No, I don't think tort law can/should subvert the constitution. Which makes me ask: how does the IIED tort not violate constitutional free speech?
Sounds like it does. Not sure what the protocol is for striking something like that down. I guess they just did?
Just stopping by to express that this is kind of interesting to me too. Things like sexual harassment (really any verbal harassment) are interesting to think about in this kind of context/situation/hypothetical.
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
Westboro Baptist hasn't been firebombed into oblivion by now? What is this world coming to?
They are indisputably assholes, and they are indisputably within their rights, because as others have noted, they know their rights very well, and they know exactly how far they can go without getting sued.
The best way I've seen people deal with them is to organize a small counter-protest in which people get friends and family to pledge money for each minute Phelps and his followers spend protesting, with that money to be donated to Planned Parenthood or the ACLU or suchlike. Some liberal university actually had a ticker thing and stood near the Phelps folks, showing them second by second how much total money they had raised for their campus's Gay/Straight Alliance, if I remember right.
Cracking down on free speech is a bad idea, and yelling at them just brings you to their level, with the appropriate wrestling-a-pig simile as appropriate. Organizing something positive and loving seems like a nice way to take the wind out of their sails, though.
That is the best freaking idea I've heard.
I'll be organizing something like that if those wackos ever come near me.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I would argue that they don't have it on number 1. They didn't call the dead soldier a faggot, they said that dead soldiers were caused by gay people. Iraq is god's punishment for us allowing gay people is their argument. It is a sincerely held religious belief. I would not call their actions extreme if you buy the premises involved. Therefore, they are not breaking number 1.
Lots of sincerely held religious beliefs are illegal in the U.S.
Because they break other laws. Not because they are "extreme"
I'd call protesting at a funeral extreme. Most people would in fact, which is why it's in the news when it happens and why most of the country finds it morally reprehensible.
And I would argue that if you buy the premises these people do, then it is not extreme. I don't know any case law on either side though to say what the law says though.
And why exactly should anyone buy their premise?
Buy the wrong premise and almost anything is believable. If unicorn blood makes boobs grow, and horses can be converted into unicorns by molesting snails, than technically I know a lot of women that should be out raping mollusks right now.
SparserLogic on
0
Options
Handsome CostanzaAsk me about 8bitdoRIP Iwata-sanRegistered Userregular
I would argue that they don't have it on number 1. They didn't call the dead soldier a faggot, they said that dead soldiers were caused by gay people. Iraq is god's punishment for us allowing gay people is their argument. It is a sincerely held religious belief. I would not call their actions extreme if you buy the premises involved. Therefore, they are not breaking number 1.
Lots of sincerely held religious beliefs are illegal in the U.S.
Because they break other laws. Not because they are "extreme"
I'd call protesting at a funeral extreme. Most people would in fact, which is why it's in the news when it happens and why most of the country finds it morally reprehensible.
And I would argue that if you buy the premises these people do, then it is not extreme. I don't know any case law on either side though to say what the law says though.
And why exactly should anyone buy their premise?
Buy the wrong premise and almost anything is believable. If unicorn blood makes boobs grow, and horses can be converted into unicorns by molesting snails, than technically I know a lot of women that should be out raping mollusks right now.
I am not arguing for their correctness.
What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think that their actions are outrageous. Their beliefs are outrageous, but their actions are not infringing on others rights.
Anyway, what do we consider "extreme". Some people think that gay pride parades are extreme and morally reprehensible. Should they be sued?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death
etc etc
illegal with good cause.
Yea, we call that cause "murder". In your "etc etc" can you actually produce an example that doesn't feature breaking completely irrelevant secular laws? People actually do have freedom of religion in the US.
I would argue that they don't have it on number 1. They didn't call the dead soldier a faggot, they said that dead soldiers were caused by gay people. Iraq is god's punishment for us allowing gay people is their argument. It is a sincerely held religious belief. I would not call their actions extreme if you buy the premises involved. Therefore, they are not breaking number 1.
Lots of sincerely held religious beliefs are illegal in the U.S.
Because they break other laws. Not because they are "extreme"
I'd call protesting at a funeral extreme. Most people would in fact, which is why it's in the news when it happens and why most of the country finds it morally reprehensible.
And I would argue that if you buy the premises these people do, then it is not extreme. I don't know any case law on either side though to say what the law says though.
And why exactly should anyone buy their premise?
Buy the wrong premise and almost anything is believable. If unicorn blood makes boobs grow, and horses can be converted into unicorns by molesting snails, than technically I know a lot of women that should be out raping mollusks right now.
