You're still a better person than that douche. Hells, I don't even know what an IED looks like...
Everything.
They really, really fucking suck and I've been lucky enough not to deal with them. I'm impressed the people attending the funeral didn't rough the kid up.
Actually, if for whatever reason their state hasn't or won't pass such laws, then it does kind of leave them without remedy. Which is to say that the families of soldiers in 10 states are pretty much fucked (unless they get buried at a national cemetery, since apparently there's a federal law covering those).
Assuming they show up in one of those ten states, maybe. And the moment they start talking about it, I'd bet that the legislators in the state in question would fast-track a similar ban for their state. It's not like there won't be enough support for it.
And believe me, I would love nothing more than to beat the utterly retarded out of that fucker with the IED sign.
Actually, if for whatever reason their state hasn't or won't pass such laws, then it does kind of leave them without remedy. Which is to say that the families of soldiers in 10 states are pretty much fucked (unless they get buried at a national cemetery, since apparently there's a federal law covering those).
Assuming they show up in one of those ten states, maybe. And the moment they start talking about it, I'd bet that the legislators in the state in question would fast-track a similar ban for their state. It's not like there won't be enough support for it.
I'd like to think so, but since these fuckers have been doing this for a while and since people from every state have died (and will continue to) in combat I'd think that if those 10 states cared enough to pass such a ban they'd already have done so...not waited for it to happen to one of their citizens.
And believe me, I would love nothing more than to beat the utterly retarded out of that fucker with the IED sign.
No, see, I actually want to blow him up, such that they end up having to bury pieces of him.
Seriously.
Part of me would then want to picket his funeral to fuck with his family...however, I'd not be willing to sink to that level. Which makes me a far better human being than he is.
Actually, if for whatever reason their state hasn't or won't pass such laws, then it does kind of leave them without remedy. Which is to say that the families of soldiers in 10 states are pretty much fucked (unless they get buried at a national cemetery, since apparently there's a federal law covering those).
Assuming they show up in one of those ten states, maybe. And the moment they start talking about it, I'd bet that the legislators in the state in question would fast-track a similar ban for their state. It's not like there won't be enough support for it.
I'd like to think so, but since these fuckers have been doing this for a while and since people from every state have died (and will continue to) in combat I'd think that if those 10 states cared enough to pass such a ban they'd already have done so...not waited for it to happen to one of their citizens.
Well, these people travel around in some vans, I believe. So, I'm willing to bet that two of those states are Alaska and Hawaii. Further, I'll bet that the other eight are probably hella low-population-density states like the Dakotas and Wyoming, where it would just not be economically feasible to drive.
So, really, I'm saying that the legislation probably isn't necessary in those ten states, and if it looks like it will become necessary, I'm willing to bet that they'll pass it.
I was kind of hoping that the protests would end with a good old fashioned IED attack on their bus as they roll out of town.
(picture of asshole removed for poster's sanity)
This is one of those times where, quite honestly, it's only the threat of prison that would keep me from committing an otherwise horrendous crime. I've been hit by IEDs, and lost friends to IEDs, so I'd have absolutely zero problem taking that little twat's life. So take that, everybody who says that such things can't act as a deterrent to crime.
Oh, and I know this makes me a bad person. And I don't care.
You know, I was seriously surprised when nothing happened to the WBC morons who came up to picket the Baucus funeral.
Actually, if for whatever reason their state hasn't or won't pass such laws, then it does kind of leave them without remedy. Which is to say that the families of soldiers in 10 states are pretty much fucked (unless they get buried at a national cemetery, since apparently there's a federal law covering those).
Assuming they show up in one of those ten states, maybe. And the moment they start talking about it, I'd bet that the legislators in the state in question would fast-track a similar ban for their state. It's not like there won't be enough support for it.
I'd like to think so, but since these fuckers have been doing this for a while and since people from every state have died (and will continue to) in combat I'd think that if those 10 states cared enough to pass such a ban they'd already have done so...not waited for it to happen to one of their citizens.
