Looks like the Westboro Baptist Church is about to get a new owner.

Right on!

the power of trial by jury!

Yes I am reading this and Yes the Jury is unAmerican. You may not like what the Westboro Baptist Church does I do most definitely disagree with their message. But By God the First Amendment protections are not only for that speech that the majority finds OK it also protects the Vile speech that the Majority hate. If You believe in the United States Constitution in it's entirety You must also be appalled with this Verdict.

Larry Mohr

I will go one better OohRah. Supposedly this Father's Son signed up to uphold and Defend the United States Constitution in it's entirety. How can You denigrate His Sacrifice by taking away Rights He was sworn to uphold and Defend from other Americans when they excersized those rights.?? Oh and OohRah pray tell where in the first Amendment does it limit those rights just for public figures?? Seems to Me it protects Free Speech in all areas no matter public or "Private" If the Westboro Baptist Church was on PUBLIC Property at said Protest then they broke no Laws. They did not violate anyones right to privacy. If they were to have entered into the Church or Funeral Home You would have a leg to stand on.

Larry Mohr

How can You denigrate His Sacrifice by taking away Rights He was sworn to uphold and Defend from other Americans when they excersized those rights.??

This Marine's private funeral is NOT a public forum.
How about the rights of that Marine's family to lay their son to rest with honor and respect? What about their rights?

CalifChris once the Herse leaves the Mortuary and or Church it is a Publicdisplay until the Hearse Reaches the Cemetery. Oh and Pray tell Me when does Public property become Temporarily Private Property?? I hate Fred Phelps with a purple passion Chris don't misunderstand Me. But being an American You must stand up for Fred Phelps and His right to be a t total Jackass and asshole deluxe. You might not like His Message You do have that right. You do not have the right to take away His Free exersize of His First Amendment rights just because You and I find them utterly disgusting. I know You won't understand this.

Larry Mohr

This is such an extreme set of circumstances that it even gives pause to those of us who are reluctant to limit the 1st Amendment right to speech and protest almost no matter what the content or the context. There is an old legal saying that Bad Cases Make For Bad Law. This may be one such case.

Larry - you're my bud, but you're wrong on this one. Now, a jury has backed up my initial contention.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-10-31 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Then You and the Jury truly do not believe in the First AMendment Nor do You believe in what this Country was founded upon Hence the UnAmerican Label. If You truly believe in the American Way You must find Yourself on the opposite side of the American Fence.

Larry Mohr

This is such an extreme set of circumstances that it even gives pause to those of us who are reluctant to limit the 1st Amendment right to speech and protest almost no matter what the content or the context. There is an old legal saying that Bad Cases Make For Bad Law. This may be one such case.

Posted by moder8 at 2007-10-31 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This is the Very Reason We have the First Amendment rights Protected by the US Constitution. If this does not scream First Amendment I don't know what does. Extreme You say then where does it stop??

Larry Mohr

Lenny Bruce died for the first amendment. I agree with Larry. Anyone should be able to say whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want. That includes this blog.

As much as I loathe Phelps (the deadest eyes I've ever seen), the jury was wrong.

YES!!!!!

LeeAT: That simply is not the law. You can not come into my house and say whatever you want whenever you want. You cannot yell "fire" in the middle of a crowded theater. There are many limitations on when we can exercise our right to free speech. (Just asked the guy who got tasered while trying to John Kerry some questions.)
The issue really is whether or not by its intrinsic nature a private burial ceremony gives the family and mourners the right to be free of unwanted harassment.
Put another way, a burial at a cemetary (although potentially the most private of affairs) by definition takes place in a quasi public venue. Given that the mourners have no choice but to carry out the ceremony in such a location raises the question of whether or not certain rights to privacy which might not ordinarily apply to public places maybe do apply for funerals.

There are a myriad of laws regarding "speech" from obscenity laws... to slander... to perjury.

Let me ask you, Larry, or others... what rights do you think the grieving family has?

Do you always, 100%, favor the rights of all protestors regardless of how/where/when they protest? Is there any thought given to balancing one's rights vs another's?

Posted by OohRah at 2007-10-31 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

As long as the Protesters are on PUBLIC Property they must be allowed to say whatever the fuck that they want to and not be subject to persecution. Oh and I am vehamently against Obsenity Laws. I find them an injury to the US Constitution. The First AMendment does not only protect the speech the majority finds AOKAY it also must protect the rights of Fred Phelps no matter how disgusting He and His message is. Oh and Nice deflection to slander and Perjury. You swore an Oath to tell the truth You lied therefor You must be punished. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Free SPeech NONE whatsoever.

Larry Mohr

As long as the Protesters are on PUBLIC Property they must be allowed to say whatever the fuck that they want to and not be subject to persecution. Oh and I am vehemently against Obscenity Laws.

Amen!

I couldn't state it any better.

Moder8 as long as the Cemetery is paid for by Private funds You can keep them out of a cemetery and church/mortuary. But can not prevent them while they are on PUBLIC Property and that includes along the procession route.

Larry

LM: I think there is a certain legal subtlety to this particular situation which you are over looking. (Now don't just do a kneejerk rejection.) The fact that the mourners have no choice but to have the burial in a quasi public location may, under the US Constitution, grant them certain rights of privacy which might not accrue if the decision to hold the ceremony in that locale was voluntary. It is the involuntary nature of the situation (you can't bury your kid in your backyard) which arguably may support a legal argument that under these specific circumstances a zone of privacy exists in what otherwith might be considered strictly a public venue.

Moder8 when the Cemetery is on PRIVATE Property You can not declare it a quasi Public Venue. You can keep undesirables out of a Cemetery during a funeral service but only if it's a PRIVATE Cemetery. I know it has happened here in My hometown. But if the cemetery is a public cemetery I disagree You can not keep undesireables out of it because it is being funded by Tax Dollars.

Larry Mohr

Oh and in certain places and communities You CAN Bury loved ones in Your backyard providing You did not kill them Yourself or had them killed.

Larry Mohr

I prefer to put them in a vase on a shelf.

I can't wait 'til it comes out that Fred Phelps is a big fag.

A wise person once told me that extremists are vital to America. They define the limits where free speech clashes with decency, kindness and good taste -- by going beyond.

He was head of the local chapter of the John Birch Society.

These creeps from Westboro define the limits, with their rudeness, vulgarity and general presence.

This really isn't a blow to free speech.

The ruling was based on the fact that they said some horrible shit to a man burying his son.

Fuck Phelps, but I think it will be a LONG time before the family sees any money.

This isn't about free speech. The Westboro Baptist Church has made their opinions known numerous times. They had their right of freedom of speech. Their opinion was heard and soundly rejected.

They then crossed the line from speech to harassment. You can't harass people who don't want to listen to you. You can't force people to listen to you. The Westboro church members are guilty of stalking and harassment.