I am not arguing for their correctness.
What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think that their actions are outrageous. Their beliefs are outrageous, but their actions are not infringing on others rights.
Anyway, what do we consider "extreme". Some people think that gay pride parades are extreme and morally reprehensible. Should they be sued?
We make a point as a society to allow parades on a case by case basis in strictly supervised settings.
We don't do the same thing with funeral protests. Again I say, if you're going to buy the premise that leads them to protesting and shouting obscenities at grieving parents, why not buy the whole hog and argue for the eradication of gays, browns, fornicators, heathens, communists, socialists, and the intelligent.
We make a point as a society to allow parades on a case by case basis in strictly supervised settings.
We don't do the same thing with funeral protests. Again I say, if you're going to buy the premise that leads them to protesting and shouting obscenities at grieving parents, why not buy the whole hog and argue for the eradication of gays, browns, fornicators, heathens, communists, socialists, and the intelligent.
The content of their belief isn't the issue here. I do not support any of the premises they are arguing. That part is irrelevant. What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think their actions are extreme in the context of tort law on emotional distress.
These protests take place in supervised settings. They go out and get permits. That is why the police are generally there to keep people from hurting them. But even if they didn't could we ban a planned gay rally outside a church? That offends those inside and going inside at what many consider a sacred and emotional time.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
No, I don't think tort law can/should subvert the constitution. Which makes me ask: how does the IIED tort not violate constitutional free speech?
Sounds like it does. Not sure what the protocol is for striking something like that down. I guess they just did?
Just stopping by to express that this is kind of interesting to me too. Things like sexual harassment (really any verbal harassment) are interesting to think about in this kind of context/situation/hypothetical.
It's a legitimate question that I think needs to be answered before this thread can really go anywhere.
What's the point of IIED if you can't use it as a cause of action? Admittedly, it's one of the weaker torts (you can't sue for just IIED unless the defendant's behavior was REALLY outrageous; generally it's attached to another suit and you sue for both), but it's stuck around for a really long time. On a very fundamental level, IIED is the "anti-asshole" cause of action and no American court has ruled it unconstitutional.
Which basically means this case is about one or both of the following points:
1. The church's behavior doesn't satisfy IIED, so no damages can be awarded.
2. IIED isn't a valid cause of action because it's unconstitutional.
We make a point as a society to allow parades on a case by case basis in strictly supervised settings.
We don't do the same thing with funeral protests. Again I say, if you're going to buy the premise that leads them to protesting and shouting obscenities at grieving parents, why not buy the whole hog and argue for the eradication of gays, browns, fornicators, heathens, communists, socialists, and the intelligent.
The content of their belief isn't the issue here. I do not support any of the premises they are arguing. That part is irrelevant. What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think their actions are extreme in the context of tort law on emotional distress.
These protests take place in supervised settings. They go out and get permits. That is why the police are generally there to keep people from hurting them. But even if they didn't could we ban a planned gay rally outside a church? That offends those inside and going inside at what many consider a sacred and emotional time.
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
As a Baptist I despise the Westboro Baptist Church and they crazy antics. they are giving the rest of us a very bad name.
Agreed. I can't stand censorship either however. Personally I'd like to see the Southern Baptist Convention speak out against these people. Disagreeing with a lifestyle is one thing but its insulting to all to harass the family at a funeral.
To be frank I believe these people to be just one step behind the terrorists who use Islam as an excuse for their actions. God doesn't hate anyone (though he may hate our actions) and it is not our place to judge only his. He wants us to live our lives as best we can and to treat others as we want to be treated. < / Soap Box >
Scratch that they did:
From SBC.net:
20. Is Fred Phelps (the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and leader of those who protest under the slogan "God Hates Fags") or his church affiliated with the SBC?
We share concern over the unbiblical views and offensive tactics of Fred Phelps and his followers. His church is not in any way affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, and his extreme position not only stands in contrast to ours, more importantly they stand in contrast to God's Word. God has stated clearly in His Word that homosexual behavior is sinful, but He also clearly states His love for sinners, including homosexuals, and that He offers forgiveness through Jesus Christ for all who repent and place their faith in Him.
The SBC is not in a position to take official action regarding Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Indeed, he has picketed the SBC Building in Nashville and annual meetings on numerous occasions because he believes the SBC to be part of the problem.
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?
Alternatively, the extreme assholish nature of the WBC is a way to drive people towards a more moderate message as they distance themselves from Phelps and his kin. You can never be sure with that god fellow, always being tricky like speaking from a burning bush or knocking up virgins.