Well, these people travel around in some vans, I believe. So, I'm willing to bet that two of those states are Alaska and Hawaii. Further, I'll bet that the other eight are probably hella low-population-density states like the Dakotas and Wyoming, where it would just not be economically feasible to drive.
So, really, I'm saying that the legislation probably isn't necessary in those ten states, and if it looks like it will become necessary, I'm willing to bet that they'll pass it.
Than, they came up to Montana. (Though that may have been driven in part that it was the funeral of a relative of a sitting US Senator.)
I was kind of hoping that the protests would end with a good old fashioned IED attack on their bus as they roll out of town.
This is one of those times where, quite honestly, it's only the threat of prison that would keep me from committing an otherwise horrendous crime. I've been hit by IEDs, and lost friends to IEDs, so I'd have absolutely zero problem taking that little twat's life. So take that, everybody who says that such things can't act as a deterrent to crime.
Oh, and I know this makes me a bad person. And I don't care.
Agreed, but I dont think the threat of prison would save him if I saw it. I'm pretty sure he is provoking any attack he receives.
I cant believe the restraint that is being shown at these funerals.
I do think that protesting at ANY funeral is wrong. I mean there is a grieving family to think about. My problem with the whole thing is that they think every single soldier died because America tolerates (to what extent is up to the people involved) gay people living here.
That's it. That's the ONLY reason they are protesting. I know that when these protests started heating up a group of Veterans of Foreign Wars started following the Phelps people around reving up their motorcycles to drown out their protests. Funny how the Phelps camp thought they were being infringed upon.
I think it would be quite hilarious if there were a group of gay people protesting at Phelps funeral. That would be sweet justice.
But all that aside we are supposed to be a free speaking nation and while I hate them their right to be dicks in public places (even though it's a private funeral) is supposed to be upheld by our Constitution. I can make an exception in this case though.
You know, everyone is saying they're protesting the funeral, but they're not. They're cheering on the funeral, as to them it is reaffirmation that they're right and everyone else is wrong. They're happy the person has died and the funeral is occurring. They're using the funeral to protest gays and "immorality".
I'll bet that the other eight are probably hella low-population-density states like the Dakotas and Wyoming, where it would just not be economically feasible to drive.
So, really, I'm saying that the legislation probably isn't necessary in those ten states, and if it looks like it will become necessary, I'm willing to bet that they'll pass it.
Nope, they have been up here to ND several times. They have protested at several funerals and held marches on the campuses of the major universities here in the state. I think we adopted one of the no protesting laws a few months ago.
I completely agree with Than that the verdict was wrong and sets a horrible precedent. The slippery slope argument isn't a logical fallacy in this case, but rather a likely consequence.
I also agree with Than (or Thin, I suppose) that criminal law is the correct tool to use, but in a slightly different fashion. A minor change to include "protesting at a funeral" as grounds for a justifiable homicide would suffice.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I also agree with Than (or Thin, I suppose) that criminal law is the correct tool to use, but in a slightly different fashion. A minor change to include "protesting at a funeral" as grounds for a justifiable homicide would suffice.
As much as that idea makes me giggle like a schoolgirl, I don't think that would be healthy for society.
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
I thought US Free Speech didn't protect stuff that could incite a riot, like a Neo-Nazi rally in a Jewish community.
So why is going to someones funeral and saying that it's a good thing he died protected by free-speech laws?
As Than said, it isn't necessarily. There is more than enough reason here to justify an abridgment of free speech in the form of a law forbidding such demonstrations. However, absent such a law, they should still theoretically have the right to demonstrate in a public place in this fashion...and shouldn't be held liable for millions of dollars for doing so.
I don't really now how you'd "protest" a funeral.
Ah, semantics. You are correct. Hence in this post I've referred to them as demonstrations. Demonstrations that the families of the deceased find offensive and unwanted, and which the deceased themselves would likely feel the same about. Demonstrations that serve no purpose but to inflict intentional emotional distress on the grieving.
Though you could call them protests still, since they are protests being held at a funeral. They just aren't "protesting the funeral." But the net effect is little different.
