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

[saveliberty]

Good summary Goldcatt. A narrowly defined opinion is very important in my...you know...opinion. I suspect it may take another case down the road to further define what this case may render in a decision.

 

[Ava]

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.

You are right. There may be better ways, but these scum bags won't get the same attention, by using them. I guess it will be up to the victims to start designing ways to have privacy, without an arena for the scum of the earth......

 

[goldcatt]

If it goes to retrial look for Snyder v Phelps II coming October 2012 in a Court near you.

 

[saveliberty]

If it goes to retrial look for Snyder v Phelps II coming October 2012 in a Court near you.

If it does, I think this thread will eliminate me from jury duty.

 

[goldcatt]

If it goes to retrial look for Snyder v Phelps II coming October 2012 in a Court near you.

If it does, I think this thread will eliminate me from jury duty.

Good job! I mean, I feel so bad for you.

 

[saveliberty]

If it goes to retrial look for Snyder v Phelps II coming October 2012 in a Court near you.

If it does, I think this thread will eliminate me from jury duty.

Good job! I mean, I feel so bad for you.

Got a back up plan. A send them to their maker lapel pin.

 

[goldcatt]

If it does, I think this thread will eliminate me from jury duty.

Good job! I mean, I feel so bad for you.

Got a back up plan. A send them to their maker lapel pin.

That should do the job too.

Just tell them you think anybody who uses hate speech about gays should get the death penalty. You'll be outta there in time for breakfast on your way to work.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have some good friends that ride with the Patriot Guard Riders. At age 56, the more I think about it and the madder I get, to hell with the SC rulings.
Baseball bat to the head of a WBC protestor would make me feel better.

 

[goldcatt]

I have some good friends that ride with the Patriot Guard Riders. At age 56, the more I think about it and the madder I get, to hell with the SC rulings.
Baseball bat to the head of a WBC protestor would make me feel better.

I've shown up to counter protest at a few funerals myself, I understand the feeling. And if the case were different, if it were about their actual conduct at the funeral and getting in the family's face, I'd be on your side completely. Maybe it's the lawyer side of me taking over and reminding me to step back and look at this objectively, without regard for the parties involved. Because that's how whatever comes out will be applied in the future....objectively and without regard for the parties involved. Yes, they have to decide the case in front of them, but it will be applied as precedent to all kinds of situations.

If the facts were different then it would be so easy to say I want those bastards to pay and feel justified in doing so. But they're not, and you have to take the case you get.

 

[saveliberty]

I am hoping that the Supreme Court will conduct themselves in the manner Goldcatt decribes. It would be a real tradegy if the USSC are to fall to the level the Executive and Legislative branches have. I remain very optimistic on this one.

 

[goldcatt]

Hell, who knows what they're going to do? That's one ornery bunch of folks, and they've put out a few real stunners in recent years. All anyone can do is guess. But reading through everything I'm hoping whatever they decide it's as narrow as possible. They have some avenues for doing that. Although they went broad with Citizens United when they didn't need to. We shall see....

 

[Gadawg73]

I have some good friends that ride with the Patriot Guard Riders. At age 56, the more I think about it and the madder I get, to hell with the SC rulings.
Baseball bat to the head of a WBC protestor would make me feel better.

I've shown up to counter protest at a few funerals myself, I understand the feeling. And if the case were different, if it were about their actual conduct at the funeral and getting in the family's face, I'd be on your side completely. Maybe it's the lawyer side of me taking over and reminding me to step back and look at this objectively, without regard for the parties involved. Because that's how whatever comes out will be applied in the future....objectively and without regard for the parties involved. Yes, they have to decide the case in front of them, but it will be applied as precedent to all kinds of situations.

If the facts were different then it would be so easy to say I want those bastards to pay and feel justified in doing so. But they're not, and you have to take the case you get.

My Irish temper is in check, somewhat. I was there when my brother came back from Nam in 1968 after THREE tours and the community acted like he wasn't there, saw the hooray parades for Gulf War I which was great to see but made me even madder because of what my brother went through and now this bunch of clowns. Keep in mind also that I despise all religous kooks.
I quit riding years ago otherwise I would be there with them. Heard some true stories but when asked publicly I go to my Sgt. Schultz routine.

