Marine's dad ordered to pay protesters' court fees

[California Girl]

Don't just mouth off on a forum. Do something.

Call your local and state reps and support the Snyder family by telling our 'representatives' that freedom of speech does not outweigh the rights of others to go about their lives peacefully. All our freedoms are vital... not just one.

This link asks you to call, write, email your reps.

Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder

 

[Father Time]

Don't just mouth off on a forum. Do something.

Call your local and state reps and support the Snyder family by telling our 'representatives' that freedom of speech does not outweigh the rights of others to go about their lives peacefully. All our freedoms are vital... not just one.

This link asks you to call, write, email your reps.

Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder

The issue is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court and they don't seem to be swayed by public opinion, so I don't see what contacting representatives will do.

Although if the supreme court case goes well and they declare bans on picketing funerals to be constitutional then I will contact my state representative immediately.

 

[California Girl]

Don't just mouth off on a forum. Do something.

Call your local and state reps and support the Snyder family by telling our 'representatives' that freedom of speech does not outweigh the rights of others to go about their lives peacefully. All our freedoms are vital... not just one.

This link asks you to call, write, email your reps.

Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder

The issue is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court and they don't seem to be swayed by public opinion, so I don't see what contacting representatives will do.

Although if the supreme court case goes well and they declare bans on picketing funerals to be constitutional then I will contact my state representative immediately.

It turns my stomach that you can talk about 'picketing funerals' like its a good thing.

If they'd done it to us, I figure I'd be visiting a few of my family members in prison.

 

[Father Time]

Don't just mouth off on a forum. Do something.

Call your local and state reps and support the Snyder family by telling our 'representatives' that freedom of speech does not outweigh the rights of others to go about their lives peacefully. All our freedoms are vital... not just one.

This link asks you to call, write, email your reps.

Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder

The issue is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court and they don't seem to be swayed by public opinion, so I don't see what contacting representatives will do.

Although if the supreme court case goes well and they declare bans on picketing funerals to be constitutional then I will contact my state representative immediately.

It turns my stomach that you can talk about 'picketing funerals' like its a good thing.

If they'd done it to us, I figure I'd be visiting a few of my family members in prison.

Where did I do that? I think picketing funerals is an accurate description.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I do not think picketing/protesting/whatever you want to call it/ a funeral is covered under free speech, I think it's harassment.

 

[California Girl]

The issue is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court and they don't seem to be swayed by public opinion, so I don't see what contacting representatives will do.

Although if the supreme court case goes well and they declare bans on picketing funerals to be constitutional then I will contact my state representative immediately.

It turns my stomach that you can talk about 'picketing funerals' like its a good thing.

If they'd done it to us, I figure I'd be visiting a few of my family members in prison.

Where did I do that? I think picketing funerals is an accurate description.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I do not think picketing/protesting/whatever you want to call it/ a funeral is covered under free speech, I think it's harassment.

I agree, I am tired of people using the 'freedom of speech' thing like it outweighs other people's rights. It doesn't. Everyone has the right to go about their family business without being subjected to this behavior.

I'm outraged (and not even faux outrage - real, honest to goodness anger) that the Snyder family are being treated like this in America.

 

[strollingbones]

this is all about money for phelps...his kids are lawyers..the church consists of mostly his family...they come into places...incite the locals...then the police cant control the crowd..and phelps sues the town, police etc.

i think freedom of speech carries responsiblities...one of them is accepting the consequences of what you are saying....but in the south...we still turn off the radio, take off the hats and stop the car for a funeral...common respect

 

[California Girl]

this is all about money for phelps...his kids are lawyers..the church consists of mostly his family...they come into places...incite the locals...then the police cant control the crowd..and phelps sues the town, police etc.

i think freedom of speech carries responsiblities...one of them is accepting the consequences of what you are saying....but in the south...we still turn off the radio, take off the hats and stop the car for a funeral...common respect

And, that is the part of this that I just don't understand. In law, I thought we had the concept of 'but for your actions'... ie that if you had not done XX, then YY would not have happened so you are responsible for what befalls you.

 

[chanel]

Thought people might appreciate this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Of_2ykZpQ&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Epic Win! Student uses Westboro Baptist Church visit as Fundraiser![/ame]

 

[random3434]

Thought people might appreciate this:

YouTube - Epic Win! Student uses Westboro Baptist Church visit as Fundraiser!

I love this! What a great solution to all the hate spewed from the WBC. Donations made to Jewish and Gay organizations in Westboro's Name, brilliant!

 

[GHook93]

On the O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly and Dennis Miller stated they are picking up the $16K bill for the father and providing all the legal funds for the appeal!

Stand up guys! I hope O'Reilly and others attack this miserable judge unmercifully!

 

[Liability]

On the O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly and Dennis Miller stated they are picking up the $16K bill for the father and providing all the legal funds for the appeal!

Stand up guys! I hope O'Reilly and others attack this miserable judge unmercifully!