I doubt disorderly conduct is serious enough to get an $11 million fine. Besides, wouldn't you like the chance to protest at a mass murdering dictator's funeral?
Quite a few people have already flirted with the idea of making a scene at the WBC leader's funeral. I'm pretty sure no one is serious but two wrongs don't make a right. Don't be intolerant of the intolerant. :P
The fact is though that the protest in question is very highly-charged political speech with which the vast, vast majority of people disagree, which is to say that it's exactly the sort of speech that needs the most protection under the first amendment.
It's not like these people are without remedy; the WBC was taking advantage of a loophole in the law that has since been closed in most places. I don't think it's necessary to strike this sort of a blow to free speech rights.
That's sort of the thing, though. "God killed your son because of fags. Neener neener!" is only political speech by the loosest of standards.
These people are targeting a random deceased soldier with hateful speech in protest of a policy the bereaved have no control over, or even relationship to. What are the risks of further application of that standard? Hell, it'd still allow abortion clinic protests.
The fact is though that the protest in question is very highly-charged political speech with which the vast, vast majority of people disagree, which is to say that it's exactly the sort of speech that needs the most protection under the first amendment.
It's not like these people are without remedy; the WBC was taking advantage of a loophole in the law that has since been closed in most places. I don't think it's necessary to strike this sort of a blow to free speech rights.
That's sort of the thing, though. "God killed your son because of fags. Neener neener!" is only political speech by the loosest of standards.
These people are targeting a random deceased soldier with hateful speech in protest of a policy the bereaved have no control over, or even relationship to. What are the risks of further application of that standard? Hell, it'd still allow abortion clinic protests.
They're not interfering with a medical procedure or violating anyone's right to privacy in this case, unlike an abortion clinic protest.
Well, what are the risks of further application? The vast majority of states have made laws against protesting within a certain radius of the funerals. The issue has been remedied. All this verdict does is establish a dangerous precedent, and takes money away from some people we don't like. There's likely to be more harm than good done if this verdict stands.
They're not interfering with a medical procedure or violating anyone's right to privacy in this case, unlike an abortion clinic protest.
Well, what are the risks of further application? The vast majority of states have made laws against protesting within a certain radius of the funerals. The issue has been remedied. All this verdict does is establish a dangerous precedent, and takes money away from some people we don't like. There's likely to be more harm than good done if this verdict stands.
Are there private cemeteries? The article doesn't say exactly whether this funeral took place on private property or not, and Mr. Snyder and WBC disagree of the public/private nature of the funeral. Personally, I agree with the jury: this sounds like an open-and-shut case of intrusion into privacy and emotional intimidation, neither of which is protected speech. It's not at all unlike protesters who line the sidewalks leading to abortion clinics, chanting and screaming at the women trying to enter them in order to discourage them: it's blatant intimidation.
Hypothetical alternative example: neo-nazi groups have a protected right to express their political views in public in America. They do not, however, have a right to line up their members on the sidewalk of a Jewish neighborhood screaming anti-Semitic obscenities (or even yelling/chanting non-racist statements). If they want to protest that's fine, but courts have ruled that they have to do it in certain areas both for public safety reasons and to protect individuals from intimidation.
EDIT: Oh, and I see what you're saying about slippery slope: definitely a concern, but as long as this ruling comes with very clear language that WBC is liable for their intrusion into privacy, and that the funeral was considered private because the servicemember wasn't a public figure* and the family specifically limited the funeral to family and other intimate contacts,* the funeral wasn't publicly advertised,* etc., then I think free speech is pretty safe.
*I'm not sure these are actually the case here, but they seem to me to be reasonable standards of privacy for an event like a funeral.
Why do people keep blathering about the dangerous precedent set by a civil suit while approving of laws to enforce the same conduct? How exactly is being forced to pay 11mil a terrifying breach of the Constitution but being forced to go to jail instead isn't? Because I think the founding fathers were a bit more worried about the latter than the former.
Why do people keep blathering about the dangerous precedent set by a civil suit while approving of laws to enforce the same conduct? How exactly is being forced to pay 11mil a terrifying breach of the Constitution but being forced to go to jail instead isn't? Because I think the founding fathers were a bit more worried about the latter than the former.
