Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice

[goldcatt]

free speech is what it is in this context, even to protect the obnoxious and stupid. This will be a 9-0 decision I suspect.

I think so. Especially considering the core of the case wasn't these assholes getting in the family's face, but Mr. Snyder seeking out and watching the video of it on WBC's website.

Have you read the 4th Circuit decision being appealed? It's enlightening.

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

If certain of the idiots here read that, they should be ashamed of what they have posted.
Many people here do NOT support, in practice, the Bill of Rights. What they support is the idea.

In all fairness, most of the people posting stuff completely unrelated to the case are reading the media stories with Mr. Snyder's quote saying his right to bury his son was taken from him....but there's no context attached, Of course. That would require the pinheads at the news bureaus to actually read the case and comprehend it, and maybe even devote more than 10 seconds or two column inches of coverage to explaining it. Can't have that.

So click on the link and read the decision, people. You might be surprised at how badly the talking heads have this one wrong and what the issues and facts really are.

 

[Dante]

I think so. Especially considering the core of the case wasn't these assholes getting in the family's face, but Mr. Snyder seeking out and watching the video of it on WBC's website.

Have you read the 4th Circuit decision being appealed? It's enlightening.

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

If certain of the idiots here read that, they should be ashamed of what they have posted.
Many people here do NOT support, in practice, the Bill of Rights. What they support is the idea.

In all fairness, most of the people posting stuff completely unrelated to the case are reading the media stories with Mr. Snyder's quote saying his right to bury his son was taken from him....but there's no context attached, Of course. That would require the pinheads at the news bureaus to actually read the case and comprehend it, and maybe even devote more than 10 seconds or two column inches of coverage to explaining it. Can't have that.

So click on the link and read the decision, people. You might be surprised at how badly the talking heads have this one wrong and what the issues and facts really are.

In all fairness to the talking heads, they are just that -- talking heads. Use them for links to the info.

 

[goldcatt]

If certain of the idiots here read that, they should be ashamed of what they have posted.
Many people here do NOT support, in practice, the Bill of Rights. What they support is the idea.

In all fairness, most of the people posting stuff completely unrelated to the case are reading the media stories with Mr. Snyder's quote saying his right to bury his son was taken from him....but there's no context attached, Of course. That would require the pinheads at the news bureaus to actually read the case and comprehend it, and maybe even devote more than 10 seconds or two column inches of coverage to explaining it. Can't have that.

So click on the link and read the decision, people. You might be surprised at how badly the talking heads have this one wrong and what the issues and facts really are.

In all fairness to the talking heads, they are just that -- talking heads. Use them for links to the info.

Good point. Primary sources matter.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think so. Especially considering the core of the case wasn't these assholes getting in the family's face, but Mr. Snyder seeking out and watching the video of it on WBC's website.

Have you read the 4th Circuit decision being appealed? It's enlightening.

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

If certain of the idiots here read that, they should be ashamed of what they have posted.
Many people here do NOT support, in practice, the Bill of Rights. What they support is the idea.

In all fairness, most of the people posting stuff completely unrelated to the case are reading the media stories with Mr. Snyder's quote saying his right to bury his son was taken from him....but there's no context attached, Of course. That would require the pinheads at the news bureaus to actually read the case and comprehend it, and maybe even devote more than 10 seconds or two column inches of coverage to explaining it. Can't have that.

So click on the link and read the decision, people. You might be surprised at how badly the talking heads have this one wrong and what the issues and facts really are.

For the slow, The COURT chose this case. If it were cut and dried as some of you keep insisting the case would have been rejected. Something about the case appealed to what ever Judges agreed to hear it. Simple concept, if the case law is so firm and decided the Supreme Court would have let stand the 4th's ruling.

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds like a hate crime against soldiers. Somewhat aid and comfort to the enemy as well.

 

[goldcatt]

If certain of the idiots here read that, they should be ashamed of what they have posted.
Many people here do NOT support, in practice, the Bill of Rights. What they support is the idea.

In all fairness, most of the people posting stuff completely unrelated to the case are reading the media stories with Mr. Snyder's quote saying his right to bury his son was taken from him....but there's no context attached, Of course. That would require the pinheads at the news bureaus to actually read the case and comprehend it, and maybe even devote more than 10 seconds or two column inches of coverage to explaining it. Can't have that.

So click on the link and read the decision, people. You might be surprised at how badly the talking heads have this one wrong and what the issues and facts really are.

