Why we do not need to restrict free speech to shut down WBC

[goldcatt]

The attorney for the church is the daughter of the nut case pastor.
The public v. private nature is THE argument for the church as the ruling in the Jerry Fallwell v. Hustler case is what they are hanging their entire argument on.
How they can claim the father of the soldier is a public figure is absurd. That is the entire case. The father IS NOT a public figure and is a private citizen.
The jury verdict must stand.

Actually what they're arguing if you read it closely is that Hustler should be expanded to private individuals, or conversely that the definition of public figure should be changed to include anyone who has personal information available publicly - in this case, through the deceased's obituary. Why they dropped the sufficient evidence objection and it had to be raised on amicus is beyond me, that's the key to the entire case. The WBC people were never suspected to be all that bright though.

ETA: On the other hand, the Snyders are arguing they were a captive audience at the funeral, when they testified they never even knew the WBC was there during the funeral. Both sides could have used better attorneys on this, the arguments dance around the real issues and ignore the facts - on both sides.

Of course they are because without the "expansion" they have no argument. However, they argued yesterday that TV interviews the father gave "expanded" the father to a piblic figure from a private one de facto.

Meh, they're idiots. But Petitioner's attorneys aren't much better. They're going to have one hell of a time trying to coax the issues out of the WBC reject and the facts out of the Petitioners.

 

[Liability]

A lot of people think there are only tow ways to deal with something. The right way to deal with the idiots that make up the WBC is to allow them to say whatever they want, secure in the knowledge that we, as a country, are not represented by them.

The wrong way is to pass laws in an attempt to limit "hate" speech, or hope that the Supreme Court finds some twisted logic to justify shutting them down.

The American way is to step out and who them, and the people they are protesting, how we feel about them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6gneH1DRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10T_Ih222E

We don't need the government to protect us from hate.

WBC is getting sued by a grieving parent. What the fuck law or act (of Congress or of a state) is even implicated?

Freedom of speech has never been understood to restrict the ability of people to sue other people for things like libel and slander. It cannot be properly understood in that way, in fact. Only the so-called "1st Amendment 'absolutists'" think in such ridiculous terms.

So if a citizen can sue another citizen over something said or written, then why can't a citizen sue another citizen for the intentional infliction of emotional injury caused by the outrageous CONDUCT of the party getting sued? If the plaintiff succeeds in the lawsuit at the SCOTUS level, there will have been ZERO violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The fucking scumbags of WBC will merely have had their depraved, disgusting and outrageous behavior properly called into account. They remain perfectly free to express their idiotic beliefs either way.

Fuck them. God hates them. I know. HE told me so.

 

[goldcatt]

Here's the transcript of yesterday's oral arguments, courtesy of Petitioner's hometown newspaper so take the commentary with that in mind:

Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court annotated transcript - The York Daily Record

 

[saveliberty]

I like how free speech rights all point to protecting objectionable speech. Free Speech was meant to protect a political minority from the majority in getting their message heard. It was not meant to protect pornographers, hate speech against a minority or politically motivated attacks on a small group of private citizens, who are not even part of that discussion.

Some speech is simply unnecessary to the ends of a political debate. I expect that the ruling will fall on the time tested principle of liberty up to the point it displaces the liberty of another.

 

[editec]

Calling for people to commit crimes against a group is hate speech.

Basically it's a kind of incitment to riot and it ought to be illegal.

 

[Madeline]

Calling for people to commit crimes against a group is hate speech.

Basically it's a kind of incitment to riot and it ought to be illegal.

There has to be a present risk of harm, editec. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on first amendment rights are constitutional, but only if they pass muster on this point.

771 F.2d 920

 

[Madeline]

I like how free speech rights all point to protecting objectionable speech. Free Speech was meant to protect a political minority from the majority in getting their message heard. It was not meant to protect pornographers, hate speech against a minority or politically motivated attacks on a small group of private citizens, who are not even part of that discussion.

Some speech is simply unnecessary to the ends of a political debate. I expect that the ruling will fall on the time tested principle of liberty up to the point it displaces the liberty of another.

Pornography has value to many/most people, and the line between art and obscenity is impossible to draw. "Hate speech" is a form of political speech...just a revolting one. We do not restrict speech merely because it is revolting.

It is very very very hard to muzzle an American. Would you have that change, saveliberty?

I want the WBC to disappear as well, but this seems to me the wrong way to go about it. I doubt their finances can withstand scrutiny...why not instead attack their tax free status?

 

[goldcatt]

Calling for people to commit crimes against a group is hate speech.

Basically it's a kind of incitment to riot and it ought to be illegal.

There has to be a present risk of harm, editec. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on first amendment rights are constitutional, but only if they pass muster on this point.