 

[goldcatt]

I have some good friends that ride with the Patriot Guard Riders. At age 56, the more I think about it and the madder I get, to hell with the SC rulings.
Baseball bat to the head of a WBC protestor would make me feel better.

I've shown up to counter protest at a few funerals myself, I understand the feeling. And if the case were different, if it were about their actual conduct at the funeral and getting in the family's face, I'd be on your side completely. Maybe it's the lawyer side of me taking over and reminding me to step back and look at this objectively, without regard for the parties involved. Because that's how whatever comes out will be applied in the future....objectively and without regard for the parties involved. Yes, they have to decide the case in front of them, but it will be applied as precedent to all kinds of situations.

If the facts were different then it would be so easy to say I want those bastards to pay and feel justified in doing so. But they're not, and you have to take the case you get.

My Irish temper is in check, somewhat. I was there when my brother came back from Nam in 1968 after THREE tours and the community acted like he wasn't there, saw the hooray parades for Gulf War I which was great to see but made me even madder because of what my brother went through and now this bunch of clowns. Keep in mind also that I despise all religous kooks.
I quit riding years ago otherwise I would be there with them. Heard some true stories but when asked publicly I go to my Sgt. Schultz routine.

Been to two where they showed up, one where they said they were coming but didn't. I'm a firm believer in nonviolence myself, but I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WBC is getting sued by a grieving parent. What the **** 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 ******* 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.

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

How much free speech will anyone have if someone can sue anytime they are offended?

You can do that now but a jury will not allow damages unless the case is strong.
As this one is because we have a grieving family and the chyrch actions are outrageous and not the norm of just "offending" someone.

It is nice to think that, but juries have allowed damages to people that fell through the roof breaking into stores.

Where exactly do you think the line between outrageous and offensive is? Does it exist only for positions you think are offensive? Can I draw it for positions you think are right? The further down that slope we go, the harder it is to pull back. It is a lot easier to not start down it at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are right. There may be better ways, but these scum bags won't get the same attention, by using them. I guess it will be up to the victims to start designing ways to have privacy, without an arena for the scum of the earth......

That is the whole point of my OP. People can insulate themselves from speech they find particularly offensive a lot easier than society can step in and define what is, and is not, offensive. the whole controversy over pornography is a perfect example of this. When the court ruled that pornography was anything that did not have socially redeeming qualities the result was far from what all the people who set out to protect us from ourselves wanted. Instead of eliminating an entire industry, we ended up with an era of porn that included a short disclaimer about the social perils of promiscuous sex, and the exact same movie we would have seen before the ruling. A simple voice over changed it from porn to permitted speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've shown up to counter protest at a few funerals myself, I understand the feeling. And if the case were different, if it were about their actual conduct at the funeral and getting in the family's face, I'd be on your side completely. Maybe it's the lawyer side of me taking over and reminding me to step back and look at this objectively, without regard for the parties involved. Because that's how whatever comes out will be applied in the future....objectively and without regard for the parties involved. Yes, they have to decide the case in front of them, but it will be applied as precedent to all kinds of situations.

If the facts were different then it would be so easy to say I want those bastards to pay and feel justified in doing so. But they're not, and you have to take the case you get.

My Irish temper is in check, somewhat. I was there when my brother came back from Nam in 1968 after THREE tours and the community acted like he wasn't there, saw the hooray parades for Gulf War I which was great to see but made me even madder because of what my brother went through and now this bunch of clowns. Keep in mind also that I despise all religous kooks.
I quit riding years ago otherwise I would be there with them. Heard some true stories but when asked publicly I go to my Sgt. Schultz routine.

Been to two where they showed up, one where they said they were coming but didn't. I'm a firm believer in nonviolence myself, but I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing.

Personally I prefer to beat the crap out of them, and I am sure I could find entire police departments that would be willing to be looking the other way if I did. That said, I probably will not do so, just because it would justify their warped viewpoint in their heads.