For the slow, The COURT chose this case. If it were cut and dried as some of you keep insisting the case would have been rejected. Something about the case appealed to what ever Judges agreed to hear it. Simple concept, if the case law is so firm and decided the Supreme Court would have let stand the 4th's ruling.

Not necessarily, RGS. The Justices decide to hear cases for their own reasons, sometimes to clear up circuit splitting - sometimes to correct a Circuit that's out of line - sometimes to affirm the Circuit holding and fine tune the analysis into what they think the rule should be. The amicus waiver issue going on here is interesting too...although probably not something the Court will focus on. But then again, you just never know.

 

[saveliberty]

Opening comments from the Justices seem to indicate a tough road for the Church.

Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether the online diatribe should be considered separately from the funeral protest, while Justice Samuel Alito suggested that it provided the context to understand the picketing.

Justice Stephen Breyer called the Westboro statements "very obnoxious," and raised concerns about their being broadcast over television and on the Internet. "What should the rules be there?" he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about the basis for Snyder's belief that public speech directed at a private person should be treated differently than such speech directed at a public figure, and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether states could remedy the situation by banning funeral protests.

Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Summers if he knew of any similar cases where damages were awarded, but Summers did not. And Chief Justice John Roberts tried to push Phelps beyond the "facts of the case" to discuss the "broader" issues.

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said "And the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this bereaved family?"


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-snyder-arguments-20101006,0,5927085.story

 

[goldcatt]

Opening comments from the Justices seem to indicate a tough road for the Church.

I'm still looking over transcripts. I can't believe the Petitioner is arguing Hustler v. Falwell should apply to private individuals. That's just mind-blowing.

AND that funeral attendees are a captive audience, even though the attendees had no contact with the WBC assholes. I can't see this ending well.....

 

[saveliberty]

Particularly when one party had no interest in expressing an opinion. It is using a private party for public gain and limiting their rights. Five Justices already appear to have major issues with the Church.

 

[goldcatt]

Hell, I have major issues with the so-called Church. But destroying the distinction between public and private isn't necessary or advisable here. Nor does the Petitioner's argument fit the facts of the case.

 

[saveliberty]

I think the reason the case is being heard is the Justices want to write opinions on it. Some will argue reduced free speech rights can be Constitutional. Others want to reduce freedom of religion or define it more narrowly. There is the possibility of a good decision here with really bad opinions.

 

[Dante]

Below is question posed by somebody who I take it thinks they support freedom and liberty:

"When has one of our most cherished and guarded freedoms gone too far?" - Snyder v Phelps SCOTUS - The Exchange

---

My question would be: "Are cherished and guarded freedoms absolute and if not, why?

Its going to be a gut wrenching decision for the Supreme Court. As despicable the message from Fred Phelps is, our tradition is that he has a right to say it.

However, the court has to provide local law enforcement the tools to force protestors to keep a respectful distance

 

[George Costanza]

Brace yourselves - I'm siding with the family on this one. Here's why. I don't view it as a question of whether or not the protesters were breaking any law or acting in a criminal manner. I think it is a straight tort question, i.e., civil law, as opposed to criminal.

If what the protesters did inflicted emotional distress upon the family members, if it was reasonably foreseeable that this would happen and significant damages occurred because of what the protesters actions, I think the verdict should stand. This does not take into account the amount of the verdict, which may or may not be appropriate - but that's an entirely different issue.

I think the family wins here.

 

[Dante]

Brace yourselves - I'm siding with the family on this one. Here's why. I don't view it as a question of whether or not the protesters were breaking any law or acting in a criminal manner. I think it is a straight tort question, i.e., civil law, as opposed to criminal.

If what the protesters did inflicted emotional distress upon the family members, if it was reasonably foreseeable that this would happen and significant damages occurred because of what the protesters actions, I think the verdict should stand. This does not take into account the amount of the verdict, which may or may not be appropriate - but that's an entirely different issue.

I think the family wins here.

Competing rights. Freedom of Speech wins.

And like I've been posting, the protesters are not at the cemetery, they are on a public street during a funeral procession. The family has their right to privacy, at the cemetery.

 

[Father Time]

Brace yourselves - I'm siding with the family on this one. Here's why. I don't view it as a question of whether or not the protesters were breaking any law or acting in a criminal manner. I think it is a straight tort question, i.e., civil law, as opposed to criminal.

If what the protesters did inflicted emotional distress upon the family members, if it was reasonably foreseeable that this would happen and significant damages occurred because of what the protesters actions, I think the verdict should stand. This does not take into account the amount of the verdict, which may or may not be appropriate - but that's an entirely different issue.