Because you shouldn't be fined for protesting at someone's funeral. You should be arrested and tried as a criminal. It's just despicable.
How about these protesters who, O'Reilly says, received no serious punishment?
While I don't want the Minuteman Project to get $11 million for disrupting a speech, it feels wrong that some protesters get away with being dicks at inappropriate times.
First, fuck O'Reilly. We're talking about a man who pushed Fox to sue over a book that made fun of him. He doesn't get to bitch about disruptions.
Second, there's a difference between what happened at Columbia and what the WBC does. Again, it all factors down to public person or not.
O'Reilly was covering WBC last night and in the end he just had to throw out something to the effect of "we have to watch out for these people and the liberal loons." That guy is a fucking miracle shit worker.
Why do people keep blathering about the dangerous precedent set by a civil suit while approving of laws to enforce the same conduct? How exactly is being forced to pay 11mil a terrifying breach of the Constitution but being forced to go to jail instead isn't? Because I think the founding fathers were a bit more worried about the latter than the former.
Because if a law is passed potential demonstrators would have fair warning that what they are doing is illegal, and a clear and concise definition of the possible consequences (including jail time).
Rather than, "Uh, you know that demonstration you held a while back? We're financially ruining you now. Have a nice day."
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
Why do people keep blathering about the dangerous precedent set by a civil suit while approving of laws to enforce the same conduct? How exactly is being forced to pay 11mil a terrifying breach of the Constitution but being forced to go to jail instead isn't? Because I think the founding fathers were a bit more worried about the latter than the former.
Because if a law is passed potential demonstrators would have fair warning that what they are doing is illegal, and a clear and concise definition of the possible consequences (including jail time).
Rather than, "Uh, you know that demonstration you held a while back? We're financially ruining you now. Have a nice day."
Merely passing a law does not serve any particular warning. Thousands of ordinances already exist along similar lines, and I for one have no idea what most of them are, and I doubt the majority of the population does either.
I also think we as a society could probably agree that you should know better than to harass people at a funeral, and if you fail to realize this, the very least you deserve is financial ruin.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it's silly to say a civil suit is some breach of the first amendment but actually criminalizing the conduct in question isn't.
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
would that be ok? I mean it's free speech right?
or am I missing something?
I am by no means an expert but my initial feeling is that yes, it would technically be ok for you to do it. You would be a complete asshole for doing it, but you should not have to pay me a million dollars for doing it.
I might have some grounds if I rented the area for a private party since I put forward my own funds to reserve that space. But in the event of a funeral I don't think you really rent the cemetary. You pay for the service and the plot, but I don't think you usually have to pay a rental fee or anything for the time you spend there.
Why do people keep blathering about the dangerous precedent set by a civil suit while approving of laws to enforce the same conduct? How exactly is being forced to pay 11mil a terrifying breach of the Constitution but being forced to go to jail instead isn't? Because I think the founding fathers were a bit more worried about the latter than the former.
Because if a law is passed potential demonstrators would have fair warning that what they are doing is illegal, and a clear and concise definition of the possible consequences (including jail time).
Rather than, "Uh, you know that demonstration you held a while back? We're financially ruining you now. Have a nice day."
Merely passing a law does not serve any particular warning. Thousands of ordinances already exist along similar lines, and I for one have no idea what most of them are, and I doubt the majority of the population does either.
I also think we as a society could probably agree that you should know better than to harass people at a funeral, and if you fail to realize this, the very least you deserve is financial ruin.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it's silly to say a civil suit is some breach of the first amendment but actually criminalizing the conduct in question isn't.
The law is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on free speech. It's done all the time, with protests having to get permits and such, and not being allowed during certain functions. I don't see any real harm to a content-neutral restriction on protesting during funerals; it's up-front, and a manner of doing a regulatory ruling. Not a lot of chance for abuse, there.
