saveliberty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,756
- 10,842
- 2,030
Think about what you're saying here. I mean really think about it. Let's say somebody writes a letter to the editor giving a negative opinion about you or a member of your family, you're told about it and you read it, under your analysis you can sue them for intentional infliction of emotional distress for expressing an opinion. Or if Fred Phelps googled and found many of the posts on here slamming him by name and his organization in general (some of them mine), he could sue this site's owners and the individuals making those posts. Look at all the anti-Muslim posts on here, some of them naming individual imams and others and making clearly hyperbolic and derogatory remarks. If you have your way, those individuals could sue. Because of course First Amendment restrictions must be content neutral - meaning if we can sue them, they can also sue us.
$2.9 million. That was the jury award here. How does that sound to you?
My position on WBC as a group has always been clear, perhaps you haven't been around long enough to have seen those discussions. I'm not rolling in the dirt with you on your insinuations now, frankly it's beneath me. But what's at stake here is much, much bigger than the assholes at WBC, and the decision rendered will affect all of us, not just Phelps and Co. If you can't see that I'm afraid your emotions are getting the better of you.
Anyone can sue anyone already. Your argument is weak.
Sure they can, but they can't win - and there can be stiff penalties for abusing the process. The Courts are also not the political process where the players matter as much as or more than law or process, you had that part backwards too. When you get to this level the players matter not, it's the issues and principles that are on the table because of the role of precedent in a common law legal system. I wish more people understood that basic concept.
Sure the other side can win, it happens frequently, many times in out of court settelements. Your courts comment may be true at the Supreme Court level, but I know judges, people matter. Issues and principles do matter, but are filtered through the political thought of the Justice.