771 F.2d 920

And those already existing time place and manner restrictions were utilized at Matthew Snyder's funeral, with the result that the family never even knew WBC was there. So why do we need broad new restrictions on speech, or liability expanded for speech, when existing restrictions already work?

 

[saveliberty]

Calling for people to commit crimes against a group is hate speech.

Basically it's a kind of incitment to riot and it ought to be illegal.

There has to be a present risk of harm, editec. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on first amendment rights are constitutional, but only if they pass muster on this point.

771 F.2d 920

And those already existing time place and manner restrictions were utilized at Matthew Snyder's funeral, with the result that the family never even knew WBC was there. So why do we need broad new restrictions on speech, or liability expanded for speech, when existing restrictions already work?

Apparently the restrictions did not work as harm was done. It was proven in a lower court by a judge. Granted that was overruled in a higher court, that is how we got here. I highly doubt the Supreme Court took this case, only to agree with the appeals decision. A narrow ruling with a ban on political speech focused on a private individual without a political opinion on the speech in question does no harm. In this case, the soldier was the private individual and could not speak in his own defense. I think something about private events that have no reasonable expectation of being completely out of the public might be part of it.

 

[Ravi]

A lot of people think there are only tow ways to deal with something. The right way to deal with the idiots that make up the WBC is to allow them to say whatever they want, secure in the knowledge that we, as a country, are not represented by them.

The wrong way is to pass laws in an attempt to limit "hate" speech, or hope that the Supreme Court finds some twisted logic to justify shutting them down.

The American way is to step out and who them, and the people they are protesting, how we feel about them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6gneH1DRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10T_Ih222E

We don't need the government to protect us from hate.

WBC is getting sued by a grieving parent. What the fuck law or act (of Congress or of a state) is even implicated?

Freedom of speech has never been understood to restrict the ability of people to sue other people for things like libel and slander. It cannot be properly understood in that way, in fact. Only the so-called "1st Amendment 'absolutists'" think in such ridiculous terms.

So if a citizen can sue another citizen over something said or written, then why can't a citizen sue another citizen for the intentional infliction of emotional injury caused by the outrageous CONDUCT of the party getting sued? If the plaintiff succeeds in the lawsuit at the SCOTUS level, there will have been ZERO violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The fucking scumbags of WBC will merely have had their depraved, disgusting and outrageous behavior properly called into account. They remain perfectly free to express their idiotic beliefs either way.

Fuck them. God hates them. I know. HE told me so.

I have to admit, after listening to the opposing arguments on NPR last evening, that I am starting to agree with your point of view in this instance.

 

[goldcatt]

There has to be a present risk of harm, editec. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on first amendment rights are constitutional, but only if they pass muster on this point.

771 F.2d 920

And those already existing time place and manner restrictions were utilized at Matthew Snyder's funeral, with the result that the family never even knew WBC was there. So why do we need broad new restrictions on speech, or liability expanded for speech, when existing restrictions already work?

Apparently the restrictions did not work as harm was done. It was proven in a lower court by a judge. Granted that was overruled in a higher court, that is how we got here. I highly doubt the Supreme Court took this case, only to agree with the appeals decision. A narrow ruling with a ban on political speech focused on a private individual without a political opinion on the speech in question does no harm. In this case, the soldier was the private individual and could not speak in his own defense. I think something about private events that have no reasonable expectation of being completely out of the public might be part of it.

I'm not so sure. To my knowledge IIED hasn't been expanded anywhere to cover knowing and voluntary viewing of offensive material in the media or online, but with all the tort cases out there it's hard to say for sure. I'm uncomfortable with it though, for a lot of reasons.

The example of defacing a memorial site that Gadawg brought up is one thing, that's essentially vandalism of another person's property and the parents would be viewing it unawares. But what about when the "victim" voluntarily seeks out a site knowing in advance the content will be offensive and then claims millions because he was in fact offended?

 

[goldcatt]

There has to be a present risk of harm, editec. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on first amendment rights are constitutional, but only if they pass muster on this point.

771 F.2d 920

And those already existing time place and manner restrictions were utilized at Matthew Snyder's funeral, with the result that the family never even knew WBC was there. So why do we need broad new restrictions on speech, or liability expanded for speech, when existing restrictions already work?

Apparently the restrictions did not work as harm was done. It was proven in a lower court by a judge. Granted that was overruled in a higher court, that is how we got here. I highly doubt the Supreme Court took this case, only to agree with the appeals decision. A narrow ruling with a ban on political speech focused on a private individual without a political opinion on the speech in question does no harm. In this case, the soldier was the private individual and could not speak in his own defense. I think something about private events that have no reasonable expectation of being completely out of the public might be part of it.