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
There are some public places where you can ban protests- such as the inside of courthouses, the middle of highways and the like. These are called time, place and manner restrictions. But, these restrictions can't be too onerous and have to be narowly tailored. From what I've seen, the WBC people generally hold their protest on the sidewalk of a public street or on the grass nearby. To ban protests in such areas, the government would need to come up with a pretty good (and Constitutional) reason. The fact that such a protest ruins someone else's day is not going to hold up.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
There are some public places where you can ban protests- such as the inside of courthouses, the middle of highways and the like. These are called time, place and manner restrictions. But, these restrictions can't be too onerous and have to be narowly tailored. From what I've seen, the WBC people generally hold their protest on the sidewalk of a public street or on the grass nearby. To ban protests in such areas, the government would need to come up with a pretty good (and Constitutional) reason. The fact that such a protest ruins someone else's day is not going to hold up.
You say the Government like I'm saying Obama should step in and start telling everyone where they can and cannot speak loudly.
I'm talking about the people commonly agreeing as setting a law. Not a representative group of silly geese elected by the passive public, the actual people voting on it as a ballot measure.
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.
But I'm also a European citizen as well as an American citizen. I decided long ago that if shit got bad enough I would have no problem moving to someplace small and quiet and away from the stupids of the world.
We make a point as a society to allow parades on a case by case basis in strictly supervised settings.
We don't do the same thing with funeral protests. Again I say, if you're going to buy the premise that leads them to protesting and shouting obscenities at grieving parents, why not buy the whole hog and argue for the eradication of gays, browns, fornicators, heathens, communists, socialists, and the intelligent.
The content of their belief isn't the issue here. I do not support any of the premises they are arguing. That part is irrelevant. What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think their actions are extreme in the context of tort law on emotional distress.
These protests take place in supervised settings. They go out and get permits. That is why the police are generally there to keep people from hurting them. But even if they didn't could we ban a planned gay rally outside a church? That offends those inside and going inside at what many consider a sacred and emotional time.
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
The supreme court has ruled that permit or ordinance laws must meet these requirements.
“must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open
ample alternatives for communication.” It also cannot place an undue burden on the first amendment rights.
What you are talking about is banning speech from a public place. Outside of XYZ private place is not sufficient reason to do so under the law.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
The Westboro Baptist Church knows how the game is played, that's why so many of them are lawyers - they sue to keep protesting, if you touch them they sue you for money to keep protesting. But honestly now, they don't do anything but spout inflammatory speech and promote civil unrest - cases like this should be open-and-shut where the judge goes "you go exercise your free speech somewhere where it isn't disturbing the peace" which is a polite way of telling them to go fuck themselves with their protest signs at least 1000 feet away from the cemetery boundaries.
^ This.
It seems to me that a very narrow ruling on this specific issue is really what's called for. They're obviously gaming the system - fuck them for it.
Bingo. It's basically the real life equivalent of trolling.
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.
Quid on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
Thus my point being "Maybe it is illegal now, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way."
SparserLogic on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
They were all drunk. Afterwards they went "Whoops, I'll never vote drunk again!" Ironically, they legally couldn't for several years.
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
There are some public places where you can ban protests- such as the inside of courthouses, the middle of highways and the like. These are called time, place and manner restrictions. But, these restrictions can't be too onerous and have to be narowly tailored. From what I've seen, the WBC people generally hold their protest on the sidewalk of a public street or on the grass nearby. To ban protests in such areas, the government would need to come up with a pretty good (and Constitutional) reason. The fact that such a protest ruins someone else's day is not going to hold up.
A funeral for a loved one isn't just a day though.
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.
They were all drunk. Afterwards they went "Whoops, I'll never vote drunk again!" Ironically, they legally couldn't for several years.
Ever been to a county/city with blue laws? That's how.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
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.
They were all drunk. Afterwards they went "Whoops, I'll never vote drunk again!" Ironically, they legally couldn't for several years.
Oh they did, they just did it in their basement talkin' like "NAH SEE, THEY'LL NEVER TAKE MY BOOZE, SEE!"
We make a point as a society to allow parades on a case by case basis in strictly supervised settings.
We don't do the same thing with funeral protests. Again I say, if you're going to buy the premise that leads them to protesting and shouting obscenities at grieving parents, why not buy the whole hog and argue for the eradication of gays, browns, fornicators, heathens, communists, socialists, and the intelligent.