This isn't about what they said. It's about how they said it. THAT is what made all the difference.

When no one would listen to their bullshit message, they started harrassing the dead and the mourning. And that is not protected under the Constitution.

Moder8 as long as the Cemetery is paid for by Private funds You can keep them out of a cemetery and church/mortuary. But can not prevent them while they are on PUBLIC Property and that includes along the procession route.

Larry

They are not doing that. This was a Civil trial, not a criminal trial. Phelps isn't being silenced, just sued. Nobody is taking away free speech rights.

Phelps is welcome to attend the next funeral and do the same thing. Nobody is going to arrest him.

Good point Eberly. Tortious conduct should never be confused for criminal conduct though they often overlap.

As long as the Protesters are on PUBLIC Property they must be allowed to say whatever the fuck that they want to and not be subject to persecution. Oh and I am vehemently against Obscenity Laws.

I agree, but Moder8 also ahs a point.

The fact that the mourners have no choice but to have the burial in a quasi public location may, under the US Constitution, grant them certain rights of privacy which might not accrue if the decision to hold the ceremony in that locale was voluntary.

Even on public property there are certain laws against public disturbance ("Disturbing the Peace") that may be broken. Nobody has the right to invoke a riot. Allowing the Phelps gang to protest within a certain distance of the funeral might do exactly that. Therefore, even in a public cemetery it is within the right of the law to keep a predetermined buffer zone between the protesters and the funeral.

IMO whether we like it or not, the Phelps gang DOES have the right to protest along the public route of the funeral procession, provided they commit no acts of physical aggression.

I am not a lawyer (I just play one on TV!) but I believe there comes a point when causing intentional pain and suffering to a person trumps the whole "free speech" thingy. You can stand on a street corner and wax lyrical about any damn subject you care to but when you are directing your words towards one specific person with the intent of harming that person (in this case the family) then I believe you are pretty much fucked. It is a moral victory of course, they will not get a dime out of the scum bag, but it may make him think twice about continuing his campaign of hate. One can only hope.

They are not doing that. This was a Civil trial, not a criminal trial. Phelps isn't being silenced, just sued.

This is also true. Fact is, anyone can bring suit against anyone else. It's up to all of us how we wish to waste our time. For $11,000,000 it was well worth Mr. Snyders time, if he ever see's a dime.

Good point Eberly. Tortious conduct should never be confused for criminal conduct though they often overlap.

Posted by moder8


Thanks, OJ was found not-guilty in criminal court but essentially was found guilty in a civil trial for the same thing.

He wasn't arrested again.....wait, no......well, that was for some other stuff.

As happy as I am, and I am!, I am also torn. I loathe Fred Phelps, you all know that. And I'm glad he was held accountable, but there is a big part of me that is saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! FIRST AMMENDMENT!!!!!
Not near as big as the part that's going WOOOOOOO_HOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Eat that Rev. Bigot!

Even though I fight and oppose this guy with every chance I get, and as happy as I am, there's just a little something that I'm not quite comfortable with. And I think it's the concept of "drawing the line" with free speech. Once you draw it, it tends to keep moving, a moving line of what is, and is not, free speech. The line changes direction as the political zeitgeist holds sway.

The line, like free speech itself, is a two edged sword. What we like now, we may come to hate, should things change.

We should be damn careful if we do decide to draw it.

That being said. EAT THAT YOU BIGOTED PSYCHO!!

as a US Marine, I went to many Marines funerals, there was no Phelps then, but if there was, my blank would have been replaced with a bullet and an accident would have occured. Sorry, not a free speach issue. I can't possibly concieve that harrassing a grieved family can be considered free speach. Phelps can publish ads, do radio or TV, shout from the pulpit or any steet corner. No one will stop him, there is no freedom of speach issue. Harrasing a grieving family at a funeral is not a freedom of speach issue. Any real lawyers here that care to comment. The corporate lawyer I know said "...not a free speach issue, an appeal will fail". Anyone else?

Onna: the thing is I agree 100% with you, on every point. Anyone hre who knows me knows I go after Phelps on a regular basis. I even did 2 back to back shows about him and was subjected to vile email for a week from Shirley Phelps-Roper.

But there's just something holding me back from doing cartwheels.

And as a vet, you wouldn't be the only one with a live round in the chamber brother.

Vernon You may find their message to be beyond the pail as do I. The Constitution is clear that we have the Right to Freedom of Speech. It does NOT state We have the Freedom of speech (As long as it offends no one) Freedom of Speech not only protects that speech in which the Majority find OK. It also protects that speech the majority find repulsive. That is what it means to live and Be an American.

Larry Mohr

Oh and Eberly they were sued because they exersized their constitutional protected right to Freedom of Speech. It is silencing them via pocketbook instead of criminally. No matter how You slice it.

Larry

It is silencing them via pocketbook instead of criminally. No matter how You slice it.

Larry

No it isn't. Phelps can run his mouth at the next funeral if he wants to.

If someone stands outside your house and has posters of websites you have visited then they are exercising their right of free speech.

can you sue them for harrasemtnt and do you have a case?

We allow a civil court system to decide that.

I love this country.

Well Larry, there is the issue of decency.

And then there are fighting words.

Perhaps the worst thing any parent can experience is the death of child. Phelps isn't exercising free speech - he's insulting the memory of a fine and dedicated member of our military.

If he were assaulted and I were on the jury I'd acquit.

BTW, get any cuddle time with Micah's pup?

Larry,

Here is the thing, Phelps might have the right to free speach but he has to accept the consequences of his action. Since it would be illegal for the father to beat the crap out of him the only recourse the father has is a law suit. If you take that away you have removed any consequences of Phelps action. Are you truly suggesting that anything anyone wants to say should be allowed to pass?

What I would do is beat the crap out of him and take the criminal penalty.

Of course the civil penalty would destroy my life.

"And then there are fighting words."

But...not according to law. Almost without exception, the one who throws the first punch is liable.

"If he were assaulted and I were on the jury I'd acquit."

Not true. I've read your posts...you've always believed in free speech.

again, is there a lawyer out there that can clarify the free speach issue here. Phelps is not being prevented from his stupidity, he can continue with ads and other means. But I can't believe harassing a grieving family has free speach connotations. Come on lawyers, what say you.

It certainly is free speech insofar as criminal laws are concerned. The question is whether or not it protected speech under civil tort law. I am not sure of the answer. I suspect, given that this case was allowed to proceed to trial and verdict that this is a circumstance in which the speech is NOT protected from civil suit under the First Amendment. Unless of course the Judge totally misapplied the law in this case, - which is possible though unlikely.

Fred Phelps and his followers are a disgrace to the good name of Almighty God. I am glad this is a begining to put his kind out of business.