However, there is a significant possibility that a ruling such as this would have a chilling effect on free speech. You're establishing a precedent of allowing someone to sue, because something they said in a political protest managed to hurt the plaintiff's feelings. It's ripe for abuse, much like the initial verdict in Falwell v. Flynt. The law saying you can't protest within a certain distance of funerals doesn't carry with it the same chilling effect that the verdict in the civil suit does, and has nowhere near the potential for abuse. And considering the fact that the defendant can request a jury trial, it would likely become a de facto restriction on speech that is merely unpopular.
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
would that be ok? I mean it's free speech right?
or am I missing something?
I am by no means an expert but my initial feeling is that yes, it would technically be ok for you to do it. You would be a complete asshole for doing it, but you should not have to pay me a million dollars for doing it.
I might have some grounds if I rented the area for a private party since I put forward my own funds to reserve that space. But in the event of a funeral I don't think you really rent the cemetary. You pay for the service and the plot, but I don't think you usually have to pay a rental fee or anything for the time you spend there.
"Your family sucks ass" is not political speech, and therefore is not entitled to the same degree of protection as a political protest.
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
would that be ok? I mean it's free speech right?
or am I missing something?
I am by no means an expert but my initial feeling is that yes, it would technically be ok for you to do it. You would be a complete asshole for doing it, but you should not have to pay me a million dollars for doing it.
I might have some grounds if I rented the area for a private party since I put forward my own funds to reserve that space. But in the event of a funeral I don't think you really rent the cemetary. You pay for the service and the plot, but I don't think you usually have to pay a rental fee or anything for the time you spend there.
"Your family sucks ass" is not political speech, and therefore is not entitled to the same degree of protection as a political protest.
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
would that be ok? I mean it's free speech right?
or am I missing something?
I am by no means an expert but my initial feeling is that yes, it would technically be ok for you to do it. You would be a complete asshole for doing it, but you should not have to pay me a million dollars for doing it.
I might have some grounds if I rented the area for a private party since I put forward my own funds to reserve that space. But in the event of a funeral I don't think you really rent the cemetary. You pay for the service and the plot, but I don't think you usually have to pay a rental fee or anything for the time you spend there.
"Your family sucks ass" is not political speech, and therefore is not entitled to the same degree of protection as a political protest.
well 'gods hates fags' isn't any better.
I'm not saying it's good political speech, but the Constitution doesn't protect only good political speech.
"Your family sucks ass" is not political speech, and therefore is not entitled to the same degree of protection as a political protest.
You're right. But what if they went on to say "Your family sucks so bad that god is killing our soldiers as punishment." Which is more or less what the WBC is doing.
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
would that be ok? I mean it's free speech right?
or am I missing something?
I am by no means an expert but my initial feeling is that yes, it would technically be ok for you to do it. You would be a complete asshole for doing it, but you should not have to pay me a million dollars for doing it.
I might have some grounds if I rented the area for a private party since I put forward my own funds to reserve that space. But in the event of a funeral I don't think you really rent the cemetary. You pay for the service and the plot, but I don't think you usually have to pay a rental fee or anything for the time you spend there.
"Your family sucks ass" is not political speech, and therefore is not entitled to the same degree of protection as a political protest.
well 'gods hates fags' isn't any better.
I'm not saying it's good political speech, but the Constitution doesn't protect only good political speech.
then I could make signs and hit their family reunion with 'God hates your fag family'?
Sorry, I just don't understand how carrying signs around a private gathering in a ceremony paid for with private funds should be allowed.
As much as I hate the people of the WBC I have to agree with Than. Unless they were physically preventing the funeral from taking place or something this is really a violation of their free speech rights, as much as I wish it were not.
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
would that be ok? I mean it's free speech right?
or am I missing something?
I am by no means an expert but my initial feeling is that yes, it would technically be ok for you to do it. You would be a complete asshole for doing it, but you should not have to pay me a million dollars for doing it.
I might have some grounds if I rented the area for a private party since I put forward my own funds to reserve that space. But in the event of a funeral I don't think you really rent the cemetary. You pay for the service and the plot, but I don't think you usually have to pay a rental fee or anything for the time you spend there.