The content of their belief isn't the issue here. I do not support any of the premises they are arguing. That part is irrelevant. What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think their actions are extreme in the context of tort law on emotional distress.
These protests take place in supervised settings. They go out and get permits. That is why the police are generally there to keep people from hurting them. But even if they didn't could we ban a planned gay rally outside a church? That offends those inside and going inside at what many consider a sacred and emotional time.
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
The supreme court has ruled that permit or ordinance laws must meet these requirements.
“must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open
ample alternatives for communication.” It also cannot place an undue burden on the first amendment rights.
What you are talking about is banning speech from a public place. Outside of XYZ private place is not sufficient reason to do so under the law.
I've seen, in my town, abortion advocates with their fetus signs being forced a certain distance from public schools. Not because of what they are saying, which the law cant stop them from saying, but the court agreed that it was a violation of some kind of vaguely worded public nuisance law to do it there.
Pretty much every town has some kind of ordinance against world class jackassery for just this kind of thing.
edit: years ago they tried to stop them outright from protesting and lost on first ammendment grounds, but they can get away with asking them to go somewhere else if they're creating a disturbance
override367 on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
We make a point as a society to allow parades on a case by case basis in strictly supervised settings.
We don't do the same thing with funeral protests. Again I say, if you're going to buy the premise that leads them to protesting and shouting obscenities at grieving parents, why not buy the whole hog and argue for the eradication of gays, browns, fornicators, heathens, communists, socialists, and the intelligent.
The content of their belief isn't the issue here. I do not support any of the premises they are arguing. That part is irrelevant. What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think their actions are extreme in the context of tort law on emotional distress.
These protests take place in supervised settings. They go out and get permits. That is why the police are generally there to keep people from hurting them. But even if they didn't could we ban a planned gay rally outside a church? That offends those inside and going inside at what many consider a sacred and emotional time.
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
The supreme court has ruled that permit or ordinance laws must meet these requirements.
“must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open
ample alternatives for communication.” It also cannot place an undue burden on the first amendment rights.
What you are talking about is banning speech from a public place. Outside of XYZ private place is not sufficient reason to do so under the law.
I've seen, in my town, abortion advocates with their fetus signs being forced a certain distance from public schools. Not because of what they are saying, which the law cant stop them from saying, but the court agreed that it was a violation of some kind of vaguely worded public nuisance law to do it there.
Pretty much every town has some kind of ordinance against world class jackassery for just this kind of thing.
Keeping them the certain distance from the school keeps with the permit/ordinance laws you just quoted.
I don't know that a funeral would be covered by "must be narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest."
edit: years ago they tried to stop them outright from protesting and lost on first ammendment grounds, but they can get away with asking them to go somewhere else if they're creating a disturbance
Any idea how far away they have to be from the school? Might be a similar distance as Westboro had to be from the funeral.
SCOTUS decided today that, later this year, they will make a ruling on where free speech stands in regard to protests in close proximity to funerals or solemn ceremonies. It will help decide if family / friends of the funeral can sue protest organizers, like our lovely friends at the Westboro Baptist Church.
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.
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.
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.
Absent "rule of law" what would you have rule?
Bush-Cheney.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
Turns out people believe in rule of law in this country.
but they're listening to every word I say
That is the best freaking idea I've heard.
I'll be organizing something like that if those wackos ever come near me.
And why exactly should anyone buy their premise?
Buy the wrong premise and almost anything is believable. If unicorn blood makes boobs grow, and horses can be converted into unicorns by molesting snails, than technically I know a lot of women that should be out raping mollusks right now.
bullshit... People do illegal stuff all the time, they just need a little direction is all.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
You mean the laws written by the majority?
That majority that agree that these people are the lowest form of scum?
Sounds like something it would be fun to put to a vote!
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.
I am not arguing for their correctness.
What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think that their actions are outrageous. Their beliefs are outrageous, but their actions are not infringing on others rights.
Anyway, what do we consider "extreme". Some people think that gay pride parades are extreme and morally reprehensible. Should they be sued?
but they're listening to every word I say
Yea, we call that cause "murder". In your "etc etc" can you actually produce an example that doesn't feature breaking completely irrelevant secular laws? People actually do have freedom of religion in the US.
You have fun in jail after inciting that action.
but they're listening to every word I say
Ok I will.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
We make a point as a society to allow parades on a case by case basis in strictly supervised settings.
We don't do the same thing with funeral protests. Again I say, if you're going to buy the premise that leads them to protesting and shouting obscenities at grieving parents, why not buy the whole hog and argue for the eradication of gays, browns, fornicators, heathens, communists, socialists, and the intelligent.