To them I say: repent, and stop abusing Christianity. Or else you will be in the same catagory with Muhammad who distorted true faith and created a false and harsh religion.

TakeitEZ: Has it ever occurred to you that Our Father In Heaven might find you to be a sniveling pompous self righteous pox upon His creation?

Looks to me like the actions in this case met at least one of the requirements for finding the Phelps crime family guilty of "intentional infliction of emotional distress." Their actions were targeted to be specific to this particular U.S. Marine and his family -- not just a protest in general against the war.

...Sean E. Summers, one of Snyder's attorneys, said Westboro members personally targeted the family because they brought Marine-specific signs to their rally at the funeral and had researched and posted Albert Snyder's marital history on their Web site in an essay titled "The Burden of Lance. Cpl. Matthew Snyder."

But Westboro attorney Jonathan Katz argued that the protest was no different from thousands of others. Nothing about the demonstration was so offensive or damaging, he said, as to rise to the level of a libelous attack on the family, individually....

I think the courts decided it was harassment and not free speech. Just like people can't yell fire in a crowded room you don't have the right to harass people. He can do his signs and protest down the road where he is out of the way of the funeral so I don't really see his rights were being violated.

As a person who served in the Marines, i reluctantly have to agree with Larry on this one.

As reprehensible as the inbred Phelps clan is, the first amendment reigns supreme.

The constitution doesn't protect you from being offended.

I also don't think a jury in the country would convict the family if they beat the hell out of the Phelp's.

Rev. Fred Phelps also says, "God hates Swedes"!!!!

It is called 'Intentional infliction of emotional distress'.

Some states call it 'outrageous conduct'.

You can google it up and get:

"The word "severe," in the phrase "severe emotional distress," means substantial or enduring as distinguished from trivial or transitory. Severe emotional distress is emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. In determining the severity of emotional distress consideration is given to its intensity and duration.

The Restatement view is that liability "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities," but only to conduct so extreme and outrageous "as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." (Rest. 2d Torts, 46, com. d; see Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, at pp. 46-47.) "The emotional distress must in fact exist, and it must be severe." (Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, p. 51; Rest.2d Torts, supra, 46, Com. j.)

EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT-DEFINED

Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

Extreme and outrageous conduct is not mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities. All persons must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.

Extreme and outrageous conduct, however, is conduct which would cause an average member of the community to immediately react in outrage."

Appeal will not go anywhere, Fred is finally busted.

The jury found the defendants liable for violating the Snyder family's expectation of privacy at the funeral and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

So, intentional malice is Larry's idea of free speech.

I agree with this suit and glad it turned out the way it did. This group is not out to protest anything governmental or wrong doings but maliciously attacking aggrieved to gain notice of the media. This should come down like a hammer as it did.

Protesting is one thing, doing harm is another. Free speech doesn't mean one doesn't have to answer to what one says or protests.

For years Westboro members have crisscrossed the country, turning somber funerals of soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan into attention-grabbing platforms to criticize homosexuals as immoral and damned.

"The constitution doesn't protect you from being offended."

Wrong.

It isn't a constitional law question, Fred got to speak.

Tort law holds him responsible for being outrageous.

I am mortified by these "Christian" actions. How could any human being be so heartless? At a soldier's funeral... THESE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, EVEN IF THEY GO TO CHURCH! I do not believe that Jesus would have marched around with signs in front of those grieving for a loved one, gay or not. That poor soldier died for those very people and he didn't care whether they were sinners or not! HE GAVE HIS LIFE FOR YOU! He sounds more like Jesus than those protesters. They should be ashamed. I am disgusted with their righteous attitude. And didn't Jesus want to help the sinners and less fortunate? The jury did the right thing!

I'm with ONNA; I can't believe someone hasn't taken these fuckers out yet. Talk about justified homicide!

I think there might be a long line of people at their lawyers talking about lawsuits against this church. Let's see if they do it again.

If Hillary is the nominee... then Democratics will lose in 2008.

Of that there is no doubt ...

Good for the father. LarryMohr, if you're reading this thread, do you now think the jury is also un-American? See, there are curbs on what constitutes free speech - and Phelps has stepped over the line.

Protest is one thing when the "subject" is a public figure or public policy. When it's highly personal... a grieving private family, that's another entirely.

Posted by OohRah



Ditto that from my side of things.

I guess that's what they mean by the implicit right to privacy, which conservs usually find so hard to recognize.

People who argue in such a black and white way about the 1st AMendment miss the point of the amendment. There is a difference between regulating speech, and controlling where, when, and how that speech takes place. It is not uncommon to ahve to a get a permit, for example, to hold a dmonstration, during which the spekaers cna say whatever they want.

SPeech may be free - but the families also have rights, and the intentional affliction of emotional harm is not protected by a rather overly simplified interpretation of the 1st amendment.

Midiman says, "... There is a difference between regulating speech, and controlling where, when, and how that speech takes place."

That is just a silly claim! Regulation is REGULATION!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Although "permits" may be required prior to exercising free speech as a group ... there is no such restriction on the individual's right to speak out whenever, wherever or however they so please!

The only consequence should be if that speech incites riot, sedition or insurrection against the lawfully constituted government.

However, the world is chock full to the very brim with petty little tyrants who want to REGULATE speech and depend on the government to help them restrict free speech whenever they so decide to manage it ...

For prime example: the present effort by DEMOCRATICS to restrict conservative speech on AM radio!!!

Harry Reid and the rest of the 41 NAZI signed a letter, using the force of government, to restrict Rush Limbaugh's free speech!!!

Pinche tirantitos!

Midiman says, "... There is a difference between regulating speech, and controlling where, when, and how that speech takes place."

That is just a silly claim! Regulation is REGULATION!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Tadpole, you continue to be an idiot. The amendment refers to CONGRESS and the CONTENT of the speech, not the right to deliver the speech anywhere one feels like it, and the "Speech" of these whack-jobs can take place elsehwere without interference from the feds.

No such CONTENT Clause is found in the First Amendment on what Free Speech is protected. Nice Try Midiman

Larry Mohr

""For prime example: the present effort by DEMOCRATICS to restrict conservative speech on AM radio!!!""

Right wing lie. Typical.

Yes I am reading this and Yes the Jury is unAmerican. You may not like what the Westboro Baptist Church does I do most definitely disagree with their message. But By God the First Amendment protections are not only for that speech that the majority finds OK it also protects the Vile speech that the Majority hate. If You believe in the United States Constitution in it's entirety You must also be appalled with this Verdict.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-10-31 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, I can correctly assume that you consider the idea of "hate speech" as a contrived notion with no basis or place in today's culture...true? Toss "hate crimes" on the same dung hill, as well. All crime is hateful.