"Your family sucks ass" is not political speech, and therefore is not entitled to the same degree of protection as a political protest.
well 'gods hates fags' isn't any better.
I'm not saying it's good political speech, but the Constitution doesn't protect only good political speech.
then I could make signs and hit their family reunion with 'God hates your fag family'?
Sorry, I just don't understand how carrying signs around a private gathering in a ceremony paid for with private funds should be allowed.
They're not in the ceremony; they're usually, like, across the street from the ceremony, or near the ceremony.
And "God hates your fag family" isn't political speech, either.
Posts
They really, really fucking suck and I've been lucky enough not to deal with them. I'm impressed the people attending the funeral didn't rough the kid up.
And believe me, I would love nothing more than to beat the utterly retarded out of that fucker with the IED sign.
I'd like to think so, but since these fuckers have been doing this for a while and since people from every state have died (and will continue to) in combat I'd think that if those 10 states cared enough to pass such a ban they'd already have done so...not waited for it to happen to one of their citizens.
No, see, I actually want to blow him up, such that they end up having to bury pieces of him.
Seriously.
Part of me would then want to picket his funeral to fuck with his family...however, I'd not be willing to sink to that level. Which makes me a far better human being than he is.
So, really, I'm saying that the legislation probably isn't necessary in those ten states, and if it looks like it will become necessary, I'm willing to bet that they'll pass it.
You know, I was seriously surprised when nothing happened to the WBC morons who came up to picket the Baucus funeral.
Agreed, but I dont think the threat of prison would save him if I saw it. I'm pretty sure he is provoking any attack he receives.
I cant believe the restraint that is being shown at these funerals.
I hope you're happy with yourself.
Oh...you...you are happy?
Well, then. Well played.
Fixed to represent my beliefs on this.
That's it. That's the ONLY reason they are protesting. I know that when these protests started heating up a group of Veterans of Foreign Wars started following the Phelps people around reving up their motorcycles to drown out their protests. Funny how the Phelps camp thought they were being infringed upon.
I think it would be quite hilarious if there were a group of gay people protesting at Phelps funeral. That would be sweet justice.
But all that aside we are supposed to be a free speaking nation and while I hate them their right to be dicks in public places (even though it's a private funeral) is supposed to be upheld by our Constitution. I can make an exception in this case though.
I don't really now how you'd "protest" a funeral.
"He didn't deserve to die!"
"Stop burying him!"
"Four more years!"
Nope, they have been up here to ND several times. They have protested at several funerals and held marches on the campuses of the major universities here in the state. I think we adopted one of the no protesting laws a few months ago.
I also agree with Than (or Thin, I suppose) that criminal law is the correct tool to use, but in a slightly different fashion. A minor change to include "protesting at a funeral" as grounds for a justifiable homicide would suffice.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
As much as that idea makes me giggle like a schoolgirl, I don't think that would be healthy for society.
So why is going to someones funeral and saying that it's a good thing he died protected by free-speech laws?
As Than said, it isn't necessarily. There is more than enough reason here to justify an abridgment of free speech in the form of a law forbidding such demonstrations. However, absent such a law, they should still theoretically have the right to demonstrate in a public place in this fashion...and shouldn't be held liable for millions of dollars for doing so.
Ah, semantics. You are correct. Hence in this post I've referred to them as demonstrations. Demonstrations that the families of the deceased find offensive and unwanted, and which the deceased themselves would likely feel the same about. Demonstrations that serve no purpose but to inflict intentional emotional distress on the grieving.
Though you could call them protests still, since they are protests being held at a funeral. They just aren't "protesting the funeral." But the net effect is little different.
I doubt disorderly conduct is serious enough to get an $11 million fine. Besides, wouldn't you like the chance to protest at a mass murdering dictator's funeral?
Quite a few people have already flirted with the idea of making a scene at the WBC leader's funeral. I'm pretty sure no one is serious but two wrongs don't make a right. Don't be intolerant of the intolerant. :P
Also, I probably take more joy in the thought of the irony of it than the actual protest at Phelps' funeral.
I can't stop wondering what that other sign is.