As much as I find the outcome to be absolutely counter-intuitive, dreadful, odious and revolting -- I have to say that "attacking" the judges at all is pretty shallow and misguided.

IF we believe in the principles enshrined under our Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech, then there is very likely to be (periodically) a case that puts our commitment to the test.

The fucking Nazis marched in Skokie, Illinois. That was clearly a free speech issue; and even though most of us find those bastards to be totally vile and debased, worthy of nothing but our contempt, the decision to "allow" them to march was (imho) the Constitutionally correct one.

Similarly, as much as most of us LOATH that fucking bastard Phelps, and as much as we might like to punch his fucking lights out for having the disgusting ability and willingness to "protest" at the funeral of a fallen Marine, in strictly Constitutional Law terms, isn't that also "speech?"

I hate Phelps, that fucking scumbag. If there's punishment in the afterlife, then he's gonna be spending a huge part of the balance of forever roasting in hell. But if we mean it when we say we cherish the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech, then even that foul prick does have the right to engage in free speech, doesn't he?

About the only possible (realistic) counter-argument I see against the Court's ruling would require some pretty careful, fine-tuned analysis of what constitutes "speech" versus what constitutes nothing but criminally or civilly actionable behavior. But that's not a new area in legal analysis and, so, we already know that "action" can also be deemed "speech" (like burning a flag, or marching or wearing a shirt with a symbol on it, etc). Therefore, I don't think the problem is that the judges made a determination which we find repulsive. I think the problem is that some filthy scumbags, like Phelps, are all too willing to use tragedy and the pain of a a family in mourning to stage their "protests."

 

[Father Time]

On the O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly and Dennis Miller stated they are picking up the $16K bill for the father and providing all the legal funds for the appeal!

Stand up guys! I hope O'Reilly and others attack this miserable judge unmercifully!

As much as I find the outcome to be absolutely counter-intuitive, dreadful, odious and revolting -- I have to say that "attacking" the judges at all is pretty shallow and misguided.

IF we believe in the principles enshrined under our Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech, then there is very likely to be (periodically) a case that puts our commitment to the test.

The fucking Nazis marched in Skokie, Illinois. That was clearly a free speech issue; and even though most of us find those bastards to be totally vile and debased, worthy of nothing but our contempt, the decision to "allow" them to march was (imho) the Constitutionally correct one.

Similarly, as much as most of us LOATH that fucking bastard Phelps, and as much as we might like to punch his fucking lights out for having the disgusting ability and willingness to "protest" at the funeral of a fallen Marine, in strictly Constitutional Law terms, isn't that also "speech?"

I hate Phelps, that fucking scumbag. If there's punishment in the afterlife, then he's gonna be spending a huge part of the balance of forever roasting in hell. But if we mean it when we say we cherish the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech, then even that foul prick does have the right to engage in free speech, doesn't he?

About the only possible (realistic) counter-argument I see against the Court's ruling would require some pretty careful, fine-tuned analysis of what constitutes "speech" versus what constitutes nothing but criminally or civilly actionable behavior. But that's not a new area in legal analysis and, so, we already know that "action" can also be deemed "speech" (like burning a flag, or marching or wearing a shirt with a symbol on it, etc). Therefore, I don't think the problem is that the judges made a determination which we find repulsive. I think the problem is that some filthy scumbags, like Phelps, are all too willing to use tragedy and the pain of a a family in mourning to stage their "protests."

I respect his right to free speech but I honestly believe protesting a funeral is harassment because they are specifically trying to cause emotional or mental damage to the targets, whilest they're at a private ceremony, by shrieking such disgusting vile. Don't get me wrong I would support their free speech right to publish say a book saying the same thing but to go out of your way to bother people in a private ceremony crosses a line.

 

[Liability]

On the O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly and Dennis Miller stated they are picking up the $16K bill for the father and providing all the legal funds for the appeal!

Stand up guys! I hope O'Reilly and others attack this miserable judge unmercifully!

As much as I find the outcome to be absolutely counter-intuitive, dreadful, odious and revolting -- I have to say that "attacking" the judges at all is pretty shallow and misguided.

IF we believe in the principles enshrined under our Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Speech, then there is very likely to be (periodically) a case that puts our commitment to the test.

The fucking Nazis marched in Skokie, Illinois. That was clearly a free speech issue; and even though most of us find those bastards to be totally vile and debased, worthy of nothing but our contempt, the decision to "allow" them to march was (imho) the Constitutionally correct one.

Similarly, as much as most of us LOATH that fucking bastard Phelps, and as much as we might like to punch his fucking lights out for having the disgusting ability and willingness to "protest" at the funeral of a fallen Marine, in strictly Constitutional Law terms, isn't that also "speech?"

I hate Phelps, that fucking scumbag. If there's punishment in the afterlife, then he's gonna be spending a huge part of the balance of forever roasting in hell. But if we mean it when we say we cherish the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech, then even that foul prick does have the right to engage in free speech, doesn't he?