Phelps can spread his hate at his church, at poltical rallys, in TV and News ads, at elections.
so tell me dear smarties, why is free speach an issue here when it is clearly harrasment. No one has limited Phelp's speach only stopped his harasment. The court and any appeal will see it this way. Phelps planned to disrupt the funerals of those who died in that bridge collapse. That too is not a free speach issue.

As long as Fred Phelps and His Marry band of cretin assholes are on PUBLIC Poperty then they must be accorded Free Speech Rights Protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I hate what they are and stand for but this IS America.

Larry Mohr

Larry,

While I can see where you are coming from, you may be wrong on this one. The courts have a term called "unconscionability" (sp) which allows them decide desicions based on the merits of that specific case. This is clearly a case that surpassed Phelps' right to free speech.

Although, if Phelps can get it to the supremes they would over turn it 5-4.

The 5 conservatives wouldn't even have to look at the case. One side says religion so they would rule in their favor.

At first I this decision was going to be overturned because it represents a new interpretation of the law that will have broad based ramifications. Then I read this part of the article:

"For Snyder's claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later, in an Internet posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.

Albert Snyder also contended that the church's actions were an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under the law, to find in favor of Snyder, the five women and four men of the jury needed to find that the church's conduct was "intentional or reckless."

Jury instructions also required that the conduct be "extreme and outrageous," leading to severe emotional distress."

If that is the law already, then I don't think this decision breaks much new ground. If anyone's behavior is going to fit the above mentioned criteria, it is Phelps. So unless the instructions given to the jury were just made up by the judge out of thin air, it seems that measures have already been taken to define when such behavior is illegal.

And even if the judge was in error, that doesn't make the jury un-American. It isn't their job to ignore the judge's instructions because they feel that "free speach" should trump everything. That they actually showed up for jury duty in the first place makes them better Americans than most.

some years back, the Phelp's clan put a vile monument to a murdered homosexual in a public park, the monument, which insulted and blamed the victim, was really beyond poor taste. A judge ordered it removed, that too was not a free speech issue.

The real tragedy is if this lawsuit remains the dead soldier is the one that truly died in vain.

If I died in combat for my country, as strange as it sounds, I would be proud if Phelps was outside my funeral protesting ... .
I truly would, because that is what I am fighting for, true freedom.

Freedom is being able to say what you want in any tone ... but even more-so to tolerate others who are screaming louder of that which you oppose with all your heart. That my friends is what freedom is all about ... without that we are merely sheep being herded.

"I would be proud if Phelps was outside my funeral protesting ... ."

No, you'd be dead. The funeral is really for the living. They're saying goodbye. By the time it happens, you're an inanimate pile of meat and don't know what is going on.

"Freedom is being able to say what you want in any tone ... but even more-so to tolerate others who are screaming louder of that which you oppose with all your heart. That my friends is what freedom is all about ... without that we are merely sheep being herded."

What about everyone else's freedom? Being able to scream like a jackass isn't the ultimate freedom or human right. There are other freedoms at stake. We shouldn't have the freedom to bury a loved one privately without some imbecile interfering? There are any number of other situations where screaming like a jackass interferes with the rights of others: at the movies and at concerts, at work, in the middle of the night in a private neighborhood when everyone is trying to sleep, etc.

One's behavior can interfere with the freedoms of others and that is where the law has to intervene and decide which side is reasonable. In this case, the people who wanted to mourn their dead son in private were considered more reasonable than the hate-filled screaming idiots.

"Freedom is being able to say what you want in any tone"

Phelp's can do this all he *wants, just not at private funeral.

* at his church, at a politcal rally, on TV, at a shopping center, etc.

so please explain how his free speech is violated

"We shouldn't have the freedom to bury a loved one privately without some imbecile interfering?"

Unlike free speech, burying a loved one privately without some imbecile interfering isn't enshrined in the Constitution.

CIVIL VS CRIMINAL

PRIVACY/HARRASMENT VS SPEACH

"They are not doing that. This was a CIVIL trial, not a criminal trial. Phelps isn't being silenced, just sued. Nobody is taking away free speech rights.

Phelps is welcome to attend the next funeral and do the same thing. Nobody is going to arrest him" -NAIL ON HEAD

"For Snyder's claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later, in an Internet posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions. - ALSO THE CRUX OF THE CASE

This'll end up at SCOTUS.
As an aside, if John Edwards had been the plaintiff's attorney, how many of the righties here would be condemning the lawsuit as frivolous and ambulance chasing?

Danforth - Ammendment IX of the Bill of Rights:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This was specifically put in there to mitigate the arguement you are trying to make. The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution was never meant to be used to deny people other rights.

The only reason why some rights are spelled out specifically is that those are the rights most often abused by tyranical governments. Even tyrants have the decency to let you bury your dead in peace (with the obvious exception where the tyrant is the cause of death).

So I guess we can't protest at an abortion clinic either because that is a private thing as well.

I did not know Phelps was in the church I thought he was within the law that states you have to be 500 feet away.

And how is that guaged on the internet, by rights you are entering my home by posting here....should I be able to sue you and win because I deem this as being more personal than a funeral.

Anything can be deemed a personal affair, it is all on how the person see's it....

I care more about my guns than anything else in the world, it is my passion my love...so when you protest outside my favorite gun store are you not invading my person space and the thing I love the most in life.....who gets to make the call.

I care more about my guns than anything else in the world, it is my passion my love...

Get a girlfriend.

I care more about my guns than anything else in the world, it is my passion my love...so when you protest outside my favorite gun store are you not invading my person space and the thing I love the most in life.....who gets to make the call.



The Jury makes the decison
"highly offensive to a reasonable person,"

The problem with alot of people is they are ok with anything until it effects them, then everything needs to change.

Most people are ok with the ruling against Phelps until one day they are protesting against something they hate more than anything in the world and they get sued and loose...at that moment they will utter those ignorant words we all know and love "yea but this was different"

Because it was something you believe in and then it is a different tune.

"Christ and our soldiers are the only two who've offered to die for us."

Someone on another thread, Oooey, suggested that Lenny Bruce died for us. So did Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Kennedy brothers.

The consensus is that Phelps is a horse's ass. But if being a horse's ass is a crime, I'd have been jugged long ago. Maybe this judgment is a divine method of making Westboro pay for its horsesesseshood. herm

The trouble is since this story broke Phelp's church membership is up 400% with donations pouring in by the truck loads.

Two people have already offered to pay for the lawsuit if it sticks.

In the end he will be a very rich man.

And please don't judge me as condoning his actions, I just believe in freedom in all it's glory and ugliness....

No such CONTENT Clause is found in the First Amendment on what Free Speech is protected. Nice Try Midiman

Larry Mohr


That's preposterous. Speech wtihout content is babble. Random syllables? Sound effects? Burps and catcalls?