That's sort of the thing, though. "God killed your son because of fags. Neener neener!" is only political speech by the loosest of standards.
These people are targeting a random deceased soldier with hateful speech in protest of a policy the bereaved have no control over, or even relationship to. What are the risks of further application of that standard? Hell, it'd still allow abortion clinic protests.
Well, what are the risks of further application? The vast majority of states have made laws against protesting within a certain radius of the funerals. The issue has been remedied. All this verdict does is establish a dangerous precedent, and takes money away from some people we don't like. There's likely to be more harm than good done if this verdict stands.
Are there private cemeteries? The article doesn't say exactly whether this funeral took place on private property or not, and Mr. Snyder and WBC disagree of the public/private nature of the funeral. Personally, I agree with the jury: this sounds like an open-and-shut case of intrusion into privacy and emotional intimidation, neither of which is protected speech. It's not at all unlike protesters who line the sidewalks leading to abortion clinics, chanting and screaming at the women trying to enter them in order to discourage them: it's blatant intimidation.
Hypothetical alternative example: neo-nazi groups have a protected right to express their political views in public in America. They do not, however, have a right to line up their members on the sidewalk of a Jewish neighborhood screaming anti-Semitic obscenities (or even yelling/chanting non-racist statements). If they want to protest that's fine, but courts have ruled that they have to do it in certain areas both for public safety reasons and to protect individuals from intimidation.
EDIT: Oh, and I see what you're saying about slippery slope: definitely a concern, but as long as this ruling comes with very clear language that WBC is liable for their intrusion into privacy, and that the funeral was considered private because the servicemember wasn't a public figure* and the family specifically limited the funeral to family and other intimate contacts,* the funeral wasn't publicly advertised,* etc., then I think free speech is pretty safe.
*I'm not sure these are actually the case here, but they seem to me to be reasonable standards of privacy for an event like a funeral.
Because you shouldn't be fined for protesting at someone's funeral. You should be arrested and tried as a criminal. It's just despicable.
Because if a law is passed potential demonstrators would have fair warning that what they are doing is illegal, and a clear and concise definition of the possible consequences (including jail time).
Rather than, "Uh, you know that demonstration you held a while back? We're financially ruining you now. Have a nice day."
Well (just supposing) lets say you were having a family reunion or something at a nice park and I (with my family) marched into your nice rented pavillion with signs saying 'Your family sucks ass' and 'the Smiths (or whatever) are all shitheads' etc. etc.
would that be ok? I mean it's free speech right?
or am I missing something?
I also think we as a society could probably agree that you should know better than to harass people at a funeral, and if you fail to realize this, the very least you deserve is financial ruin.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it's silly to say a civil suit is some breach of the first amendment but actually criminalizing the conduct in question isn't.
I am by no means an expert but my initial feeling is that yes, it would technically be ok for you to do it. You would be a complete asshole for doing it, but you should not have to pay me a million dollars for doing it.
I might have some grounds if I rented the area for a private party since I put forward my own funds to reserve that space. But in the event of a funeral I don't think you really rent the cemetary. You pay for the service and the plot, but I don't think you usually have to pay a rental fee or anything for the time you spend there.
However, there is a significant possibility that a ruling such as this would have a chilling effect on free speech. You're establishing a precedent of allowing someone to sue, because something they said in a political protest managed to hurt the plaintiff's feelings. It's ripe for abuse, much like the initial verdict in Falwell v. Flynt. The law saying you can't protest within a certain distance of funerals doesn't carry with it the same chilling effect that the verdict in the civil suit does, and has nowhere near the potential for abuse. And considering the fact that the defendant can request a jury trial, it would likely become a de facto restriction on speech that is merely unpopular.
well 'gods hates fags' isn't any better.
You're right. But what if they went on to say "Your family sucks so bad that god is killing our soldiers as punishment." Which is more or less what the WBC is doing.
then I could make signs and hit their family reunion with 'God hates your fag family'?
Sorry, I just don't understand how carrying signs around a private gathering in a ceremony paid for with private funds should be allowed.
And "God hates your fag family" isn't political speech, either.