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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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

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

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

 

[California Girl]

I think an SC ruling on where speech becomes harassment might be helpful though. I dunno. It's a very, very hard one. I don't want free speech curtailed, but I also loathe the actions of these guys.... and those that harass women going into abortion clinics. There are better ways to speak your mind than to scream like banshees at ordinary people going about their private business.

 

[Gadawg73]

Let them say what they want.
And let a jury decide if they are liable for their speech.
That is what this case is about. There is nothing in this case about laws against hate speech. This case is 100% about an appeal of a jury verdict and an overturning of that jury verdict by a Federal court.
Right wing screams like monkeys on fire when Federal courts overturn rulings and verdicts all the time but this time they remain silent.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Absolutely.

 

[Madeline]

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.

 

[goldcatt]

I think an SC ruling on where speech becomes harassment might be helpful though. I dunno. It's a very, very hard one. I don't want free speech curtailed, but I also loathe the actions of these guys.... and those that harass women going into abortion clinics. There are better ways to speak your mind than to scream like banshees at ordinary people going about their private business.

So handle them the same way we handle the freaks that harass women going into clinics - establish a mandatory buffer zone around the site and let them spew whatever they want from outside that perimeter.

It worked in the Snyder case. The WBC assholes were kept a few hundred yards away, they got to wave their little signs and the family never even knew they were there.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

 

[Madeline]

I think an SC ruling on where speech becomes harassment might be helpful though. I dunno. It's a very, very hard one. I don't want free speech curtailed, but I also loathe the actions of these guys.... and those that harass women going into abortion clinics. There are better ways to speak your mind than to scream like banshees at ordinary people going about their private business.

So handle them the same way we handle the freaks that harass women going into clinics - establish a mandatory buffer zone around the site and let them spew whatever they want from outside that perimeter.

It worked in the Snyder case. The WBC assholes were kept a few hundred yards away, they got to wave their little signs and the family never even knew they were there.

I can see mebbe clarifying when someone becomes a "public figure" for purposes of libel and slander law -- but even that is a stretch, as I am not persuaded anything the WBC wrote on its signs or shouted at passers by could be legally regarded as libelous.

Beyond that, I am not convinced the SCOTUS can find anything new to say about the First Amendment on these facts. "Harrassment" is a matter of criminalizing conduct, not speech.....I doubt the Synder family could have filed a police report on the WBC for any harrassment type crime in connection with their son's funeral.

How can a reasonable person be "put in fear, etc." by a protest they were not aware of until the paper reported on it the next day?

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

 

[Madeline]

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.

No, may I have a link? I wonder where they are going with this...sure sounds like libel and slander is gonna get refined, eh?

 

[Madeline]

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 theory is that when Phelps focuses the WBC on a soldier's family, the mourners become public figures. It seems like nonsense to me too.

Vicarious infamy? WTF?

 

[goldcatt]

I think an SC ruling on where speech becomes harassment might be helpful though. I dunno. It's a very, very hard one. I don't want free speech curtailed, but I also loathe the actions of these guys.... and those that harass women going into abortion clinics. There are better ways to speak your mind than to scream like banshees at ordinary people going about their private business.

So handle them the same way we handle the freaks that harass women going into clinics - establish a mandatory buffer zone around the site and let them spew whatever they want from outside that perimeter.

It worked in the Snyder case. The WBC assholes were kept a few hundred yards away, they got to wave their little signs and the family never even knew they were there.

I can see mebbe clarifying when someone becomes a "public figure" for purposes of libel and slander law -- but even that is a stretch, as I am not persuaded anything the WBC wrote on its signs or shouted at passers by could be legally regarded as libelous.

Beyond that, I am not convinced the SCOTUS can find anything new to say about the First Amendment on these facts. "Harrassment" is a matter of criminalizing conduct, not speech.....I doubt the Synder family could have filed a police report on the WBC for any harrassment type crime in connection with their son's funeral.

How can a reasonable person be "put in fear, etc." by a protest they were not aware of until the paper reported on it the next day?

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

 

[goldcatt]

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.

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.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

No, may I have a link? I wonder where they are going with this...sure sounds like libel and slander is gonna get refined, eh?

Nah, the WBC got a summary judgment on defamation at he District level and the Snyders never appealed. They won on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Civil Conspiracy.

 

[Gadawg73]

So handle them the same way we handle the freaks that harass women going into clinics - establish a mandatory buffer zone around the site and let them spew whatever they want from outside that perimeter.

It worked in the Snyder case. The WBC assholes were kept a few hundred yards away, they got to wave their little signs and the family never even knew they were there.

I can see mebbe clarifying when someone becomes a "public figure" for purposes of libel and slander law -- but even that is a stretch, as I am not persuaded anything the WBC wrote on its signs or shouted at passers by could be legally regarded as libelous.

Beyond that, I am not convinced the SCOTUS can find anything new to say about the First Amendment on these facts. "Harrassment" is a matter of criminalizing conduct, not speech.....I doubt the Synder family could have filed a police report on the WBC for any harrassment type crime in connection with their son's funeral.

How can a reasonable person be "put in fear, etc." by a protest they were not aware of until the paper reported on it the next day?

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.

 

[Madeline]

So handle them the same way we handle the freaks that harass women going into clinics - establish a mandatory buffer zone around the site and let them spew whatever they want from outside that perimeter.

It worked in the Snyder case. The WBC assholes were kept a few hundred yards away, they got to wave their little signs and the family never even knew they were there.

I can see mebbe clarifying when someone becomes a "public figure" for purposes of libel and slander law -- but even that is a stretch, as I am not persuaded anything the WBC wrote on its signs or shouted at passers by could be legally regarded as libelous.

Beyond that, I am not convinced the SCOTUS can find anything new to say about the First Amendment on these facts. "Harrassment" is a matter of criminalizing conduct, not speech.....I doubt the Synder family could have filed a police report on the WBC for any harrassment type crime in connection with their son's funeral.

How can a reasonable person be "put in fear, etc." by a protest they were not aware of until the paper reported on it the next day?

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

That's just crazy talk!

*Laughs*

Thankies for the link!

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

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.

 

[goldcatt]

I can see mebbe clarifying when someone becomes a "public figure" for purposes of libel and slander law -- but even that is a stretch, as I am not persuaded anything the WBC wrote on its signs or shouted at passers by could be legally regarded as libelous.

Beyond that, I am not convinced the SCOTUS can find anything new to say about the First Amendment on these facts. "Harrassment" is a matter of criminalizing conduct, not speech.....I doubt the Synder family could have filed a police report on the WBC for any harrassment type crime in connection with their son's funeral.

How can a reasonable person be "put in fear, etc." by a protest they were not aware of until the paper reported on it the next day?

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.

 

[Madeline]

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.

I am surprised the ACLU is not representing the WBC. Doubtless they'll file an amicus brief. If the parties' lawyers have fucked up the law and the facts, this is one more reason why SCOTUS normally would not grant cert.

 

[Madeline]

Not for nothin', but arguing before the SCOTUS is a great honor for any lawyer. I'm annoyed Phelp's daughter beat me out....not that I'd have taken their case.