Is "god hates fags" really political speech though?
I think its the intent behind the use of whatever slogans they use. If you just go to a gathering holding up signs of "You Suck" with the intent of just being a jackass, well then it's not political speech as your intent is just to be immature. But if you go with the intent in pushing a specific viewpoint/agenda/get a point across then it becomes political speech since you are trying to bring attention to your worldview.
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 disagree. I think it's pretty clear that the purpose of these ridiculous protests is nothing more than to generate media attention on their cult and its message.
These protests aren't for the grieving families, nor are they directed to the dead soldiers. Those signs are for all the millions of Americans who will read about this shit on CNN.
They are trying to get their message out, in a rather desperate and ridiculous way.
"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.
No, what the WBC is doing is saying that God is killing soldiers because of the U.S.' cultural/political acceptance of homosexuality, which is political speech, as despicable as it is.
I would kill every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of consequence or remorse if I was the family member of a dead soldier
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I would kill every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of consequence or remorse if I was the family member of a dead soldier
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I don't understand what you people think this will accomplish. Deterrence? They are crazy Christians with a martyr complex, and they want nothing more than to be featured on the nightly news, which your beating would all but guarantee.
I would kill every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of consequence or remorse if I was the family member of a dead soldier
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I don't understand what you people think this will accomplish. Deterrence? They are crazy Christians with a martyr complex, and they want nothing more than to be featured on the nightly news, which your beating would all but guarantee.
It would accomplish pain. Maybe some fractured cheekbones and jaws.
Or it would probably be smarter to just fuck up the leader really bad. Like not at a protest.
I would kill every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of consequence or remorse if I was the family member of a dead soldier
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I don't understand what you people think this will accomplish. Deterrence? They are crazy Christians with a martyr complex, and they want nothing more than to be featured on the nightly news, which your beating would all but guarantee.
I'm still not seeing why this isn't an invasion of a private ceremony.
If it's political, fine (I really don't think it is though). It's still disruption of a private event.
Because they don't walk into the funeral, they're just accross the street from it, or right outside it, etc.
The ceremony is usually held in some sort of public commons, like a graveyard, or a church. It would be different if it were in someone's private home.
I'm still not seeing the problem with simply letting the criminal law take care of this, unless it's some sort of visceral need to see these people suffer.
I would kill every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of consequence or remorse if I was the family member of a dead soldier
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I don't understand what you people think this will accomplish. Deterrence? They are crazy Christians with a martyr complex, and they want nothing more than to be featured on the nightly news, which your beating would all but guarantee.
It would accomplish pain. Maybe some fractured cheekbones and jaws.
Or it would probably be smarter to just fuck up the leader really bad. Like not at a protest.
Far less chance of getting caught that way.
How utterly disturbing. Are you like some kid who gets off on vigilante comic books or would you actually do this in real life?
Violence is not an effective way to solve the Westboro church problem. Those who would inflict violence on these people would only be doing so to satisfy their animalistic desires. I also seriously wonder why someone on a message board who has in no way been affected personally by these people would choose to express his desire to fracture their cheekbones. I mean, do you feel this way about everyone in the news who pisses you off?
Michael Moore organized a humorous counterprotest to the church for his TV Show The Awful Truth. He followed Phelps around the country in "the Sodomobile," a pink bus filled with homosexuals.
Proof that even if he's not that funny now, he used to be.
I'm still not seeing why this isn't an invasion of a private ceremony.
If it's political, fine (I really don't think it is though). It's still disruption of a private event.
Because they don't walk into the funeral, they're just accross the street from it, or right outside it, etc.
The ceremony is usually held in some sort of public commons, like a graveyard, or a church. It would be different if it were in someone's private home.
I'm still not seeing the problem with simply letting the criminal law take care of this, unless it's some sort of visceral need to see these people suffer.
but still .... it's still disruptive right?
I've seen them on tv .... they're not that far away and they were making enough noise that you couldn't hear the chaplain very well.
I would kill every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of consequence or remorse if I was the family member of a dead soldier
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I don't understand what you people think this will accomplish. Deterrence? They are crazy Christians with a martyr complex, and they want nothing more than to be featured on the nightly news, which your beating would all but guarantee.
It would accomplish pain. Maybe some fractured cheekbones and jaws.
Or it would probably be smarter to just fuck up the leader really bad. Like not at a protest.
Far less chance of getting caught that way.
How utterly disturbing. Are you like some kid who gets off on vigilante comic books or would you actually do this in real life?
Violence is not an effective way to solve the Westboro church problem. Those who would inflict violence on these people would only be doing so to satisfy their animalistic desires. I also seriously wonder why someone on a message board who has in no way been affected personally by these people would choose to express his desire to fracture their cheekbones. I mean, do you feel this way about everyone in the news who pisses you off?
I said if it was a family member of mine who they did this too. I don't give a shit about them beyond general disgust right now.
Michael Moore organized a humorous counterprotest to the church for his TV Show The Awful Truth. He followed Phelps around the country in "the Sodomobile," a pink bus filled with homosexuals.
Proof that even if he's not that funny now, he used to be.
I would kill every single member of the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of consequence or remorse if I was the family member of a dead soldier
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I don't understand what you people think this will accomplish. Deterrence? They are crazy Christians with a martyr complex, and they want nothing more than to be featured on the nightly news, which your beating would all but guarantee.
It would accomplish pain. Maybe some fractured cheekbones and jaws.