About the only possible (realistic) counter-argument I see against the Court's ruling would require some pretty careful, fine-tuned analysis of what constitutes "speech" versus what constitutes nothing but criminally or civilly actionable behavior. But that's not a new area in legal analysis and, so, we already know that "action" can also be deemed "speech" (like burning a flag, or marching or wearing a shirt with a symbol on it, etc). Therefore, I don't think the problem is that the judges made a determination which we find repulsive. I think the problem is that some filthy scumbags, like Phelps, are all too willing to use tragedy and the pain of a a family in mourning to stage their "protests."

I respect his right to free speech but I honestly believe protesting a funeral is harassment because they are specifically trying to cause emotional or mental damage to the targets whilest they're at a private ceremony by shrieking such disgusting vile. Don't get me wrong I would support their free speech right to publish say a book saying the same thing but to go out of your way to bother people in a private ceremony crosses a line.

And I respect your belief. On the other hand, I can also see why judges rule that the fine distinction between pure speech and "conduct" is not one they are willing to make.

As a matter of personal (visceral) reaction, I think what Phelps and his crew of scumbags does is so vile and so reprehensible it's VERY much akin to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. The law (at least used to) grasp that some "words" WERE "fighting woprds" and thus not necessarily protected speech. It might very well be that we need to take a step back to those kinds of legal rulings.

I could get behind a rule that says that some alleged speech isn't really speech at all as much as it is intentional provocation.

If I write an article in a newspaper claiming that some private individual (not a public figure) has committed some indecent obscene act, I can get sued for libel as can the paper that publishes it, especially if I damage the otherwise deservedly good reputation of the poor guy I have defamed. Well, that's "speech," too. Right? Yet it CAN be actionable.

Maybe we do need to re-think whether behavior like that scumbag Phelps engages (the indefensible conduct of protesting a funeral) in is worthy of "protection" under the banner of freedom of speech.

But it's a dangerous area we are entering into once we start thinking along such lines. So, let's not kid ourselves to the contrary. And since we should properly admit that we are entering dangerous waters if we do that, maybe we can agree that the ruling by these judges isn't necessarily the horrible thing some imagine it to be.

 

[Liability]

I am not above criticizing a judge (or judges) for their rulings if I believe they have done something stupid or without valid basis.

On the other hand, even in a case where we don't LIKE the result, sometimes we need to be fair enough to acknowledge that the judges may not like where they are required to go (or where they BELIEVE the law compels them to go).

Consider how unhappy the judges must have been to render this ruling in favor of that scumbag Phelps. Here is a small snippet from the appellate court decision:

* * * * Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are constrained
to conclude that the Defendants’ signs and Epic are
constitutionally protected. To paraphrase our distinguished
colleague Judge Hall, judges defending the Constitution
"must sometimes share [their] foxhole with scoundrels of
every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply. It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in
controversies involving not very nice people." Kopf v. Skyrm,
[page 32]
993 F.2d 374, 380 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Nonetheless, the various states and localities, as well as
grieving families, may yet protect the sanctity of solemn occasions
such as funerals and memorials. Indeed, governmental
bodies are entitled to place reasonable and content-neutral
time, place, and manner restrictions on activities that are otherwise
constitutionally protected. Some "breathing space" for
contentious speech is essential, however, under the Free
Speech Clause. See New York Times, 376 U.S. at 272. As the
Court long ago emphasized:

To persuade others to his own point of view, the
pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration,
to vilification of men who have been, or are,
prominent in church or state, and even to false statement.
But the people of this nation have ordained in
the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of
excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long
view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct
on the part of citizens of a democracy.​

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 (1940). Because
the judgment attaches tort liability to constitutionally protected
speech, the district court erred in declining to award
judgment as a matter of law.
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, the judgment of the district court
is reversed * * * *

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/ci...09-24-Snyder v. Phelps Appellate Decision.pdf

All emphases in the above quoted excerpt are mine.

Does anybody think these judges WANTED to rule in favor of that lowlife miserable piece of shit, Phelps? Or, can't we agree that the judges felt obligated to grant judgment to Phelps and his filthy Church for CONSTITUTIONAL reasons?

That's all I'm saying. And even the ruling itself notes that such protests CAN be subjected to Constitutionally valid restrictions if the various legislatures are so inclined. I would hope all legislatures would make that choice, therefore.

 

[Father Time]

I remember the judges who overturned the flag burning law said something similar.

Although IMO the WBC switching to flag burnings (and just flag burnings) would be an upgrade.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I respect his right to free speech but I honestly believe protesting a funeral is harassment because they are specifically trying to cause emotional or mental damage to the targets whilest they're at a private ceremony by shrieking such disgusting vile. Don't get me wrong I would support their free speech right to publish say a book saying the same thing but to go out of your way to bother people in a private ceremony crosses a line.

Again, as long as the "protesting" is done at a distance as to not interfere with the funeral I see nothing wrong with them protesting. Well nothing wrong other than the fact that they are fucking retarded and their rhetoric is just plain vile. However, that doesnt disqualify them from being able to protest.