There are a couple other problems with this argument. The first is the sufficiency of the evidence, which was considered so vital on appeal it caused a split in the bench not over whether the evidence was sufficient but whether they could rule it was insufficient on an amicus waiver (read the 4th Circuit ruling). The second being that the question of whether the speech was protected, a question of law, was given to the jury - which is only to determine questions of fact. The judge is to hear arguments and determine all questions of law. That alone pretty much guarantees this will be remanded for either summary judgment or retrial - under what instructions is what remains to be seen.

 

[saveliberty]

The court has both liberal and conservative points to make. The opinions will be interesting. The church is going to lose.

 

[midcan5]

Tough case, but privacy and harassment enter the picture too.

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

.

 

[goldcatt]

The court has both liberal and conservative points to make. The opinions will be interesting. The church is going to lose.

Or we may see Snyder v. Phelps II coming soon to a court near you....stay tuned.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually if you read the decision the Snyders were awarded $2.9 million (reduced to $2.1million) not because of the newspaper coverage, but because Mr. Snyder sought out and watched the WBC's "documentary" video of the protest on their website. True story.

The 4th Circuit used Milkovich as their primary case with Cantwell quoted as the secondary.

But what they actually overturned the District on was sending the question of law as to whether the speech should have First Amendment protection to the jury rather than deciding it from the bench - which is what they did by focusing on type of speech rather than nature of speaker and audience and concluded it was protected. The only problem may be that they used New York Times in their tort analysis after saying public v. private didn't matter.

The concurrence at the Circuit level also raises the (valid, IMO) point of lack of sufficient evidence to prove harm but on an amicus waiver, over which there seems to be some confusion. That's an interesting side issue that may be addressed.

Cool stuff. Here's the 4th Circuit decision if you haven't read it. It's a pdf but you don't need PACER access:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

Excellent.
The court must take into consideration the technology of the times in their ruling. I just had a case where a youth committed suicide and the bullies posted more negative crap about this kid on the web site dedicated to a memorial for the youth. The parents of the youth would go on the web site to see all the kind remarks about their child and then see the negative crap also.

Usually free speech cases like these take a long time to rule on and do not have split decisions.

The problem I have here is that the WBC's site isn't a memorial site for Matthew Snyder, it is their own property to disseminate their point of view. By the time Mr. Snyder did his google search he knew from media sources WBC had been present, but he chose voluntarily to view it anyway.

IIED is a very narrow and hard to win tort for a reason, you don't want to open the door to multi million dollar judgments for anyone who says something that hurts a person's feelings, whether directed at them or not, whether made in their presence or not, whether intent to harm that individual is real or whether it is a promotional piece for their movement and the intent to harm is simply imputed because the offended party went out of his way to find it.

If this were any group other than WBC, would you feel the same way? Think about that, because whatever ruling comes down will affect all religious, quasi-political and groups out there as far as whether they can picket, protest, or use any material on their website or in their publications naming groups or individuals or that could be considered offensive to named groups or individuals.

It's the voluntary and knowing nature of Mr. Snyder's exposure that bugs me. I just don't feel comfortable with expanding IIED that far, WBC assholes or no.

Well said but I trust the jury verdict. They are the voice and interpreters of this tort and did their duty. This is about a family and their grief first and religion, or lack of it as WBC clearly shows, plays no part in it for me.

 

[Gadawg73]

Calling for people to commit crimes against a group is hate speech.

Basically it's a kind of incitment to riot and it ought to be illegal.

There has to be a present risk of harm, editec. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on first amendment rights are constitutional, but only if they pass muster on this point.

771 F.2d 920

By statute as you indicated. Excellent.
Very good thread here sports fans.

 

[goldcatt]

Excellent.
The court must take into consideration the technology of the times in their ruling. I just had a case where a youth committed suicide and the bullies posted more negative crap about this kid on the web site dedicated to a memorial for the youth. The parents of the youth would go on the web site to see all the kind remarks about their child and then see the negative crap also.

Usually free speech cases like these take a long time to rule on and do not have split decisions.

The problem I have here is that the WBC's site isn't a memorial site for Matthew Snyder, it is their own property to disseminate their point of view. By the time Mr. Snyder did his google search he knew from media sources WBC had been present, but he chose voluntarily to view it anyway.

IIED is a very narrow and hard to win tort for a reason, you don't want to open the door to multi million dollar judgments for anyone who says something that hurts a person's feelings, whether directed at them or not, whether made in their presence or not, whether intent to harm that individual is real or whether it is a promotional piece for their movement and the intent to harm is simply imputed because the offended party went out of his way to find it.

If this were any group other than WBC, would you feel the same way? Think about that, because whatever ruling comes down will affect all religious, quasi-political and groups out there as far as whether they can picket, protest, or use any material on their website or in their publications naming groups or individuals or that could be considered offensive to named groups or individuals.