Good grief this is like elm school.

My point was that the amendment covers the SPEECH itself, and not the venue.

Where does it say that a state CAN'T regulate the venue, when it grants to states the rights not enumerated within it?

I am for Freedom of Speach as much as most normal people are... I found this in a Fox article about the case.

"The case tests the limits of the First Amendment right to free speech.

U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett instructed jurors at the start of testimony Tuesday that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements.

Bennett said the jurors must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection." "

I would have to agree with the Judge and jury in this. What these people did is certainly highly offensive to any resonable person.

Sawdust what do you deem as offensive....or better yet what do you deem as not offensive and if by next year what you deem as not offensive becomes offensive were do you stand at that point.

What part of this was offensive...because the protest took place at a funeral...hmmmm
I remember a few years back in my state when people showed up to protest at a funeral for a guy that was killed by police who murdered children....yet the parents of the murder who raped and killed little girls didn't sue....maybe they should have.

"Most people are ok with the ruling against Phelps until one day they are protesting against something they hate more than anything in the world and they get sued and loose...at that moment they will utter those ignorant words we all know and love "yea but this was different""

Did you read the article? There is no way the average protest could be affected by this decision. Very specific criteria were used to determine that Phelps was looking to inflict further grief on these people.

And your arguement is a double edged sword anyway. I could just as easily say it is very easy for you to say that anyone should be able to shout whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want until someone's assinine bleating starts to affect your quality of life. When some drunk in a restaurant is screaming obscene shit at the top his lungs in front of your kids, making it impossible to hold a conversation or enjoy your meal, you might feel that your rights are being violated.

Your right, I feel that way when I am out with my children and a girl walks by with a dress above the knee's, it is terrible offensive to me that my children have to see that vulgarity right on the street.

I do understand what you are saying....

I think sully is right, the visual vulgarity in this country is far worse than verbal...all the short skirts, low tops, tattoo's and piercings are horrible obscene far worse than someone yelling the F word that is for sure.

I am glad we are starting to make laws agaist it and stopping girls from getting on planes dressed like that so your point is very valid..

"I think sully is right, the visual vulgarity in this country is far worse than verbal...all the short skirts, low tops, tattoo's and piercings are horrible obscene far worse than someone yelling the F word that is for sure.

I am glad we are starting to make laws agaist it and stopping girls from getting on planes dressed like that so your point is very valid.."

I'll take your posting of this ridiculous strawman as an admission that you can't or don't want to respond to what I actually said.

That's fine. In the futre, you could just say that we should agree to disagree. No need to act like a complete fool about it.

Off to a late lunch. Maybe I'll check back later.....

I guess I took what you said the wrong way...

I thought you were saying that things can only go so far and that when people are doing obscene things in public it begins to violate you or your children because you don't wan them to be confronted with vulgarity?

"The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution was never meant to be used to deny people other rights"

Don't get me wrong...Phelps is scum, but again: where in the Constitution is the right to bury your child in peace?

That's preposterous. Speech wtihout content is babble. Random syllables? Sound effects? Burps and catcalls?

Good grief this is like elm school.

My point was that the amendment covers the SPEECH itself, and not the venue.

Where does it say that a state CAN'T regulate the venue, when it grants to states the rights not enumerated within it?


Posted by midiman at 2007-11-01 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Babbling noises catcalls are most definitely forms of speech. You tell a Mother that Her childs Babbling to Her isn't that Baby speaking to Her and see where that winds You up at. I have NEVER been married but I can promise You with 99% certainty that You will find Youself sleeping upon the couch that night IF You say that to Your wife. Noises to some is speaking to another. When the first cavemen "Spoke" to one another did they not utter noises and grunts and groans?? That is a form of speech. Oh and a Catcall is one of the most famous utterances of speech there is. It is saying look at that Hot Babe over there what I wouldn';t give to get it on with Her tonight. If that isn't speech I don't know what is.

You go on to state Midiman

Where does it say that a state CAN'T regulate the venue, when it grants to states the rights not enumerated within it?


Posted by midiman at 2007-11-01 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Ok Sully I see what you are saying ... my fault I put "Sully is right in front of my second post ... .

When in that post I was just adding on to agreeing with you that we have allowed verbal vulgarity in the form of a drunks yelling bad words to the point it has gone further and now we have all this visual vulgarity.
To the point that the Airlines are now refusing to let these people dressed the way they are on planes and that even though people say it is their constitutional right to wear or say what they feel, it really is not when it affects your right to live in a society without these bad things confronting you or influencing your children.

I am just agreeing with you that there is a level or line that now effects the other person's life or lifestyle and they have rights and beliefs as well.

"Phelps could very well be insane. "

He takes his imaginary friends very seriously.

Back a few years ago some rap group was banned for singing Me So Horny (Too Live Crew I believe). It was a First Amendment issue and it would have been much easier to support their position if their music didnt suck. But in that case they had the right to sing.

However, in this incident, the demonstrable inability to empathize with others, deliberately causing pain MAY be construed as a mental disorder and therefore, does he retain teh right to free speech?

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-01 02:49 PM | Reply


I believe the song was cop killer or some such dirivative that two live crew was banned from singing. If memory serves Me correctly.

Larry Mohr

However, in this incident, the demonstrable inability to empathize with others, deliberately causing pain MAY be construed as a mental disorder and therefore, does he retain teh right to free speech?

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-01 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Where in the United States Constitution does it declare the only sane people have the right to Freedom of Speech??

Larry Mohr

Cop Killer was Ice-T when in the band Body Count. 2 Live Crew performed such clasics as Me So Horny, and Big Bootie Hoes.

insane people do not have unfettered rights.

or why are they removed from teh streets?

there are disturbing the peace laws in place

if phelps was outside the funeral and got naked (as a protest) that would not be acceptable

if phelps were a paranoid schizophrenic and was screaming martians were going to kill us all, the police would have the responbility of removing him.

Phelps MAY be legally insane, he may have an antisocial disorder that makes him a danger to the community.

Thanks Captain I forgot about Ice T Thanks.

Larry Mohr

TruthHurts we are talking about First AMendment Freedom of Speech issues. Please stick with apples to apples. Being a danger to ones society does not interfere with the insane from speaking whatever He or She wants. Freedom of Speech is not a community Safety issue.

Larry Mohr

oh btw I am one who is totally for free speech rights. I believe the best way for a society to deal with issues is to air them.

When hate groups like the KKK etc air their positions, one can weigh them on their merits. Ignoring or supressing them only gives them power.

That being said, I think Phelps actions border on legally insane anti social behavior.

"I thought you were saying that things can only go so far and that when people are doing obscene things in public it begins to violate you or your children because you don't wan them to be confronted with vulgarity?"