Or maybe it's just proof that people have free will...?
The content of their belief isn't the issue here. I do not support any of the premises they are arguing. That part is irrelevant. What I am saying is that considering what they believe, I do not think their actions are extreme in the context of tort law on emotional distress.
These protests take place in supervised settings. They go out and get permits. That is why the police are generally there to keep people from hurting them. But even if they didn't could we ban a planned gay rally outside a church? That offends those inside and going inside at what many consider a sacred and emotional time.
but they're listening to every word I say
It's a legitimate question that I think needs to be answered before this thread can really go anywhere.
What's the point of IIED if you can't use it as a cause of action? Admittedly, it's one of the weaker torts (you can't sue for just IIED unless the defendant's behavior was REALLY outrageous; generally it's attached to another suit and you sue for both), but it's stuck around for a really long time. On a very fundamental level, IIED is the "anti-asshole" cause of action and no American court has ruled it unconstitutional.
Which basically means this case is about one or both of the following points:
1. The church's behavior doesn't satisfy IIED, so no damages can be awarded.
2. IIED isn't a valid cause of action because it's unconstitutional.
Really? The 'free will is justification for the evil that happens in the world' card? You're really gonna play that one?
So then the question becomes: If we have a permit system to organize and control, why can the local community simply not vote to ban the issuing of protest permits for sensitive areas?
I don't buy the "If they can't do it at a funeral than you can't do it at a church" argument. Because you're right, neither of those things should happen. This isn't a matter of government control'n the people, this is a matter of people coming together and agreeing on a baseline of human decency.
Agreed. I can't stand censorship either however. Personally I'd like to see the Southern Baptist Convention speak out against these people. Disagreeing with a lifestyle is one thing but its insulting to all to harass the family at a funeral.
To be frank I believe these people to be just one step behind the terrorists who use Islam as an excuse for their actions. God doesn't hate anyone (though he may hate our actions) and it is not our place to judge only his. He wants us to live our lives as best we can and to treat others as we want to be treated. < / Soap Box >
Scratch that they did:
Alternatively, the extreme assholish nature of the WBC is a way to drive people towards a more moderate message as they distance themselves from Phelps and his kin. You can never be sure with that god fellow, always being tricky like speaking from a burning bush or knocking up virgins.
Rigorous Scholarship
You say the Government like I'm saying Obama should step in and start telling everyone where they can and cannot speak loudly.
I'm talking about the people commonly agreeing as setting a law. Not a representative group of silly geese elected by the passive public, the actual people voting on it as a ballot measure.
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.
But I'm also a European citizen as well as an American citizen. I decided long ago that if shit got bad enough I would have no problem moving to someplace small and quiet and away from the stupids of the world.
The supreme court has ruled that permit or ordinance laws must meet these requirements.
“must not be based on the content of the message, must be narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open
ample alternatives for communication.” It also cannot place an undue burden on the first amendment rights.
What you are talking about is banning speech from a public place. Outside of XYZ private place is not sufficient reason to do so under the law.
but they're listening to every word I say
The constitution can be changed already without destroying it. All you need is a 3/4 vote to amend it.
3/4 of states have to ratify it.
Makes you wonder how prohibition ever passed.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Thus my point being "Maybe it is illegal now, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way."
They were all drunk. Afterwards they went "Whoops, I'll never vote drunk again!" Ironically, they legally couldn't for several years.
A funeral for a loved one isn't just a day though.
Ever been to a county/city with blue laws? That's how.
Oh they did, they just did it in their basement talkin' like "NAH SEE, THEY'LL NEVER TAKE MY BOOZE, SEE!"
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
I've seen, in my town, abortion advocates with their fetus signs being forced a certain distance from public schools. Not because of what they are saying, which the law cant stop them from saying, but the court agreed that it was a violation of some kind of vaguely worded public nuisance law to do it there.
Pretty much every town has some kind of ordinance against world class jackassery for just this kind of thing.
edit: years ago they tried to stop them outright from protesting and lost on first ammendment grounds, but they can get away with asking them to go somewhere else if they're creating a disturbance
Keeping them the certain distance from the school keeps with the permit/ordinance laws you just quoted.
I don't know that a funeral would be covered by "must be narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest."
Any idea how far away they have to be from the school? Might be a similar distance as Westboro had to be from the funeral.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Oh god that's a trap.
Absent "rule of law" what would you have rule?
Rule of the mob, apparently.
Bush-Cheney.