I think the family wins here.

Wouldn't Hustler v. Falwell effect this case?

 

[goldcatt]

Brace yourselves - I'm siding with the family on this one. Here's why. I don't view it as a question of whether or not the protesters were breaking any law or acting in a criminal manner. I think it is a straight tort question, i.e., civil law, as opposed to criminal.

If what the protesters did inflicted emotional distress upon the family members, if it was reasonably foreseeable that this would happen and significant damages occurred because of what the protesters actions, I think the verdict should stand. This does not take into account the amount of the verdict, which may or may not be appropriate - but that's an entirely different issue.

I think the family wins here.

Wouldn't Hustler v. Falwell effect this case?

That's the argument, although it wasn't used at the Circuit level they did analyze the content using New York Times - similar principle.

Remember, the Snyders did not bring this as a survival action on behalf of Matthew Snyder, nor did they see or hear the protest first hand. Mr. Snyder testified he did a google search and watched everything on WBC's website. Information was used from Matthew Snyder's obituary in the WBC's coverage on their site in a hyperbolic manner. Defamation was lost on summary judgment at the District Court level and not appealed, so slander or libel are not issues here.

But the question remains should any group or individual, because this will apply to any group or individual of any point of view, be liable for IIED for hyperbolic and opinion-based speech naming an individual or identifiable group on its own website, where a person connected with that individual or group voluntarily sought out the information knowing it would be offensive?

Personally I'm uncomfortable with this. I'm uncomfortable with WBC's position that the Snyders became public figures due to the publishing of the obituary and the tv interviews Mr. Snyder did, but I'm also uncomfortable with IIED liability for clearly hyperbolic speech that utilizes information available in the public arena. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the second two prongs of Snyder's argument, that freedom of religion trumps all others' right to speak AND that the funeral attendees were a captive audience to a protest they never saw or heard.

Much as I hate WBC, this isn't the way to go about slapping them around.

 

[saveliberty]

That's the argument, although it wasn't used at the Circuit level they did analyze the content using New York Times - similar principle.

Remember, the Snyders did not bring this as a survival action on behalf of Matthew Snyder, nor did they see or hear the protest first hand. Mr. Snyder testified he did a google search and watched everything on WBC's website. Information was used from Matthew Snyder's obituary in the WBC's coverage on their site in a hyperbolic manner. Defamation was lost on summary judgment at the District Court level and not appealed, so slander or libel are not issues here.

But the question remains should any group or individual, because this will apply to any group or individual of any point of view, be liable for IIED for hyperbolic and opinion-based speech naming an individual or identifiable group on its own website, where a person connected with that individual or group voluntarily sought out the information knowing it would be offensive?

Personally I'm uncomfortable with this. I'm uncomfortable with WBC's position that the Snyders became public figures due to the publishing of the obituary and the tv interviews Mr. Snyder did, but I'm also uncomfortable with IIED liability for clearly hyperbolic speech that utilizes information available in the public arena. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the second two prongs of Snyder's argument, that freedom of religion trumps all others' right to speak AND that the funeral attendees were a captive audience to a protest they never saw or heard.

Much as I hate WBC, this isn't the way to go about slapping them around.

Goldcatt, I don't think the fact this family sought out the speech should have any bearing on the case. If you think some has spoken falsely or in a derogatory fashion about you or your family, seeking out what they said, so you can defend or prosecute them is a comletely understandable action. The speaker is responsible for the content of their speech. As I mentioned in another post here, certain private events have an element of being public. Wedding, funeral and birth announcements to mention a few. There is a basic understanding that those who do not know the parties will not be showing up.

I also think this suit is a freedom of religion case. WBC has imposed their religious beliefs onto the family. This crosses a Constitutional border as well. The funeral attendees all had feelings for the family's loss. They were used too by WBC, without consent. That makes them captives in my opinion. At first, I thought you were just interested in the particulars of the case, but now I find myself wondering why you are defending the church. I assume it is because you don't want our political process to play out. That is not how our country works.

 

[goldcatt]

That's the argument, although it wasn't used at the Circuit level they did analyze the content using New York Times - similar principle.

Remember, the Snyders did not bring this as a survival action on behalf of Matthew Snyder, nor did they see or hear the protest first hand. Mr. Snyder testified he did a google search and watched everything on WBC's website. Information was used from Matthew Snyder's obituary in the WBC's coverage on their site in a hyperbolic manner. Defamation was lost on summary judgment at the District Court level and not appealed, so slander or libel are not issues here.