Free speach is not an absolute right. It is not our only right and it is not the ultimate right. It was never intended to be an absolute. "Free speach" does not entitle one to infringe on the rights of others.

The examples I was using were clear examples where someone's behavior is infringing on the rights of others. Then you piped in with ridiculous examples. Someone else's piercings don't affect me one way or the other. I can choose not to look at them if my sensibilities are so delicate as to be offended by them. You were clearly making a dishonest attempt to take my arguement to an extreme that I had never intended. Now you are dishonestly pretending otherwise.

"Don't get me wrong...Phelps is scum, but again: where in the Constitution is the right to bury your child in peace?"

And again: The 9th Ammendment very clearly recognizes rights that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Constitution claims to list all of our rights when the document itself says otherwise.

I can choose not to look at them if my sensibilities are so delicate as to be offended by them. You were clearly making a dishonest attempt to take my arguement to an extreme that I had never intended. Now you are dishonestly pretending otherwise.

Posted by Sully at 2007-11-01 03:17 PM | Reply


You said it You can choose not to look at those piercings the same way You can look away from seeing Fred Phelps exersizing His Free Speech Rights Protected by the First Amendment.

Larry Mohr

And again: The 9th Ammendment very clearly recognizes rights that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Constitution claims to list all of our rights when the document itself says otherwise.

Posted by Sully at 2007-11-01 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Freedom of SPeech IS clearly spelled out in the US Constitution. It's the Very First Right in the Bill of Rights.

Larry Mohr

no it is on topic larry.

if phelps got naked outside of the funeral he would be in violation of public decency laws.

if phelps was acting like a deranged schizophrenic then the police would have the responsibility of removing him from the situation.

Regardless of whether he posed a risk to anyone the police have a responsibility to protect society from an insane person from disturbing the peace.

I think that Phelps "message" when taken in conjunction with the situation could be indicative of a mental disorder.

He demonstrates anti-social behavior. His message is not within normal societal range.

I do not have hte right to go to a public space and pick out a woman and repeatedly call her a fat pig. that would be harrassment.

free speech does have limits and if phelps aint over the line he is certainly touching that line.

When hate groups like the KKK etc air their positions, one can weigh them on their merits. Ignoring or supressing them only gives them power.

That being said, I think Phelps actions border on legally insane anti social behavior.


Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-01 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Negatory Ignoring them Weakens them it does NOT give them power. Acknowledging them DOES give them power because You have just validated their message. Just like with Al Qaeda Since Dubya acknowledged them He has in esence given them power. If one does not show up to a KKK Rally or a Fred Phelps pissathon You have taken away their power.

Larry Mohr

if phelps got naked outside of the funeral he would be in violation of public decency laws.

if phelps was acting like a deranged schizophrenic then the police would have the responsibility of removing him from the situation.

Regardless of whether he posed a risk to anyone the police have a responsibility to protect society from an insane person from disturbing the peace.

I think that Phelps "message" when taken in conjunction with the situation could be indicative of a mental disorder.

He demonstrates anti-social behavior. His message is not within normal societal range.

I do not have hte right to go to a public space and pick out a woman and repeatedly call her a fat pig. that would be harrassment.

free speech does have limits and if phelps aint over the line he is certainly touching that line.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-01 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Getting naked in public is NOT a First Amendment speech issue like IU said please stick with apples to apples if You are wanting to debate this. You obviously do not understand what constitutes Free SPeech and what does not.

Larry Mohr

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


sorry larry, you are the one who does not understand free speech.

congress may make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

that is NOT unfettered free speech.

you cannot scream fire in a movie theater.

you cannot harrass people verbally

you cannot libel people

there are limits to free speech.

I admit that phelps is attempting to make a political statement.

howver, i believe that his actions are abhorrent.

I believe he may be legally insane.

society has a responsibility to protect its citizens from insane people.

Sully, I was not trying to make ridiculous examples, these are things going on every day....the Airlines are refusing people for thier attire so are resturants. One of the largest manufacturing firms in my state just made it wrongful for a female to wear a skirt 2 inches or more above the knee and no one can have tattoo's showing or piercings.

I was just in a resturant that kicked out a person for lip piercings and everyone applauded.

I do not own the airlines...sadly, nor any of these companies, these are our peers saying it is vulgar to wear things of this nature and it is the right action, these things influance our children the same as a drunk using the F word.

I don't understand it...I was agreeing with you on the drunk bothering you....well the short skirt bothers alot of people as well, are you saying what bothers you is the only wrong thing.

It is not me being ridiculous, these are your peers and they are stopping these sleazy actions not me

Sorry TruthHurts ait is YOU who lacks the common sense and understanding necessary to grasp what is constituted Freedom of Speech and what does NOT. Please like I have been saying stick with apples to apples.

Larry Mohr

Oh and sully, yes I can look the other way but my children might not....also Wallgreens sells ear plugs! you don't have to listen to someone using the F word you know.

But the reality is I shouldn't have to cover my childrens eyes nor should you have to stick earplugs in your kids ears...thank God for the airlines and other companies for trying to keep my children froms harms way.

"You can look away from seeing Fred Phelps exersizing His Free Speech Rights Protected by the First Amendment."

Hearing is an involuntary sense. You can't choose not to hear those bleating jackasses. And expecting people not to attend their own son's funeral is not reasonable. Not all speach is protecting by the 1st Ammendment.

no larry it is YOU who lack the ability to realize that you cannot have everything in life.

you cannot libel people

you cannot harrass people

you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

an insane person, doing nothing other than acting out his verbal manifestations of his disorder can be confined by the police as a potential threat.

you cannot make loud noises at certain hours of the day.

those are all examples of RESTRICTIONS on Free Speech.

you wilfully do not acknowledge their existance. you claim that they are oranges to your apples.

but they are restrictions. Restrictions I dare say most americans support.

Phelps is a douchebag. phelps is harrassing people. he may be insane.

it seems to me phelps was harrassing people.

it seems to me phelps may be insane.

Hearing is an involuntary sense. You can't choose not to hear those bleating jackasses. And expecting people not to attend their own son's funeral is not reasonable. Not all speach is protecting by the 1st Ammendment.

Posted by Sully at 2007-11-01 03:44 PM | Reply


They make headphones don't they. You can tone out stuff and tune out stuff. I have had at least 18 Years of practice tuning out My Mother so I can vouch it can be successfully done. As long as the Funeral procession does not circumnavigate upon any Public Right of Way I cazn see Your point but beings that the Funeral procession must pass upon PUBLIC Property and this includes city streets You do not have the right to limit Fred Phelps from exersizing His First Amendment Protected rights.

Larry Mohr

Legislation
On May 24, 2006, the United States House and Senate passed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which President Bush signed five days later. The act bans protests within 300 feet of national cemeteries -- which numbered 122 when the bill was signed -- from an hour before a funeral to an hour after it. Violators face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.[57]

As of April 2006, at least 17 states have banned protests near funeral sites immediately before and after ceremonies, or are considering it. These are: Illinois,[58][59] Indiana,[60] Iowa,[61] Kansas,[62] Kentucky,[63] Louisiana,[64] Maryland,[65]Michigan,[66] Missouri,[67] which passed the law, and Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,[68] South Carolina,[69] South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.[70] Florida increased the penalty for disturbing military funerals, amending a previous ban on the disruption of lawful assembly.[71]

These bans have not been uncontested. Bart McQueary, having protested with Phelps on at least three occasions,[72] filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Kentucky's funeral protest ban. On September 26, 2006, a district court agreed and entered an injunction prohibiting the ban from being enforced.[72] In the opinion, the judge wrote:

Sections 5(1)(b) and (c) restrict substantially more speech than that which would interfere with a funeral or that which would be so obtrusive that funeral participants could not avoid it. Accordingly, the provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest but are instead unconstitutionally overbroad.



seems the judge in this case agreed with the law.

"...restrict substantially more speech than that which would interfere with a funeral or that which would be so obtrusive that funeral participants could not avoid it."

the judge did restrict the use of the law but did acknowledge the legislatures ability to restrict free speech around funerals.

The Insane can verbalize anything that He or She wants bto as long as they are not threatening anyone and there aint a God damned thing the Police can do about them because they have the God Granted First Amendment Rights to spew the martians are going to come and kill us all. As long as He or She isn't threatening anyone.

Larry Mohr

TruthHurts and be ready to eat Your words when the Supreme Court overturns this Law because they will find it Unconstitutional based solely upon First AMendment Grounds. Mark My words TruthHurts.

Larry Mohr

On June 5, 2006, Albert Snyder, the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, who was killed in the line of duty on March 3, 2006, and whose funeral was picketed by Phelps, sued Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lawsuit also involves accusations made on Phelps' websites that Mr. and Mrs. Snyder "raised [Matthew] for the devil" and taught him "to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery".[75] On October 31, 2007, a jury returned a $2.9m verdict in favor of the plaintiff.[76] Later, the jury returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.[77]




is privacy a right?

intentional infliction of emotional distress--sounds like harrassment to me.

"the Airlines are refusing people for thier attire so are resturants. One of the largest manufacturing firms in my state just made it wrongful for a female to wear a skirt 2 inches or more above the knee and no one can have tattoo's showing or piercings."

Free speach does not apply at all to what you can and can't do in someone's privately owned place of business. So my restaurant or movie theater examples probably weren't the best to bring up anyway.

"I don't understand it...I was agreeing with you on the drunk bothering you....well the short skirt bothers alot of people as well, are you saying what bothers you is the only wrong thing."

No. I thought you were up to something else. As I mentioned above, my examples don't really apply anwyay as we were talking about privately owned venues....

If someone wears a short skirt or piercings in a public place, they are not intentionally trying to cause you grief and they are not blatantly infringing on your rights. If someone stands on the curb outside your house with a bullhorn shouting horrible things about you and your family, they are obviously trying to cause you grief and they are interfering with your right to enjoy a peaceful existence in your own home. It isn't reasonable to say that one should wear earplugs in yor own home. A private ceremony at a funeral is another instance where someone has the reasonable expectation to not be bothered by some screaming jackass out to cause them further grief. Nor is it reasonable to say someone should have to wear earplugs at their own sons' funeral.

"They make headphones don't they."

Huh? You should have to plug your ears at a private funeral because you think someone has the "right" to ruin it?

TruthHurts You do not have the expectant right to Privacy out in Public hence the very term Out in PUBLIC. Like it or not Fred Phelps has every right under Our Constitution to be the asshole and son of a bitch that He is out in public and that includes upon Public Property around a church and or cemetery. He can be provented from being upon PRIVATE Property however.

Larry Mohr

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

State and municipalities can make laws restricting free speech. Congress can't.

Saddam Hussein
In 2003, before the fall of Saddam Hussein during the Iraq War, Phelps wrote Hussein a letter praising his regime for being, in his opinion, "the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets."[46] Furthermore, he stated that he would like to send a delegation to Baghdad to "preach the Gospel" for one week. Hussein granted permission, and a group of WBC congregants traveled to Iraq to protest against the U.S. The WBC members stood on the streets of Baghdad holding signs condemning Bill and Hillary Clinton and anal sex.[47] After Saddam was hanged, Phelps released a video commentary that stated that both Saddam Hussein and Gerald Ford (who had died the same week) were now in Hell.


just an aside here

Hurling abuses at someone is NOT threatening them Nice apples to oranges yet aghain truthhurts obviously You lack the cognative skills necessary to understand what Free SPeech is and what is a threat and what is not.

Larry Mohr

State and municipalities can make laws restricting free speech. Congress can't.

Posted by LeeAtwater at 2007-11-01 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

NOt if that takein Federal Tax Dollars they can not.

Larry Mohr

the SC has only indicated that FA protection applies to public figures.

phelps was wrong.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-01 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No sir not by a long shot. Take for Instance the constituitionally protected right to burn the flag that is not a PUBLIC figure is it?? No it's not but the Supreme Court declared that people have the right to burn said US Flag on first amendment grounds of Free SPeech. Now You tell me that it only covers public figures?? I double dog daqre You!!!!

Larry Mohr

dude noone is arguing hte public vs private land issue.

it is the nature of the speech and by intentionally directing his speech at an individual for the infliction of emotional distress, he no longer has free speech protection.

as an aside, I feel fairly strongly that if the case were made to the founding fathers that a man who died in service of his country should be allowed to be buried without his family being subjected to the hate speech of phelps.

I feel fairly strongly that if the case were made to the founding fathers that a man who died in service of his country should be allowed to be buried without his family being subjected to the hate speech of phelps.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-01 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Then You obviously do not understand what the Founding Fathers founded this great nation upon. Not only is the Freedom to speak freely protected from what the 99% of the population finds AOKAY it also protects that 1% that society finds abhorant to the nth degree.

Larry Mohr

Hurling abuses at someone is NOT threatening them

yes it is


I tell you what, walk out into the street and start screaming at the first person you see,

GOD HATES FAGS! GOD HATES YOU! YOU ARE A SINNING FAG LOVING SODOMITE etc over and over and see if that is not considered theatening.

intentional infliction of emotional distress is the term for it.

