Kansas church liable in Marine funeral protest

[fskimospy]

I just wish Michael Moore had started running the Sodommobile full time on them. Watching those jackasses get freaked out by a bunch of dancing gay guys was incredibly satisfying.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't know if what they do really qualifies as protected speech. Clearly there are already limits on free speech (the old yelling fire in a crowded theater situation), the limit seems to be not so much WHAT you say as where you say it. There is a certain point at which your right to free speech can't reasonably trample other peoples' rights. For example, I can disagree with palehorse74 on any number of things on the P&N message board, but if I followed him around all day yelling at him about our detention center at Gitmo, something tells me I couldn't defend my actions as protected free speech.

Sure you could, as long as you were on public property.

I think those assholes from Kansas are right on the line, but I don't think it's as clear cut a case as many people seem to think. Especially since their primary motivation is harassment, not expressing an idea.

But in any case, I wonder how difficult it would be to "counter-protest" and get them to respond violently. Clearly these are angry, deranged individuals, I can't imagine it would be difficult to provoke them enough to justify a little self-defense.

Now this I agree with. Get them to respond violently and then the beat down begins!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I just wish Michael Moore had started running the Sodommobile full time on them. Watching those jackasses get freaked out by a bunch of dancing gay guys was incredibly satisfying.

I don't think MM would waste his time with something so insignificant. This is a really small group of people.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I think they have a right to free speech. I don't think that should be restricted. I think that this ruling should be overturned.

I think someone should firebomb their church\house\compound while they're all inside.

:laugh:

 

[piasabird]

Their church should be foreclosed on and torn down.

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I think that first amendment laws don't apply to acts that deliberately cause offense to others.

Not quite.. Anything could be offensive to anyone... so... no...

Granted just about anything you say will offend somebody, but there's a difference between saying something that happens to offend somebody, and saying something with the intent of offending somebody. The second option counts as harassment in many cases.
IMO this is not so much a case of free speech as a case of harassment. As others have said, this group does have the right to say whatever they want in the proper situation. Going to a soldiers funeral to "protest" is hardly the proper situation.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Citrix
the families rights to bury their dead son in peace trumps any free speech protections that Phelps and company think they have. If that was my son and those slimeballs showed up i would do everything in my power to create great bodily harm to every single one of them.

This is not a valid argument.. it is an emotional one.

But harassment is not a form of protected free speech.

Yes, harassment might fly.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I think that first amendment laws don't apply to acts that deliberately cause offense to others.

Not quite.. Anything could be offensive to anyone... so... no...

Granted just about anything you say will offend somebody, but there's a difference between saying something that happens to offend somebody, and saying something with the intent of offending somebody. The second option counts as harassment in many cases.
IMO this is not so much a case of free speech as a case of harassment. As others have said, this group does have the right to say whatever they want in the proper situation. Going to a soldiers funeral to "protest" is hardly the proper situation.

The question is, are they personally attacking the dead guy, or just what the dead guy was.. if they aren't saying "Bob deserved to die", but are saying "god hates whatever", it may not be considered harassment. Up to the courts I guess.

 

[Fern]

Many here comment on their right to Free Speech. Noble, but perhaps misguided.

What about Don Imus and nappy headed hos?

How about a racial slur and hate crime laws?

As mentioned, yelling fire in a crowed theatre.

With free speech also comes acceptance or responsibility for the consequences of your speech. Hollywood celebrities want to excercise free speech but complain most loudly when others criticize their words (they're just excercising their own free speech).

Who's saying that these people can't be in their church expressing the "i love you" speech? No one that I can tell.

Their "excersize of free speech" seems more designed and executed to harrass and emontionally harm vunerable people, than get out any info or opinion. Their opinion is widely known, there is no (free spech) point in traveling to and disruting the funeral service fo unknown/unrelated persons.

They are, by their actions, inhibiting the free speech (funeral service) of others. They are guilty of perpetrating the unlaw actions against others, the very ones that they (falsely) claim are perpetrated against them.

IMO, they are not being "punished" for their opinions, the point of free speech, but for their actions in harrassing and oppressing others - which is not a Constitutionally protected activity.

I do think the award is a bit too high and should be reduced

Fern

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Free Speech!

I disagree vehemently with Westboro and their gang of lunatics but they do have the right to say the filth they do - I just hope somewhere in the dark subconscious of these deranged souls' minds they realize those they are protesting and mocking are the ones who are protecting their right to say such hateful things.

Personally I think the father deserves something. Not a criminal case here, but in a civil suit they should be held liable for slander and libel. That is not protected under the First Amendment.

I agree with what you're saying but I think 11 millions is ridiculous. Multi-million dollar compensations generally goad me the wrong way, and this is no exception despite the scumbag defendants.

EDIT: Btw, I know you didn't say you agreed with the monetary award. I was just saying that I disagree with it in general.

 

[glutenberg]

Would anyone feel differently about this case if the people they were protesting were projected as bad people? Say the funeral was for a harsh dictator and people protested, would everyone feel differently or would the opinion that it was harassment remain the same?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Would anyone feel differently about this case if the people they were protesting were projected as bad people? Say the funeral was for a harsh dictator and people protested, would everyone feel differently or would the opinion that it was harassment remain the same?

