriot Riders".
Bunch of big, mean looking bikers on loud bikes. Holding banners big enough so the family of the bereaved can't see the signes the WBC'ers are holding, and they rev up their bikes so the WBC'ers can't be heard.
-
That's not what's going on here, and you know it. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your commitment to free speech. Aren't you just special?
Indeed.
We all know that the ends don't justify the means, but what I'm seeing here is the reverse. Some think the means (free speech) are can justify the ends (hurting someone).
Well, no. As Zardoz Monkey succinctly put it, your rights end when they begin to infringe upon another person's rights. WBC has the right to preach and shout and protest and picket, but they have no right to injure people in the process.
-
i think this thread is old enough for the line i've been biting my tongue in from the OP,
I say we should give the Honor Guard the option of using live ammo. =D
won't take but once, and i bet just saying it on the news would prevent the disturbance in the first place. [popcorn]
-
Indeed.
We all know that the ends don't justify the means, but what I'm seeing here is the reverse. Some think the means (free speech) are can justify the ends (hurting someone).
Well, no. As Zardoz Monkey succinctly put it, your rights end when they begin to infringe upon another person's rights. WBC has the right to preach and shout and protest and picket, but they have no right to injure people in the process.
Yeah, so if you claim an injury as a result of someone else's free speech and get to sustain a lawsuit every time, what happens to free speech in other cases?
I'm sure some politicians feel injured by the vile cartoons people make about them. This is why the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't use a tort like infliction of emotional distress in response to protected speech. That would simply undo all the restrictions on defamation actions that have been created specifically to protect unpopular voices.
-
I'm sure some politicians feel injured by the vile cartoons people make about them. This is why the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't use a tort like infliction of emotional distress in response to protected speech. That would simply undo all the restrictions on defamation actions that have been created specifically to protect unpopular voices.
Slightly different--"a figure in the public eye (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254)" is treated differently.
-
they are tormenting people, when their just desserts come back like chickens roosting ( or something )
I will hoist a non alcoholic beverage and buy a beer for for the waiter bringing the desserts
-
Emotional barrery is not a crime, so no statute to cite. It's all found in case law - what the courts will allow. Who was the first lawyer to float the concept of loss of consortium? How well did that go over the first time it was tried?
stay safe.
skidmark
Then why did you say it is punishable under criminal law. It isn't. In criminal law, you still have to be charged with an actual statutory crime. Loss of consortium, to my knowledge, is not a crime, but a tort and can be found in common law and in some civil codes. I agree that emotional damage can be a compensable harm, but it is still not a crime.
-
I stand by my comments. As long as nobody is physically injured (yelling fire in a crowded theatre), threatened, or libeled/slandered, I just don't agree.
I feel bad for the father getting sadled with loser pays, but its a risk you take when you go after someone for something very difficult to prove.
-
If'n I was the Dad I'd send the SOB no more than $10 a month forever. An attempt to pay is an attempt to pay.
-
If'n I was the Dad I'd send the SOB no more than $10 a month forever. An attempt to pay is an attempt to pay.
Wasn't the Legion picking up the tab? If so I think $1.00 a month would be a good amount.
I don't know if it has changed but Kansas law used to read that if you sent a hospital or doctor $1.00 a month they could never send you to collections. Healthcare reform may have killed that. But I think it should work for the tax exempt lawyers (can't say what I really think) that he was ordered to pay.
I have tried not to post much on this one due to personal experience with this group. Megan is a lovely twisted soul and Fred's gay son has a lot of things to say about his father.
jim
-
Wasn't the Legion picking up the tab? If so I think $1.00 a month would be a good amount.
Yea true, I guess I forgot to remember that part. =D
Fred's gay son
I do believe we may have found the source of Fred's anger. I never cease to be amazed by such closed minds.
"Said hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules
He said, Son
That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them" - Bruce Hornsby
-
Did those pieces of crap actually show at the funerals looking to protest?
-
Hasn't the SC ruled that "fighting words" is a class of speech not protected under the 1st Amendment?
-
Zombie thread!
Brad
-
I'm thinking spammer. Killing the zombie.
-
Killing the zombie.
It takes a headshot, you know. =D
-
Free speech is protected under the first amendment, right?
Demonstrations are free speech, right?
Who here would like to see a trebuchet demonstrated?
With a piano?
If it hits the roof of the "church," then that's an act of God, right?
