Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

We're not talking about your local court here where Judge X is an old family friend of Neighbor Y who happens to be before him on a dispute over a tree. Nor are we talking about a voluntary settlement where the parties agree to an amount rather than spend the time and money on the process.

This IS the Supreme Court. This IS a First Amendment speech case, one which also implicates assembly, religion and press. This is serious business concerning personal liberties that affects us all, and yes - the principles and issues involved here matter more than the parties.

Tell me, why are you so willing to allow scum like the WBC to take away your right to express an opinion without fear of reprisal?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

We're not talking about your local court here where Judge X is an old family friend of Neighbor Y who happens to be before him on a dispute over a tree. Nor are we talking about a voluntary settlement where the parties agree to an amount rather than spend the time and money on the process.

This IS the Supreme Court. This IS a First Amendment speech case, one which also implicates assembly, religion and press. This is serious business concerning personal liberties that affects us all, and yes - the principles and issues involved here matter more than the parties.

Tell me, why are you so willing to allow scum like the WBC to take away your right to express an opinion without fear of reprisal?

Because I speak my mind regardless. They will not take away any of my rights as I would or do express them. You seem to imply that the Supreme Court has no bias within its ranks. The pull and tug between liberal and conversative INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is constant.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

We're not talking about your local court here where Judge X is an old family friend of Neighbor Y who happens to be before him on a dispute over a tree. Nor are we talking about a voluntary settlement where the parties agree to an amount rather than spend the time and money on the process.

This IS the Supreme Court. This IS a First Amendment speech case, one which also implicates assembly, religion and press. This is serious business concerning personal liberties that affects us all, and yes - the principles and issues involved here matter more than the parties.

Tell me, why are you so willing to allow scum like the WBC to take away your right to express an opinion without fear of reprisal?

Because I speak my mind regardless. They will not take away any of my rights as I would or do express them. You seem to imply that the Supreme Court has no bias within its ranks. The pull and tug between liberal and conversative INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is constant.

So a potential multi-million dollar price tag for speaking your opinion is nothing to you? I know who I'm hitting up the next time I need a loan.

Yes, there are different legitimate constitutional interpretation methods used on the Court, as there are among the more informed members of this forum or anywhere else people debate constitutional issues. I fail to see the point you're making here. Do you feel deciding everything from a single point of view would make for a more legitimate decision?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

have you ever listened to yourself speak? please, don't try it at home alone. make sure a team of psychiatrists with a group of strong orderlies is standing by when you do.

at ease

 

[saveliberty]

[]

So a potential multi-million dollar price tag for speaking your opinion is nothing to you? I know who I'm hitting up the next time I need a loan.

Yes, there are different legitimate constitutional interpretation methods used on the Court, as there are among the more informed members of this forum or anywhere else people debate constitutional issues. I fail to see the point you're making here. Do you feel deciding everything from a single point of view would make for a more legitimate decision?

After the first couple $100,000 it should prove quite entertaining to see them collect.

No, that is not what I said or meant. If everything at the Supreme Court was simply an application of program rules, we could just run it through a computer. Much is made of replacing Justices. Why is that? Could it be a Justice's bias and views are a valued commodity? A politically advantageous postition?

 

[goldcatt]

[]

So a potential multi-million dollar price tag for speaking your opinion is nothing to you? I know who I'm hitting up the next time I need a loan.

Yes, there are different legitimate constitutional interpretation methods used on the Court, as there are among the more informed members of this forum or anywhere else people debate constitutional issues. I fail to see the point you're making here. Do you feel deciding everything from a single point of view would make for a more legitimate decision?

After the first couple $100,000 it should prove quite entertaining to see them collect.

No, that is not what I said or meant. If everything at the Supreme Court was simply an application of program rules, we could just run it through a computer. Much is made of replacing Justices. Why is that? Could it be a Justice's bias and views are a valued commodity? A politically advantageous postition?

Are you talking about political party, bias, or favored interpretation method? They're not the same thing. Bias in a judicial sense is unethical. Political lean and interpretation method often coincide - but not always. And beyond taking credit for sticking it to the WBC and damn the consequences, what would be the immediate political advantages to one "side" or the other for a decision either way?

 

[saveliberty]

[]

So a potential multi-million dollar price tag for speaking your opinion is nothing to you? I know who I'm hitting up the next time I need a loan.

Yes, there are different legitimate constitutional interpretation methods used on the Court, as there are among the more informed members of this forum or anywhere else people debate constitutional issues. I fail to see the point you're making here. Do you feel deciding everything from a single point of view would make for a more legitimate decision?

After the first couple $100,000 it should prove quite entertaining to see them collect.

No, that is not what I said or meant. If everything at the Supreme Court was simply an application of program rules, we could just run it through a computer. Much is made of replacing Justices. Why is that? Could it be a Justice's bias and views are a valued commodity? A politically advantageous postition?

Are you talking about political party, bias, or favored interpretation method? They're not the same thing. Bias in a judicial sense is unethical. Political lean and interpretation method often coincide - but not always. And beyond taking credit for sticking it to the WBC and damn the consequences, what would be the immediate political advantages to one "side" or the other for a decision either way?

Depending what and how broad the free speech change is, it could impact the political world. In fact, that is your basis of concern here, is it not? Sotamayor tried to argue the bias method in her hearing as a result of the wise Latina woman comment. So much for ethics.

 

[goldcatt]

After the first couple $100,000 it should prove quite entertaining to see them collect.

No, that is not what I said or meant. If everything at the Supreme Court was simply an application of program rules, we could just run it through a computer. Much is made of replacing Justices. Why is that? Could it be a Justice's bias and views are a valued commodity? A politically advantageous postition?

Are you talking about political party, bias, or favored interpretation method? They're not the same thing. Bias in a judicial sense is unethical. Political lean and interpretation method often coincide - but not always. And beyond taking credit for sticking it to the WBC and damn the consequences, what would be the immediate political advantages to one "side" or the other for a decision either way?

Depending what and how broad the free speech change is, it could impact the political world. In fact, that is your basis of concern here, is it not? Sotamayor tried to argue the bias method in her hearing as a result of the wise Latina woman comment. So much for ethics.

I'm not getting into the Sotomayor/bias/ethics argument on this thread, there's enough already to argue about.

My concern? My concern is for individual rights and potential liability for speech that is yes, usually but not always political in nature. I'm hesitant to go down the road of imputing specific intent to harm on an individual for merely expressing a negative opinion in the form of hyperbole or even outrageous insult so long as it's obviously opinion, on a website based on facts that are publicly available. If broad enough that could get half or more of USMB alone sued.