If it was a funeral for a harsh dictator, it would be a one-time event and likely spontaneous, not systematic and premeditated.

Fern

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Would anyone feel differently about this case if the people they were protesting were projected as bad people? Say the funeral was for a harsh dictator and people protested, would everyone feel differently or would the opinion that it was harassment remain the same?

If it was a funeral for a harsh dictator, it would be a one-time event and likely spontaneous, not systematic and premeditated.

Fern

That's arguable as there are examples of where people have been upset and protested a dictator's funeral and they aren't necessarily that spontaneous. Also, what difference does it make whether the protest is spontaneous versus planned? Also, a funeral for a particular serviceman is also one time event unless they plan on having multiple funerals for the soldier.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Would anyone feel differently about this case if the people they were protesting were projected as bad people? Say the funeral was for a harsh dictator and people protested, would everyone feel differently or would the opinion that it was harassment remain the same?

If it was a funeral for a harsh dictator, it would be a one-time event and likely spontaneous, not systematic and premeditated.

Fern

That's arguable as there are examples of where people have been upset and protested a dictator's funeral and they aren't necessarily that spontaneous. Also, what difference does it make whether the protest is spontaneous versus planned? Also, a funeral for a particular serviceman is also one time event unless they plan on having multiple funerals for the soldier.

A dictator is a public figure, and the laws treat public figures different from private figures. Private persons are afforded more protection in privacy law.

 

[Fern]

Yeah, there may have been planned protests at some dictator's funeral. IDK personally, never been to one.

I wouldn't be a big fan of those anyway.

While the individual soldier's funeral is a one-time event, they are systematicall targeting soldiers funerals.

Unlike in the dictator example, where people have some specific animosity directed at the dictator personally as the (presumed) result of his own actions, these people (demonstartors in question) do not know the soldiers, nor protest any actions or beliefs known to be held by the soldiers. They are just picking soldiers in general, one's whom they seemingly know nothing about. That, in and of itself, is a significant distiction with your dictator example.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Precisely. "Free speech" does not afford someone the right to effectively get up in another's face and scream at them or act in an over-the-top and disruptive manner. Freaky Fred is free to express his hate at the proper venue. A funeral is not the proper venue.

So in other words, there should be Free Speech Zones and Protected Zones.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So in other words, there should be Free Speech Zones and Protected Zones.

I'd disagree with that. Perhaps these churches will need to build walls and barricades to keep these nutjobs far enough away that they can still exercise their free speech yet not disturb the right of the family to bury their dead in peace.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Precisely. "Free speech" does not afford someone the right to effectively get up in another's face and scream at them or act in an over-the-top and disruptive manner. Freaky Fred is free to express his hate at the proper venue. A funeral is not the proper venue.

So in other words, there should be Free Speech Zones and Protected Zones.

There already are.

Those of us who have been around here a while know that these forums are a "proteted zone" (not sure what you mean by that, but guessing it means no free speech).

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Precisely. "Free speech" does not afford someone the right to effectively get up in another's face and scream at them or act in an over-the-top and disruptive manner. Freaky Fred is free to express his hate at the proper venue. A funeral is not the proper venue.

So in other words, there should be Free Speech Zones and Protected Zones.

There already are.

Those of us who have been around here a while know that these forums are a "proteted zone" (not sure what you mean by that, but guessing it means no free speech).

Fern

These forums are private property. Do you not understand the different between public vs private?

 

[piasabird]

I would classify protesting at a Soldiers funeral to persecuting people based on a group. This is Harassment, and it is basically a hate crime. It is the worst form of bigotry and discrimination.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Precisely. "Free speech" does not afford someone the right to effectively get up in another's face and scream at them or act in an over-the-top and disruptive manner. Freaky Fred is free to express his hate at the proper venue. A funeral is not the proper venue.

So in other words, there should be Free Speech Zones and Protected Zones.

There already are.

Those of us who have been around here a while know that these forums are a "proteted zone" (not sure what you mean by that, but guessing it means no free speech).

Fern

These forums are private property. Do you not understand the different between public vs private?

Cemetaries are usually private property. They are typically money -making ventures, even if occaisonally masqurading as non-profits.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Strange bedfellows in this thread. My advice some here: educate yourself on what you're talking about. The Phelps family is not a church (though they still have limited tax-exempt status). They're not even a cult (they don't recruit). They're a family group that makes its living from extortion. They run around the country horribly offending people and filing lawsuits. Nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine for once. Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end for them.

Originally posted by: senseamp
Will be overturned. Clearly it's their 1st amendment right.

So would it be my 1st amendment right to come over to your house unannounced, start "protesting" in your living room, and begin telling lies and insults about your family? :roll:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I see the Phelps "family" actions as akin to the KKK chanting hate-speech on a black person's front lawn at 3am. Yeah they have a right to say what they want but there is such a thing as disturbing the peace and harassment.

I'm not sure if what they do/did is worth a $10 million judgement but it certainly isn't an exercise in free speech. It's harassment. Hopefully this win will encourage others to do the same and keep these idiots tied up with so many court dates that they won't have the time or money to chase their sick little hobby.