I think we'll need a legal ruling beforehand.
-
If it hits the roof of the "church," then that's an act of God, right?
I say it depends if you were aiming at the church to start with. Which, of course, you weren't, the thing just took an unexpected trajectory, had to be God. :angel:
-
remember the news stories about planes dropping "stuff", and one hit a house. :angel:
-
For a change, i'm enjoying the zombie thread because I missed it first time around and I want to ask a question... Skidmark, I am comfused. You said that 'fighting words' covers words that may incite violence but you say that these wbc arn't even though those words incited a riot on at least one occasion and seem to intentially be trying to again? ???
-
There's no sense to be made of Phred Felps.
DD
-
Yea, better to make dog food out of him.
-
Whatchoo got against dawgs? :'(
DD
-
as evil as the phelps clan is, they're not crazy.
they do this to generate money by bringing lawsuits, imo when ppl show up
& start beating the crap out of them ( without getting caught ) they'll stop.
it needs a ppl solution, not a gov't one.
when they die I hope to picket their funeral if I can.
-
when ppl show up & start beating the crap out of them (without getting caught) they'll stop.
it needs a ppl solution, not a gov't one. [emphasis added]
Exactly right.
-
Sooner or later, they're going to pick some small town, and they'll show up, and there won't be a uniformed cop within five miles. Just a buncha bubbas with softball bats, bandanna masks, and no plates on their pickups. Sometimes justice is ugly.
-
Sooner or later, they're going to pick some small town, and they'll show up, and there won't be a uniformed cop within five miles. Just a buncha bubbas with softball bats, bandanna masks, and no plates on their pickups. Sometimes justice is ugly.
I've dealt with them twice. Once in Witchita and once in KC. I wish they would find a reason to come to my town. LE is 28 miles away. And we have a lot of old strip pits around here.
jim
-
I hope they don't have a reason to come to your town, but if that should happen, I am sure that nobody would miss 'em.
-
Sooner or later, they're going to pick some small town, and they'll show up, and there won't be a uniformed cop within five miles. Just a buncha bubbas with softball bats, bandanna masks, and no plates on their pickups.
And banjos?
-
That could be Westboro's motto, "If you hear banjos, RUN!!"
-
For a change, i'm enjoying the zombie thread because I missed it first time around and I want to ask a question... Skidmark, I am comfused. You said that 'fighting words' covers words that may incite violence but you say that these wbc arn't even though those words incited a riot on at least one occasion and seem to intentially be trying to again? ???
Sorry for the delay - I've just looked at this zombie thread.
"Fighting words" are words designed to provoke action: "Let's kill them!" or "Hanging's too good for her!" or "Are you going to let him get away with that? Somebody ought to do something to make sure he pays!" More examples of what are close to fighting words are being written by several of our own folks.
WBC has a history of being on the receiving end of fighting words, as opposed to uttering them. WBC pushes buttons. They are provocative, but I would not call any of their signs or utterances provoking - differences in meaning that a jury might be confused over until a good lawyer explained it to them.
Pushing peoples' buttons is not a Good IdeaTM but the way WBC does it is not illegal. Those whose buttons were pushed to the point of mob violence (read your state's laws - no actual blows need be struck to commit the crime) reacted illegally.
Just for clarification, I'm not in support of WBC and what they are doing. However, I am adamantly opposed to prior censorship of them or any other speaker - especially if the censorship is just because the majority dislikes the message being delivered. That is one camel's nose that I will beat back - and I admit those are fighting words.
stay safe.
-
While I agree with you in principal on the 1st amendment I have to wonder if the 9th doesn't supersede it in a situation such as this. The 9th states that your rights are innumerable. They are infinite. Therefore, under the 9th you have the right to take extreme offense to what they are doing and also have the right to beat them for it. Under the 9th they have the right to defend themselves whether it be physically or legally.
In other words, this is a free country, you are free to do whatever you want up to and including murder. Society, however, has the right to demand that you pay consequences for your actions up to and including death.
or, you have the right to take them out but once you exercise that right you have forfeited all your freedom and probably assets for some period of time. The question then becomes, "Is it worth it to you?"
Then I guess you have the right to resist the govs attempts tio incarcerate or extinguish you.
Long live the revolution!! (We really need a smiliy shooting in the air for this one) Disclaimer, this line is tongue in cheek the rest really isn't, on principal anyways.
:angel: