As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Crazy people protesting funerals

1567810

Posts

  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    I don't believe all non-violent protests need to be protected, nor should they be. Inciting hatred isn't something I believe you need to allow. But then, I live in a country where it's illegal.

    The best response to speech is more speech.

    I don't know that that is so. More speech doesn't always solve things, historically, I think there are numerous examples of speech that you don't want to allow. But I'm from Canada and we have a different perspective on limitations on free speech.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • Just Like ThatJust Like That Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Corvus wrote: »
    I don't believe all non-violent protests need to be protected, nor should they be. Inciting hatred isn't something I believe you need to allow. But then, I live in a country where it's illegal.

    I guess popular censorship isn't the most terrible thing ever, but I'd still prefer no (or limited, technically) censorship.

    Just Like That on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    If we are talking about a group of people making threats of physical violence, explicit or implied, then I agree with you. As someone noted earlier, death threats are not protected under freedom of speech.

    But protests can be 'intimidating' and contain 'hate speech' without calling for violence, and I see no reason to enact laws against such vague terms. If the group is not calling for violence, then they can say whatever stupid things they want. They are only words, and nobody will listen to them if they are so ignorant anyways.

    An example: say there was a Ku Klux Klan rally being held in your town. If they were saying things like "black people should be beaten and hanged," that would be a no-no. But if they wanted to spout on about the 'Aryan' race and how the races shouldn't mix, and how black people should go back to Africa, or other nonsense like that, why should they be stopped? It may be hateful and even intimidating to some people, but again, they are just words and dumb people are entitled to an opinion too.

    What's the old saying?-- freedom of speech isn't there to protect the speech you like, it's there to protect the speech you don't like.
    I don't think you appreciate just how alienating and frightening it can be to witness a group of people demonstrating their barely restrained hatred towards you and your family.

    Grid System on
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    If we are talking about a group of people making threats of physical violence, explicit or implied, then I agree with you. As someone noted earlier, death threats are not protected under freedom of speech.

    But protests can be 'intimidating' and contain 'hate speech' without calling for violence, and I see no reason to enact laws against such vague terms. If the group is not calling for violence, then they can say whatever stupid things they want. They are only words, and nobody will listen to them if they are so ignorant anyways.

    An example: say there was a Ku Klux Klan rally being held in your town. If they were saying things like "black people should be beaten and hanged," that would be a no-no. But if they wanted to spout on about the 'Aryan' race and how the races shouldn't mix, and how black people should go back to Africa, or other nonsense like that, why should they be stopped? It may be hateful and even intimidating to some people, but again, they are just words and dumb people are entitled to an opinion too.

    What's the old saying?-- freedom of speech isn't there to protect the speech you like, it's there to protect the speech you don't like.
    I don't think you appreciate just how alienating and frightening it can be to witness a group of people demonstrating their barely restrained hatred towards you and your family.

    I try not to let crazy people bother me. I mostly stand amazed at how absolutely crazy they are. It's like watching a train wreck. Can't not look at it. Brb, gonna go click on those WBC gets rickrolled videos. And I really like the fake sign campaign. Awesome.

    PS: No, I've never had it happen to me. I'll let you know if it does and whether or not it destroyed my mind or forced me to commit an act of violence completely independent of my own free will.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2010
    Would anyone here disagree that nonviolent protests, crazy or otherwise, should always be allowed?

    I'm not saying that there should never be restrictions, such as proximity limits, etc; obviously nobody wants some guy standing at the door of their family member's funeral yelling "GOD HATES FAGS!" through a megaphone. But I can't think of any situations where an outright banning of protests would be necessary. It would not set a good precedent.

    i would never advocate for an outright banning of protests.

    but i think that these proximity limits basically end up defining the controversy.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It's not clear to me that civil litigation is the same thing as government control. In other words, I think there is an obvious difference between making something baned by the state, and having something put you at risk of litigation.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Postal KittyPostal Kitty Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Corvus wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Corvus wrote: »
    I don't believe all non-violent protests need to be protected, nor should they be. Inciting hatred isn't something I believe you need to allow. But then, I live in a country where it's illegal.

    The best response to speech is more speech.

    I don't know that that is so. More speech doesn't always solve things, historically, I think there are numerous examples of speech that you don't want to allow. But I'm from Canada and we have a different perspective on limitations on free speech.
    Reading up on just that little law (even though its not really little, though it is a few compared to I'm sure the many.) I... Rather have that as law.

    Maybe I should just call it quits and become canadian

    Postal Kitty on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    If we are talking about a group of people making threats of physical violence, explicit or implied, then I agree with you. As someone noted earlier, death threats are not protected under freedom of speech.

    But protests can be 'intimidating' and contain 'hate speech' without calling for violence, and I see no reason to enact laws against such vague terms. If the group is not calling for violence, then they can say whatever stupid things they want. They are only words, and nobody will listen to them if they are so ignorant anyways.

    An example: say there was a Ku Klux Klan rally being held in your town. If they were saying things like "black people should be beaten and hanged," that would be a no-no. But if they wanted to spout on about the 'Aryan' race and how the races shouldn't mix, and how black people should go back to Africa, or other nonsense like that, why should they be stopped? It may be hateful and even intimidating to some people, but again, they are just words and dumb people are entitled to an opinion too.

    What's the old saying?-- freedom of speech isn't there to protect the speech you like, it's there to protect the speech you don't like.
    I don't think you appreciate just how alienating and frightening it can be to witness a group of people demonstrating their barely restrained hatred towards you and your family.

    I try not to let crazy people bother me. I mostly stand amazed at how absolutely crazy they are. It's like watching a train wreck. Can't not look at it. Brb, gonna go click on those WBC gets rickrolled videos. And I really like the fake sign campaign. Awesome.

    PS: No, I've never had it happen to me. I'll let you know if it does and whether or not it destroyed my mind or forced me to commit an act of violence completely independent of my own free will.

    I'm happy for you. Really, I am. It's great that you've lucked into the ability to tune crazy people out. Not everyone has that luxury, though. And for all that people like to bring out the old "you don't have a right to not be offended", that just demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for the victims of hate speech. That's where the focus ought to be, not on some bizarre slippery-slope argument that curtailing hate speech will lead to wholesale censorship.

    Grid System on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm happy for you. Really, I am. It's great that you've lucked into the ability to tune crazy people out. Not everyone has that luxury, though. And for all that people like to bring out the old "you don't have a right to not be offended", that just demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for the victims of hate speech. That's where the focus ought to be, not on some bizarre slippery-slope argument that curtailing hate speech will lead to wholesale censorship.

    It makes perfect sense when the only reason given is "It upsets me".

    Quid on
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Look, I like Canada. I really do. They seem like very nice people, and they seem to have some things figured out that we don't. But:
    subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    You would be surprised what can be justified in a free and democratic society when powerful people decide it's time for everyone to be scared to death.

    I am not okay with that sort of wording with regard to free speech and protest. It will be very difficult to convince me that it's no big deal.

    You guys should SEE some of the shit Scalia twists around. It's absofuckinloutely ridiculous.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    That's not the whole story. Depending on the situation, the whole story may be, "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me afraid to go out alone," or "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me feel isolated and marginalized in the community I wish to call my home," or something along those lines.

    Regardless, the key point is that it is hateful, not that it "upsets me". Upsetting speech is one thing, hateful speech is another.

    Grid System on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    I'm happy for you. Really, I am. It's great that you've lucked into the ability to tune crazy people out. Not everyone has that luxury, though. And for all that people like to bring out the old "you don't have a right to not be offended", that just demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for the victims of hate speech. That's where the focus ought to be, not on some bizarre slippery-slope argument that curtailing hate speech will lead to wholesale censorship.

    It makes perfect sense when the only reason given is "It upsets me".

    Well in many contexts, "it upsets me" turns into a civil suit surrounded by "lost productivity" and "harrassment" and "malicious disregard" and all kinds of things. I mean, maybe this whole thing is more effectively bounded by civil law, but i think that being able to conduct the kind of funeral you would like to conduct for your loved ones is a pretty reasonable thing to ask for in a free society.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    That's not the whole story. Depending on the situation, the whole story may be, "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me afraid to go out alone," or "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me feel isolated and marginalized in the community I wish to call my home," or something along those lines.

    Regardless, the key point is that it is hateful, not that it "upsets me". Upsetting speech is one thing, hateful speech is another.

    Their hate speech amounts to telling people they're going to an imaginary place after they die.

    I mean, ban that and you ban most religions.

    Quid on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Well in many contexts, "it upsets me" turns into a civil suit surrounded by "lost productivity" and "harrassment" and "malicious disregard" and all kinds of things. I mean, maybe this whole thing is more effectively bounded by civil law, but i think that being able to conduct the kind of funeral you would like to conduct for your loved ones is a pretty reasonable thing to ask for in a free society.

    It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. An unfortunate part of free societies however is the right of others to tell you they don't care about what you want if it doesn't actually hurt you.

    Quid on
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I'm happy for you. Really, I am. It's great that you've lucked into the ability to tune crazy people out. Not everyone has that luxury, though. And for all that people like to bring out the old "you don't have a right to not be offended", that just demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for the victims of hate speech. That's where the focus ought to be, not on some bizarre slippery-slope argument that curtailing hate speech will lead to wholesale censorship.

    It makes perfect sense when the only reason given is "It upsets me".

    Well in many contexts, "it upsets me" turns into a civil suit surrounded by "lost productivity" and "harrassment" and "malicious disregard" and all kinds of things. I mean, maybe this whole thing is more effectively bounded by civil law, but i think that being able to conduct the kind of funeral you would like to conduct for your loved ones is a pretty reasonable thing to ask for in a free society.

    There's just no way for that to play out in court where it isn't used against other types of protest. In the end, it's the government mandating that your specific non-violent protest is not constitutionally protected and you now have to pay out what will almost positively be punitive damages. In what way does that not fuck with the very foundation of free speech?

    It makes it so that you can have free speech, but if someone decides it bothers them enough, they can financially break you for it.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Look, I like Canada. I really do. They seem like very nice people, and they seem to have some things figured out that we don't. But:
    subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    You would be surprised what can be justified in a free and democratic society when powerful people decide it's time for everyone to be scared to death.

    I am not okay with that sort of wording with regard to free speech and protest. It will be very difficult to convince me that it's no big deal.

    You guys should SEE some of the shit Scalia twists around. It's absofuckinloutely ridiculous.
    Your concerns may be put to rest by the Oakes test.

    Basically, it's a two part analysis of the law in question. First the court has to determine if the purpose of the law addresses a concern that is "pressing and substantial". That's probably the easier part. Then it looks at whether the law is rationally connected to the purpose, and if there is some other way of addressing the purpose that is less intrusive. If a law is going to fail the Oakes test, it's usually at this stage, because the Supreme Court Justices are pretty good at their jobs.

    I like the system. It's worked out pretty well so far.

    Grid System on
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Look, I like Canada. I really do. They seem like very nice people, and they seem to have some things figured out that we don't. But:
    subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    You would be surprised what can be justified in a free and democratic society when powerful people decide it's time for everyone to be scared to death.

    I am not okay with that sort of wording with regard to free speech and protest. It will be very difficult to convince me that it's no big deal.

    You guys should SEE some of the shit Scalia twists around. It's absofuckinloutely ridiculous.
    Your concerns may be put to rest by the Oakes test.

    Basically, it's a two part analysis of the law in question. First the court has to determine if the purpose of the law addresses a concern that is "pressing and substantial". That's probably the easier part. Then it looks at whether the law is rationally connected to the purpose, and if there is some other way of addressing the purpose that is less intrusive. If a law is going to fail the Oakes test, it's usually at this stage, because the Supreme Court Justices are pretty good at their jobs.

    I like the system. It's worked out pretty well so far.

    RE: Bolded part -> One day Canada will have their very own Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and you will collectively say "Oh.... well... fuck."

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the whole story. Depending on the situation, the whole story may be, "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me afraid to go out alone," or "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me feel isolated and marginalized in the community I wish to call my home," or something along those lines.

    Regardless, the key point is that it is hateful, not that it "upsets me". Upsetting speech is one thing, hateful speech is another.

    Their hate speech amounts to telling people they're going to an imaginary place after they die.

    I mean, ban that and you ban most religions.

    They do worse:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/WBC_McClinton.jpg
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Westboro_BC_03022010_RichmondVa.jpg/800px-Westboro_BC_03022010_RichmondVa.jpg
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Westboro_Baptist_Church_in_New_York_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg/771px-Westboro_Baptist_Church_in_New_York_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

    Grid System on
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    That's not the whole story. Depending on the situation, the whole story may be, "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me afraid to go out alone," or "It is hateful, intrusive, and makes me feel isolated and marginalized in the community I wish to call my home," or something along those lines.

    Regardless, the key point is that it is hateful, not that it "upsets me". Upsetting speech is one thing, hateful speech is another.

    Their hate speech amounts to telling people they're going to an imaginary place after they die.

    I mean, ban that and you ban most religions.

    They do worse:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/WBC_McClinton.jpg
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Westboro_BC_03022010_RichmondVa.jpg/800px-Westboro_BC_03022010_RichmondVa.jpg
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Westboro_Baptist_Church_in_New_York_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg/771px-Westboro_Baptist_Church_in_New_York_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

    They're if 4chan was a religion, and drank it's own kool aid. We know. It's bewildering, but still protected by the first amendment so long as they're non-violent.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    First off, I was referring to WBC. You know, the people this thread is about.

    Secondly, I'm not seeing the point of any of those pictures. Yes, they are hateful. No, they don't actually hurt anyone. The only ones even actually related to reality are the ones comparing a black mayor to a Nazi gorilla and a poster calling all Catholic priests liars.

    And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people willing to argue the second.

    Quid on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm just glad they're your problem, not mine. They tried to come up to Winnipeg a couple years back to "protest" at the funeral for Tim McLean, the guy who got beheaded on a Greyhound, but a bunch of them got stopped at the border. Good stuff.

    Grid System on
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I'm just glad they're your problem, not mine. They tried to come up to Winnipeg a couple years back to "protest" at the funeral for Tim McLean, the guy who got beheaded on a Greyhound, but a bunch of them got stopped at the border. Good stuff.

    What the hell? What does that guy have to do with anything they say? This completely confirms (in case we weren't sure) that they're goddamn camera chasing trolls. No wonder they don't just stick to the internet with the rest of the trolls, the camera time has got to be the only reason.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Evil_ReaverEvil_Reaver Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    It's not clear to me that civil litigation is the same thing as government control. In other words, I think there is an obvious difference between making something baned by the state, and having something put you at risk of litigation.

    I was asking about this a couple of pages ago just for the sake of discussion.

    I was going to build it up in to a statement so grand that even Quid would bask in its glory.

    However, they want to argue about other stuff that I'm not really interested in.

    Evil_Reaver on
    XBL: Agitated Wombat | 3DS: 2363-7048-2527
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    It's not clear to me that civil litigation is the same thing as government control. In other words, I think there is an obvious difference between making something baned by the state, and having something put you at risk of litigation.

    I was asking about this a couple of pages ago just for the sake of discussion.

    I was going to build it up in to a statement so grand that even Quid would bask in its glory.

    However, they want to argue about other stuff that I'm not really interested in.

    Here's what I posted further up the page, might apply to what you wanted to talk about:
    There's just no way for that to play out in court where it isn't used against other types of protest. In the end, it's the government mandating that your specific non-violent protest is not constitutionally protected and you now have to pay out what will almost positively be punitive damages. In what way does that not fuck with the very foundation of free speech?

    It makes it so that you can have free speech, but if someone decides it bothers them enough, they can financially break you for it.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Evil_ReaverEvil_Reaver Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Oh hey, look at that.

    You stole my words. Edit: I went back and read your paragraph in context and it's not exactly what I wanted to say, but it's close to the point.

    So yeah, basically civil litigation is Anti-Asshole Insurance. You have a way out if someone does something to you that's super shitty; it's just that the conduct of the defendant has to be really, really bad in order for the litigation to work.

    For example:

    In this case, if the church people had been 20 feet away from the funeral with their signs and they were yelling horrible, horrible things at the funeral-goers, the court would probably award damages to the appellants.

    From what I've gleaned in this thread, though, that's not exactly what happened (in that the church people were down the road and out of sight and the appellants didn't even know they were there until much later). If that's the case, then they will have a hard time proving IIED.

    I really don't feel like reading the appellate court's decision, but I am curious about why they're addressing free speech. It seems like they only need to say it is IIED or it's not IIED.

    Evil_Reaver on
    XBL: Agitated Wombat | 3DS: 2363-7048-2527
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Oh hey, look at that.

    You stole my words. Edit: I went back and read your paragraph in context and it's not exactly what I wanted to say, but it's close to the point.

    So yeah, basically civil litigation is Anti-Asshole Insurance. You have a way out if someone does something to you that's super shitty; it's just that the conduct of the defendant has to be really, really bad in order for the litigation to work.

    For example:

    In this case, if the church people had been 20 feet away from the funeral with their signs and they were yelling horrible, horrible things at the funeral-goers, the court would probably award damages to the appellants.

    From what I've gleaned in this thread, though, that's not exactly what happened (in that the church people were down the road and out of sight and the appellants didn't even know they were there until much later). If that's the case, then they will have a hard time proving IIED.

    I really don't feel like reading the appellate court's decision, but I am curious about why they're addressing free speech. It seems like they only need to say it is IIED or it's not IIED.

    I'd guess they are bringing up free speech because there protests are political/religious in nature. This sue people as a solution idea is idiotic, as it would open up every protest to lawsuits by the targeted agency. KFC probably suffers quantifiable financial harm(as opposed to "emotional duress") from PETA protests, should they be allowed to sue for compensatory damages?

    Also I wish all kinds of violent harm on these people, but millions of dollars for shouting some nasty stuff at a funeral is absurd, but then again I think most of our harassment laws have gone off into crazy land.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Evil_ReaverEvil_Reaver Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Oh hey, look at that.

    You stole my words. Edit: I went back and read your paragraph in context and it's not exactly what I wanted to say, but it's close to the point.

    So yeah, basically civil litigation is Anti-Asshole Insurance. You have a way out if someone does something to you that's super shitty; it's just that the conduct of the defendant has to be really, really bad in order for the litigation to work.

    For example:

    In this case, if the church people had been 20 feet away from the funeral with their signs and they were yelling horrible, horrible things at the funeral-goers, the court would probably award damages to the appellants.

    From what I've gleaned in this thread, though, that's not exactly what happened (in that the church people were down the road and out of sight and the appellants didn't even know they were there until much later). If that's the case, then they will have a hard time proving IIED.

    I really don't feel like reading the appellate court's decision, but I am curious about why they're addressing free speech. It seems like they only need to say it is IIED or it's not IIED.

    I'd guess they are bringing up free speech because there protests are political/religious in nature. This sue people as a solution idea is idiotic, as it would open up every protest to lawsuits by the targeted agency. KFC probably suffers quantifiable financial harm(as opposed to "emotional duress") from PETA protests, should they be allowed to sue for compensatory damages?

    Also I wish all kinds of violent harm on these people, but millions of dollars for shouting some nasty stuff at a funeral is absurd, but then again I think most of our harassment laws have gone off into crazy land.

    Sure, I get that the protest is religious in nature, but (in my limited knowledge here) I don't think the argument has to be about protecting the right to protest/free speech.

    Protesting KFC (a corporation) is not the same as protesting the funeral of a family member. KFC The Corporation isn't going to suffer emotional harm from anyone's protest. They might suffer economic harm (and I'm not sure how that could/would be handled in civil litigation), but the point is that KFC The Corporation would not have a cause of action for IIED. The family, on the other hand, could sue for IIED if the elements of the tort are satisfied.

    The outlying problem here is that the appellate court overturned a damages award to the appellant for an IIED cause of action. My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Now again, I didn't read the appellate decision. I've been trying to follow the thread to pick up on what you guys got from it, but so far I haven't seen anything addressing this issue.

    Edit: Giant wall of text is giant.

    Evil_Reaver on
    XBL: Agitated Wombat | 3DS: 2363-7048-2527
  • ZampanovZampanov You May Not Go Home Until Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Oh hey, look at that.

    You stole my words. Edit: I went back and read your paragraph in context and it's not exactly what I wanted to say, but it's close to the point.

    So yeah, basically civil litigation is Anti-Asshole Insurance. You have a way out if someone does something to you that's super shitty; it's just that the conduct of the defendant has to be really, really bad in order for the litigation to work.

    For example:

    In this case, if the church people had been 20 feet away from the funeral with their signs and they were yelling horrible, horrible things at the funeral-goers, the court would probably award damages to the appellants.

    From what I've gleaned in this thread, though, that's not exactly what happened (in that the church people were down the road and out of sight and the appellants didn't even know they were there until much later). If that's the case, then they will have a hard time proving IIED.

    I really don't feel like reading the appellate court's decision, but I am curious about why they're addressing free speech. It seems like they only need to say it is IIED or it's not IIED.

    I'd guess they are bringing up free speech because there protests are political/religious in nature. This sue people as a solution idea is idiotic, as it would open up every protest to lawsuits by the targeted agency. KFC probably suffers quantifiable financial harm(as opposed to "emotional duress") from PETA protests, should they be allowed to sue for compensatory damages?

    Also I wish all kinds of violent harm on these people, but millions of dollars for shouting some nasty stuff at a funeral is absurd, but then again I think most of our harassment laws have gone off into crazy land.

    Sure, I get that the protest is religious in nature, but (in my limited knowledge here) I don't think the argument has to be about protecting the right to protest/free speech.

    Protesting KFC (a corporation) is not the same as protesting the funeral of a family member. KFC The Corporation isn't going to suffer emotional harm from anyone's protest. They might suffer economic harm (and I'm not sure how that could/would be handled in civil litigation), but the point is that KFC The Corporation would not have a cause of action for IIED. The family, on the other hand, could sue for IIED if the elements of the tort are satisfied.

    The outlying problem here is that the appellate court overturned a damages award to the appellant for an IIED cause of action. My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Now again, I didn't read the appellate decision. I've been trying to follow the thread to pick up on what you guys got from it, but so far I haven't seen anything addressing this issue.

    Edit: Giant wall of text is giant.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    Zampanov on
    r4zgei8pcfod.gif
    PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Oh hey, look at that.

    You stole my words. Edit: I went back and read your paragraph in context and it's not exactly what I wanted to say, but it's close to the point.

    So yeah, basically civil litigation is Anti-Asshole Insurance. You have a way out if someone does something to you that's super shitty; it's just that the conduct of the defendant has to be really, really bad in order for the litigation to work.

    For example:

    In this case, if the church people had been 20 feet away from the funeral with their signs and they were yelling horrible, horrible things at the funeral-goers, the court would probably award damages to the appellants.

    From what I've gleaned in this thread, though, that's not exactly what happened (in that the church people were down the road and out of sight and the appellants didn't even know they were there until much later). If that's the case, then they will have a hard time proving IIED.

    I really don't feel like reading the appellate court's decision, but I am curious about why they're addressing free speech. It seems like they only need to say it is IIED or it's not IIED.

    I'd guess they are bringing up free speech because there protests are political/religious in nature. This sue people as a solution idea is idiotic, as it would open up every protest to lawsuits by the targeted agency. KFC probably suffers quantifiable financial harm(as opposed to "emotional duress") from PETA protests, should they be allowed to sue for compensatory damages?

    Also I wish all kinds of violent harm on these people, but millions of dollars for shouting some nasty stuff at a funeral is absurd, but then again I think most of our harassment laws have gone off into crazy land.

    Sure, I get that the protest is religious in nature, but (in my limited knowledge here) I don't think the argument has to be about protecting the right to protest/free speech.

    Protesting KFC (a corporation) is not the same as protesting the funeral of a family member. KFC The Corporation isn't going to suffer emotional harm from anyone's protest. They might suffer economic harm (and I'm not sure how that could/would be handled in civil litigation), but the point is that KFC The Corporation would not have a cause of action for IIED. The family, on the other hand, could sue for IIED if the elements of the tort are satisfied.

    The outlying problem here is that the appellate court overturned a damages award to the appellant for an IIED cause of action. My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Now again, I didn't read the appellate decision. I've been trying to follow the thread to pick up on what you guys got from it, but so far I haven't seen anything addressing this issue.

    Edit: Giant wall of text is giant.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    The Constitution trumps the common law. And civil litigation, or rather, the enforcement of a civil judgment, is absolutely government action.

    Tiger Burning on
    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • Evil_ReaverEvil_Reaver Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Oh hey, look at that.

    You stole my words. Edit: I went back and read your paragraph in context and it's not exactly what I wanted to say, but it's close to the point.

    So yeah, basically civil litigation is Anti-Asshole Insurance. You have a way out if someone does something to you that's super shitty; it's just that the conduct of the defendant has to be really, really bad in order for the litigation to work.

    For example:

    In this case, if the church people had been 20 feet away from the funeral with their signs and they were yelling horrible, horrible things at the funeral-goers, the court would probably award damages to the appellants.

    From what I've gleaned in this thread, though, that's not exactly what happened (in that the church people were down the road and out of sight and the appellants didn't even know they were there until much later). If that's the case, then they will have a hard time proving IIED.

    I really don't feel like reading the appellate court's decision, but I am curious about why they're addressing free speech. It seems like they only need to say it is IIED or it's not IIED.

    I'd guess they are bringing up free speech because there protests are political/religious in nature. This sue people as a solution idea is idiotic, as it would open up every protest to lawsuits by the targeted agency. KFC probably suffers quantifiable financial harm(as opposed to "emotional duress") from PETA protests, should they be allowed to sue for compensatory damages?

    Also I wish all kinds of violent harm on these people, but millions of dollars for shouting some nasty stuff at a funeral is absurd, but then again I think most of our harassment laws have gone off into crazy land.

    Sure, I get that the protest is religious in nature, but (in my limited knowledge here) I don't think the argument has to be about protecting the right to protest/free speech.

    Protesting KFC (a corporation) is not the same as protesting the funeral of a family member. KFC The Corporation isn't going to suffer emotional harm from anyone's protest. They might suffer economic harm (and I'm not sure how that could/would be handled in civil litigation), but the point is that KFC The Corporation would not have a cause of action for IIED. The family, on the other hand, could sue for IIED if the elements of the tort are satisfied.

    The outlying problem here is that the appellate court overturned a damages award to the appellant for an IIED cause of action. My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Now again, I didn't read the appellate decision. I've been trying to follow the thread to pick up on what you guys got from it, but so far I haven't seen anything addressing this issue.

    Edit: Giant wall of text is giant.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    The Constitution trumps the common law. And civil litigation, or rather, the enforcement of a civil judgment, is absolutely government action.

    Both of these statements are true.

    The problem is that this appellate court has apparently decided that a valid civil cause of action that has been used for a really long time is no longer valid (Or at least, that's what it looks like from my understanding of the suit).

    Another problem that I just thought about is that by making this a First Amendment issue, the appellate court is forcing SCOTUS to hear a civil action. This is problematic because SCOTUS isn't supposed to be used for civil litigation; that's why we have state courts that deal with civil litigation.

    Ugh... I need to read the appellate decision but I really can't be bothered right now.

    Evil_Reaver on
    XBL: Agitated Wombat | 3DS: 2363-7048-2527
  • MagicPrimeMagicPrime FiresideWizard Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Every time I see these people protesting on the side of the road I attempt to will an out of control coal truck into existence.

    It would be the perfect crime.

    MagicPrime on
    BNet • magicprime#1430 | PSN/Steam • MagicPrime | Origin • FireSideWizard
    Critical Failures - Havenhold CampaignAugust St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    FCD wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    Westboro Baptist hasn't been firebombed into oblivion by now? What is this world coming to?

    The continued existence of the WBC is the best evidence that the God of the Bible either doesn't exist, or just plain doesn't care anymore.

    Or maybe it's just proof that people have free will...?

    Really? The 'free will is justification for the evil that happens in the world' card? You're really gonna play that one?

    Really? The 'There's horrible people in the world and therefore God must not exist' card? You're really gonna play that one?

    ChillyWilly on
    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    FCD wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    Westboro Baptist hasn't been firebombed into oblivion by now? What is this world coming to?

    The continued existence of the WBC is the best evidence that the God of the Bible either doesn't exist, or just plain doesn't care anymore.

    Or maybe it's just proof that people have free will...?

    Really? The 'free will is justification for the evil that happens in the world' card? You're really gonna play that one?

    Really? The 'There's horrible people in the world and therefore God must not exist' card? You're really gonna play that one?

    It has a long and illustrious history, you know. And though some great minds have tried, none have adequately refuted it.

    nescientist on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I guess I just don't have the "Constitution is King" mentality ya'll seem to have. I'm pretty much fine with tearing it to shreds so long as its put to a vote to the people as a whole.
    The constitution can be changed already without destroying it. All you need is a 3/4 vote to amend it.
    2/3rds from each house or a 2/3rds of the states in a constitutional convention, actually.
    3/4 of states have to ratify it.
    Makes you wonder how prohibition ever passed.
    The Temperance Movement had been going for about 100 years and they sold it as a solution for addressing poverty and urban blight. The Progressive Era was also in full swing, so everyone was keen on the government saving everyone from themselves. It was a modern conservative's nightmare.

    GungHo on
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    FCD wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    Westboro Baptist hasn't been firebombed into oblivion by now? What is this world coming to?

    The continued existence of the WBC is the best evidence that the God of the Bible either doesn't exist, or just plain doesn't care anymore.

    Or maybe it's just proof that people have free will...?

    Really? The 'free will is justification for the evil that happens in the world' card? You're really gonna play that one?

    Really? The 'There's horrible people in the world and therefore God must not exist' card? You're really gonna play that one?

    It has a long and illustrious history, you know. And though some great minds have tried, none have adequately refuted it.

    I agree that it's a major point of contention. Frankly, I'm not here to argue it in any significant capacity since that's not what this thread is about. I only typed what I did because of the semi-sarcastic statement above it.

    ChillyWilly on
    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Zampanov wrote: »
    My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    The appellate decision explains it pretty clearly I think. The IIED damages were overturned because he appellate court found the protest didn't satisfy the 'intentional' part, basically saying that because their signs say 'God hates fags' instead of 'Mr. Snyder is an asshole' they weren't talking specifically about him. And they weren't, they were using his son's death as a vehicle to promote their message, which isn't the same thing at all. It's an incredibly shitty way to exercise their rights but it's within their rights to do it.

    Basically they're not saying that IIED isn't valid, they're saying that what the WBC did (in this instance) wasn't IIED.

    Also:
    Zampanov wrote: »
    Look, I like Canada. I really do. They seem like very nice people, and they seem to have some things figured out that we don't. But:
    subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    You would be surprised what can be justified in a free and democratic society when powerful people decide it's time for everyone to be scared to death.

    I am not okay with that sort of wording with regard to free speech and protest. It will be very difficult to convince me that it's no big deal.

    You guys should SEE some of the shit Scalia twists around. It's absofuckinloutely ridiculous.

    Fucking this. It may suck having to put up with the WBC being assholes, but it sucks a hell of a lot less than giving people like Scalia the authority to tell you your protest is illegal.

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • Evil_ReaverEvil_Reaver Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    The appellate decision explains it pretty clearly I think. The IIED damages were overturned because he appellate court found the protest didn't satisfy the 'intentional' part, basically saying that because their signs say 'God hates fags' instead of 'Mr. Snyder is an asshole' they weren't talking specifically about him. And they weren't, they were using his son's death as a vehicle to promote their message, which isn't the same thing at all. It's an incredibly shitty way to exercise their rights but it's within their rights to do it.

    Basically they're not saying that IIED isn't valid, they're saying that what the WBC did (in this instance) wasn't IIED.

    Oh, okay, I can handle that. Where did all the fuss about First Amendment rights come from, then? Was it an overreaction by folks in this thread?

    Evil_Reaver on
    XBL: Agitated Wombat | 3DS: 2363-7048-2527
  • Jean Claude Van CalmJean Claude Van Calm 'sup? Awesome Possum.Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    The appellate decision explains it pretty clearly I think. The IIED damages were overturned because he appellate court found the protest didn't satisfy the 'intentional' part, basically saying that because their signs say 'God hates fags' instead of 'Mr. Snyder is an asshole' they weren't talking specifically about him. And they weren't, they were using his son's death as a vehicle to promote their message, which isn't the same thing at all. It's an incredibly shitty way to exercise their rights but it's within their rights to do it.

    Basically they're not saying that IIED isn't valid, they're saying that what the WBC did (in this instance) wasn't IIED.

    Does it not matter at all that on their website under the picket times they do specifically call the deceased the same things they write on their signs? I don't see how "Yeah we called him a fag, but that was like, before we got here man" is a defense.

    Jean Claude Van Calm on
    PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    The appellate decision explains it pretty clearly I think. The IIED damages were overturned because he appellate court found the protest didn't satisfy the 'intentional' part, basically saying that because their signs say 'God hates fags' instead of 'Mr. Snyder is an asshole' they weren't talking specifically about him. And they weren't, they were using his son's death as a vehicle to promote their message, which isn't the same thing at all. It's an incredibly shitty way to exercise their rights but it's within their rights to do it.

    Basically they're not saying that IIED isn't valid, they're saying that what the WBC did (in this instance) wasn't IIED.

    Does it not matter at all that on their website under the picket times they do specifically call the deceased the same things they write on their signs? I don't see how "Yeah we called him a fag, but that was like, before we got here man" is a defense.

    It doesn't matter because they are being sued for emotional distress, caused by the picketing. If calling someone a fag online was worthy of emotional distress lawsuits, we'd never get through them all.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Jean Claude Van CalmJean Claude Van Calm 'sup? Awesome Possum.Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Zampanov wrote: »
    My problem with this entire situation is that they overturned it because apparently IIED infringes on the right to free speech which doesn't make any sense because IIED has been a valid tort since forever. To me, it seems like they should either say it is IIED or it's not IIED and leave the free speech part out.

    Bolded part: Good point. I'm also too lazy to read the decision. We're boned by our inability to care more than an internet thread's worth.

    The appellate decision explains it pretty clearly I think. The IIED damages were overturned because he appellate court found the protest didn't satisfy the 'intentional' part, basically saying that because their signs say 'God hates fags' instead of 'Mr. Snyder is an asshole' they weren't talking specifically about him. And they weren't, they were using his son's death as a vehicle to promote their message, which isn't the same thing at all. It's an incredibly shitty way to exercise their rights but it's within their rights to do it.

    Basically they're not saying that IIED isn't valid, they're saying that what the WBC did (in this instance) wasn't IIED.

    Does it not matter at all that on their website under the picket times they do specifically call the deceased the same things they write on their signs? I don't see how "Yeah we called him a fag, but that was like, before we got here man" is a defense.

    It doesn't matter because they are being sued for emotional distress, caused by the picketing. If calling someone a fag online was worthy of emotional distress lawsuits, we'd never get through them all.

    Yeah, agreed. Maybe I should of been clearer. Them saying such things online clearly shows that it is "intentionally" meant to be directed at a specific person. I'm just throwing it out there, the truth is there is no single group of people I could think of at this moment that I would rather see flayed and dipped in acid. They finger fuck the laws to keep getting their message out. Even using their children, really an 8 year old holding a sign of two stickmen ramming each other and another sign of "YOU WILL EAT YOUR BABIES" should be considered child abuse. Just thinking about them makes me realize I didn't fight for this form of speech no matter how you cut it.

    Jean Claude Van Calm on
    PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
Sign In or Register to comment.