But the question remains should any group or individual, because this will apply to any group or individual of any point of view, be liable for IIED for hyperbolic and opinion-based speech naming an individual or identifiable group on its own website, where a person connected with that individual or group voluntarily sought out the information knowing it would be offensive?

Personally I'm uncomfortable with this. I'm uncomfortable with WBC's position that the Snyders became public figures due to the publishing of the obituary and the tv interviews Mr. Snyder did, but I'm also uncomfortable with IIED liability for clearly hyperbolic speech that utilizes information available in the public arena. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the second two prongs of Snyder's argument, that freedom of religion trumps all others' right to speak AND that the funeral attendees were a captive audience to a protest they never saw or heard.

Much as I hate WBC, this isn't the way to go about slapping them around.

Goldcatt, I don't think the fact this family sought out the speech should have any bearing on the case. If you think some has spoken falsely or in a derogatory fashion about you or your family, seeking out what they said, so you can defend or prosecute them is a comletely understandable action. The speaker is responsible for the content of their speech. As I mentioned in another post here, certain private events have an element of being public. Wedding, funeral and birth announcements to mention a few. There is a basic understanding that those who do not know the parties will not be showing up.

I also think this suit is a freedom of religion case. WBC has imposed their religious beliefs onto the family. This crosses a Constitutional border as well. The funeral attendees all had feelings for the family's loss. They were used too by WBC, without consent. That makes them captives in my opinion. At first, I thought you were just interested in the particulars of the case, but now I find myself wondering why you are defending the church. I assume it is because you don't want our political process to play out. That is not how our country works.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

That's the argument, although it wasn't used at the Circuit level they did analyze the content using New York Times - similar principle.

Remember, the Snyders did not bring this as a survival action on behalf of Matthew Snyder, nor did they see or hear the protest first hand. Mr. Snyder testified he did a google search and watched everything on WBC's website. Information was used from Matthew Snyder's obituary in the WBC's coverage on their site in a hyperbolic manner. Defamation was lost on summary judgment at the District Court level and not appealed, so slander or libel are not issues here.

But the question remains should any group or individual, because this will apply to any group or individual of any point of view, be liable for IIED for hyperbolic and opinion-based speech naming an individual or identifiable group on its own website, where a person connected with that individual or group voluntarily sought out the information knowing it would be offensive?

Personally I'm uncomfortable with this. I'm uncomfortable with WBC's position that the Snyders became public figures due to the publishing of the obituary and the tv interviews Mr. Snyder did, but I'm also uncomfortable with IIED liability for clearly hyperbolic speech that utilizes information available in the public arena. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the second two prongs of Snyder's argument, that freedom of religion trumps all others' right to speak AND that the funeral attendees were a captive audience to a protest they never saw or heard.

Much as I hate WBC, this isn't the way to go about slapping them around.

Goldcatt, I don't think the fact this family sought out the speech should have any bearing on the case. If you think some has spoken falsely or in a derogatory fashion about you or your family, seeking out what they said, so you can defend or prosecute them is a comletely understandable action. The speaker is responsible for the content of their speech. As I mentioned in another post here, certain private events have an element of being public. Wedding, funeral and birth announcements to mention a few. There is a basic understanding that those who do not know the parties will not be showing up.

I also think this suit is a freedom of religion case. WBC has imposed their religious beliefs onto the family. This crosses a Constitutional border as well. The funeral attendees all had feelings for the family's loss. They were used too by WBC, without consent. That makes them captives in my opinion. At first, I thought you were just interested in the particulars of the case, but now I find myself wondering why you are defending the church. I assume it is because you don't want our political process to play out. That is not how our country works.

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.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt, I don't think the fact this family sought out the speech should have any bearing on the case. If you think some has spoken falsely or in a derogatory fashion about you or your family, seeking out what they said, so you can defend or prosecute them is a comletely understandable action. The speaker is responsible for the content of their speech. As I mentioned in another post here, certain private events have an element of being public. Wedding, funeral and birth announcements to mention a few. There is a basic understanding that those who do not know the parties will not be showing up.

I also think this suit is a freedom of religion case. WBC has imposed their religious beliefs onto the family. This crosses a Constitutional border as well. The funeral attendees all had feelings for the family's loss. They were used too by WBC, without consent. That makes them captives in my opinion. At first, I thought you were just interested in the particulars of the case, but now I find myself wondering why you are defending the church. I assume it is because you don't want our political process to play out. That is not how our country works.

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.