GOD HATES FAGS! GOD HATES YOU! YOU ARE A SINNING FAG LOVING SODOMITE etc over and over and see if that is not considered theatening.

intentional infliction of emotional distress is the term for it.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-11-01 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

If it's on PUBLIC Grounds there ain't a God damned thing You nor I can nor should do anything aboutwith regards to the First AMendment rights. Jesus Christ how fducking hard is this to grasp TruthHurts. While upon PUBLIC Property they can say wahtever bthe fuck that they want to. Now on PRIVATE Property I have no qualms about because it IS Prrivate Property.

Larry Mohr

"Like it or not Fred Phelps has every right under Our Constitution to be the asshole and son of a bitch that He is out in public and that includes upon Public Property around a church and or cemetery. He can be provented from being upon PRIVATE Property however."

So if someone stands on the public street outside your house shouting hateful nonsense through a bullhorn at 3:00 AM, you think they have a "right" to be there?

I guess my real concern is a jury decided it was wrong so they awarded him 11 million....but were does that stop....At one time the juries awarded people money for being seriously hurt, now you get 50 million for spilling coffee on yourself.

Will this follow the same suit and continually lower itself to the point were you open your mouth in opposing someone and get sued?

Who knows....

So if someone stands on the public street outside your house shouting hateful nonsense through a bullhorn at 3:00 AM, you think they have a "right" to be there?


Posted by Sully at 2007-11-01 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

See another apples to oranges comparison Disturbing the Peace does not equal restricting Free speech rights. It falls upon a Noise complaint issue.

Larry Mohr

of course sully cause larry does not recognize any of the accepted restrictions on free speech. despite repeated examples of restrictions he thinks he is right.

I would guarantee that if larry went out of his building into a public space and selected one individual and did a phelps on him that he would be arrested and charged and found guilty.

free speech does NOT give you the right to libel, harrass, verbally assault, disturb the peace (in some circumstances), incite riots, etc.

sorry what phelps did is not acceptable.

The problem with all of LarryM's prosletyzing on this issue is that he is wrong. The Courts ruled that this was grounds for a Civil Law suit, it went to trial, Phelps lost. It is unlikely to be overturned. Deal with it LM, or at least stop whining. (You are beginning to sound like BuffBob.)

Moder8 get ready to eat Your words when this is over turned and I will want to see You KowTow to Me when it does. Mark My words.

Larry Mohr

Dont be so hard on Larry, I can see where he is coming from. We really need to protect free speech, espically in bushworld.

however I think he is wrong and it goes to the specific actions of Phelps.

"you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater."

Yes, but, can you yell "THEATER" in a crowded fire house?

Hans

(You are beginning to sound like BuffBob.)

Posted by moder8 at 2007-11-01 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

When You have no leg to stand upon begin the insults ehhhhhhhhh is that how You work things Moder8. Quite typical of You as of late. I am deeply saddened by it too. I expected better from You.

Larry Mohr

drugs are kicking in BBL No insane jokes please not THOSE type of meds.

Larry Mohr

Guys I Can't find it...

I keep reading the article but can't find anything about bull horns or any words being spoken at the funeral.

It just says they had signs.

Were are you getting the information from that thaey were saying things to hurt the family?

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid."

"I guess my real concern is a jury decided it was wrong so they awarded him 11 million....but were does that stop....At one time the juries awarded people money for being seriously hurt, now you get 50 million for spilling coffee on yourself."

I would prefer that cases where someone is interfering with the rights of others be treated as criminal matters.

I guess from my own views I have a problem with this.

In my city they placed a released pedophile in one of the subdivisions,This person had intercourse with 7 girls ages ranging from 4 to 7. He would lure them into his house and do unspeakable acts to them while video taping.

After being placed people gathered outside his house and shouted terrible things to him, that no doubt distressed him. they did this for a week long period. And I just can't get myself to believe that these people who protested him should be sued.

Oh well I guess it was up to the jury to decide the Phelps case and that is that.

I think we should banish Larry Mohr's use of capital letters. He clearly uses them incorrectly and that distracts from normal discourse.

I'm glad they lost--now the Appeal will likely reduce the award--but they will be broke and hard to travel around without some money.

The female Phelps was on the radio saying the California fires started when they were in trial--and it was God who started them--because they were in trial.

They are sociopaths.. And they believe themselves and talk coherently.

It's like the guy who is protesting "Thermographs" and how they are killing humans.

He talks about how the process works and how dangerous it is and we have to change it to save the planet--(Oh wait--that's Al Gore!)

Anyway--the Thermographs is fiction and does not exist. But the guy talks a good game.

You cannot invade someone's privacy --while at a funeral--protest and shout and make signs that your beloved is hated by God--intentionally inflicting emotional distress--is a breach of the peace and cause of action in a lawsuit.

Murphy

hrm...
apparently, the First Amendment only exists as long as the speaker(s) are not offensive. Or in this church's case, wacko.

Meanwhile, corporate cash for PACs and lobbying is sacred and cannot be denied.

What an odd state of affairs we Americans find ourselves in.

"After being placed people gathered outside his house and shouted terrible things to him, that no doubt distressed him. they did this for a week long period. And I just can't get myself to believe that these people who protested him should be sued."

People have pressured the agencies that place these lunatics to keep them out of certain neighborhoods. The policians who oversee these agencies do have to worry about winning the next election. There are ways to avoid this situation other than pointlessly screaming in the streets......

I don't think a person like that should be left alive, let alone free to walk the streets. But if our legal system decides that he's paid his debt and should be free, with a few extra restrictions placed on him, why should a group of individuals be allowed to trample on his rights and punish him further?

"apparently, the First Amendment only exists as long as the speaker(s) are not offensive. Or in this church's case, wacko."

You probably need to read the article again, assuming you have already. The sanity of these people was not a factor at all.

ANYBODY KILLED A U.S. NIG TODAY?!

Good christian present for the dog.

A U.S. NIG TODAY?!

If you're gonna spew, write the word out. Don't be a pussy. It's gonna get dumped. Make it worthy.

Many of the injunctions given in the Torah were for the Jewish people alone, for their preservation and development of new culture --- as they just came from slavery under a heathen nation. Hence you find many restrictions that does not make sense in the modern world --- such as pork, circumcision, slavery, etc.

Abraham married his own sister from a different mother. Sodom was destroyed during the time of Abraham. As of that time, homosexuality and marrying step-sister (Abraham and Sarah) was not forbidden yet (which came after 400 years, Lev. 18-19).

So when homosexuality was forbidden in the Torah, it was so in order that Israelites will not imitate the people in Canaan who they were about to replace, as homosexual practice at that time was associated with cultic rituals.

Too much to consider, but only a few hints here. I am neither condemning nor condoning gay lifestyle. But biblically speaking, I am convinced a monogamous, committed relationship between two hopelessly (no absolute desire for female) gays are acceptable.

It is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Phelps and his ilks are dead wrong in hating gays. A moral gay can have a meaningful relationship with the loving God who created him the way he is.