It's the voluntary and knowing nature of Mr. Snyder's exposure that bugs me. I just don't feel comfortable with expanding IIED that far, WBC assholes or no.

Well said but I trust the jury verdict. They are the voice and interpreters of this tort and did their duty. This is about a family and their grief first and religion, or lack of it as WBC clearly shows, plays no part in it for me.

The only problem with trusting the jury on this one is that they were given a question of law to determine. It was left up to them to decide whether the First Amendment applied. No jury should be deciding questions of law, those are to be decided by the judge prior to giving the case to the jury to determine the questions of fact. So if the jury was in fact instructed incorrectly, chances are they will not come to the correct conclusion. The Jury Instruction given on this clearly put the question of First Amendment protection in their laps.

I still think for this reason alone it will be remanded for a new trial with instructions no matter what the outcome, unless WBC wins outright (probably not) in which case it will be remanded for summary judgment. There wasn't a jury verdict based on the proper findings from the proper source. Nor should the jury be interpreting the nature and scope of the tort - again, that is a question of law. The jury is to be instructed as to the law to be applied to the facts they determine, not the other way around. Determining the law and instructing the jury in that law is what the judge is for.

 

[Gadawg73]

The problem I have here is that the WBC's site isn't a memorial site for Matthew Snyder, it is their own property to disseminate their point of view. By the time Mr. Snyder did his google search he knew from media sources WBC had been present, but he chose voluntarily to view it anyway.

IIED is a very narrow and hard to win tort for a reason, you don't want to open the door to multi million dollar judgments for anyone who says something that hurts a person's feelings, whether directed at them or not, whether made in their presence or not, whether intent to harm that individual is real or whether it is a promotional piece for their movement and the intent to harm is simply imputed because the offended party went out of his way to find it.

If this were any group other than WBC, would you feel the same way? Think about that, because whatever ruling comes down will affect all religious, quasi-political and groups out there as far as whether they can picket, protest, or use any material on their website or in their publications naming groups or individuals or that could be considered offensive to named groups or individuals.

It's the voluntary and knowing nature of Mr. Snyder's exposure that bugs me. I just don't feel comfortable with expanding IIED that far, WBC assholes or no.

Well said but I trust the jury verdict. They are the voice and interpreters of this tort and did their duty. This is about a family and their grief first and religion, or lack of it as WBC clearly shows, plays no part in it for me.

The only problem with trusting the jury on this one is that they were given a question of law to determine. It was left up to them to decide whether the First Amendment applied. No jury should be deciding questions of law, those are to be decided by the judge prior to giving the case to the jury to determine the questions of fact. So if the jury was in fact instructed incorrectly, chances are they will not come to the correct conclusion. The Jury Instruction given on this clearly put the question of First Amendment protection in their laps.

I still think for this reason alone it will be remanded for a new trial with instructions no matter what the outcome, unless WBC wins outright (probably not) in which case it will be remanded for summary judgment. There wasn't a jury verdict based on the proper findings from the proper source. Nor should the jury be interpreting the nature and scope of the tort - again, that is a question of law. The jury is to be instructed as to the law to be applied to the facts they determine, not the other way around. Determining the law and instructing the jury in that law is what the judge is for.

Respectfully, I have investigated over 1000 cases for trial in 30 years. The jury is charged on the law and in this case material fact was the free speech 1st Amendment protection. That is a jury decision as to the facts:
State v. Howell "The jury must beleft perfectly free in reaching a conclusion upon the testimony introduced, untrammeled by any intimidation from the judge as to whether a certain fact at issue has been proved or not"
Concerning the 1st Amendment Constitutional argument and jury charges by a judge:
Norris v. Clinkscales "A judge violates this provision when he expresses in his charge his own opinion upon the force and effect of the testimony, or any part of it, or intimates his views of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence, in whole or in part.
Under the Constitution the force and effect, or weight and sufficiency, of testimony and facts must be left exclusively to the jury, uninfluenced by any expression or intimation of opinion on The First Amendment or any other Amendment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I agree with you, Quantum Windbag, and so do most legal commentators I have read. There doesn't seem to be any novel con law question presented on these facts and it's a puzzler why the SCOTUS took the cert.

Have you read the 4th Circuit opinion and the transcript of yesterday's questioning? It seems the Court is looking at whether the 4th Circuit was correct in disregarding the public v. private nature of the individuals and event and focusing on the type of speech instead. There's also a side issue of amicus waivers. Interesting stuff if you haven't looked at it.

The attorney for the church is the daughter of the nut case pastor.
The public v. private nature is THE argument for the church as the ruling in the Jerry Fallwell v. Hustler case is what they are hanging their entire argument on.
How they can claim the father of the soldier is a public figure is absurd. That is the entire case. The father IS NOT a public figure and is a private citizen.
The jury verdict must stand.

The whole family are lawyers.