Or it would probably be smarter to just fuck up the leader really bad. Like not at a protest.
Far less chance of getting caught that way.
How utterly disturbing. Are you like some kid who gets off on vigilante comic books or would you actually do this in real life?
Violence is not an effective way to solve the Westboro church problem. Those who would inflict violence on these people would only be doing so to satisfy their animalistic desires. I also seriously wonder why someone on a message board who has in no way been affected personally by these people would choose to express his desire to fracture their cheekbones. I mean, do you feel this way about everyone in the news who pisses you off?
I take it you've never felt the urge for revenge? Also while I haven't been affected personally I do know people that have and whats more, no one deserves this at their hardest time, I don't care if ive' never met them in my life.
I'm still not seeing why this isn't an invasion of a private ceremony.
If it's political, fine (I really don't think it is though). It's still disruption of a private event.
Because they don't walk into the funeral, they're just accross the street from it, or right outside it, etc.
The ceremony is usually held in some sort of public commons, like a graveyard, or a church. It would be different if it were in someone's private home.
I'm still not seeing the problem with simply letting the criminal law take care of this, unless it's some sort of visceral need to see these people suffer.
but still .... it's still disruptive right?
I've seen them on tv .... they're not that far away and they were making enough noise that you couldn't hear the chaplain very well.
ah I dunno .... either way, I hope it's outlawed.
For all practical intents and purposes, it is outlawed.
Sorry Thin, I mean, I support your beliefs on free speech, but I also support the rule of law and the rule of law states that, when you feel you have been wronged in some way, you have the right to bring your grevience, no matter how big or small, before a court of law.
I think that the right to sue deserves as much protection as free speech, in many cases it is the only way for an individual to seek a redress of grievences. The award being high is not the fault of anyone but the jury and the actions of the defendants.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Sorry Thin, I mean, I support your beliefs on free speech, but I also support the rule of law and the rule of law states that, when you feel you have been wronged in some way, you have the right to bring your grevience, no matter how big or small, before a court of law.
I think that the right to sue deserves as much protection as free speech, in many cases it is the only way for an individual to seek a redress of grievences. The award being high is not the fault of anyone but the jury and the actions of the defendants.
I don't think I've ever denied that he has a right to sue. His right to sue has, in fact, been honored, far beyond what I think is appropriate.
So Than is there a situation for you in which an IIED claim trumps FA rights? That's what the jury though here, but you obviously disagree. Do you think it never should or do you think the stuff the WBC does is just not bad enough?
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.
I took that to mean that you feel there are different levels of things people should be able to sue for. And that hurting the plantiff's feelings is either low on your list, or not on there at all.
My feeling is that, no matter the award, anyone has the right to file a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. At that point, it is on them to show they have been wronged, and on the jury and judge to do the rest.
Frankly, I've always been a believer that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Clearly the WBC behaved in an irresponsible manner. The fact that this case even went to trial and the judgement seem to support that.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
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 would hope if you were the organizer of such demonstrations you'd go though the effort to check into the legality. Especially since this, like many other "obscure" ordinances, isn't exactly hard to find out about: if, as a member of the WBC, you were to check the wikipedia entry for your own organization, you'll find out in the article that several states have indeed passed such laws...at which point I'd say it's on you to check any individual state before you start printing out the signs.
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.
Already addressed in a way that I agree with, just want you to know I wasn't ignoring this part.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
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.
I took that to mean that you feel there are different levels of things people should be able to sue for. And that hurting the plantiff's feelings is either low on your list, or not on there at all.
My feeling is that, no matter the award, anyone has the right to file a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. At that point, it is on them to show they have been wronged, and on the jury and judge to do the rest.
Frankly, I've always been a believer that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Clearly the WBC behaved in an irresponsible manner. The fact that this case even went to trial and the judgement seem to support that.
In that context, I was referring to allowing someone to recover damages, not just the act of suing. It was shorthand, and I see how it could have been misinterpreted.
And really, I'm not even saying that I think the WBC will prevail in the end; I just think that they should.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
Yeah, this. Besides, that's parody and copyright law, neither of which has anything to do with this case.
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.
I took that to mean that you feel there are different levels of things people should be able to sue for. And that hurting the plantiff's feelings is either low on your list, or not on there at all.
My feeling is that, no matter the award, anyone has the right to file a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. At that point, it is on them to show they have been wronged, and on the jury and judge to do the rest.
Frankly, I've always been a believer that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Clearly the WBC behaved in an irresponsible manner. The fact that this case even went to trial and the judgement seem to support that.
In that context, I was referring to allowing someone to recover damages, not just the act of suing. It was shorthand, and I see how it could have been misinterpreted.
But what other relief would this family have in a suit like this, besides damages? Injunctive relief isn't going to do anything after the fact. If you are willing to allow people to sue, they have to be able to get a remedy.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
mcd, American Greetings would have pulled up Geisel v. Penguin, and that would have been the end. And it's the point brought up in that case that illustrates what I was saying.
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.
I took that to mean that you feel there are different levels of things people should be able to sue for. And that hurting the plantiff's feelings is either low on your list, or not on there at all.
My feeling is that, no matter the award, anyone has the right to file a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. At that point, it is on them to show they have been wronged, and on the jury and judge to do the rest.
Frankly, I've always been a believer that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Clearly the WBC behaved in an irresponsible manner. The fact that this case even went to trial and the judgement seem to support that.
In that context, I was referring to allowing someone to recover damages, not just the act of suing. It was shorthand, and I see how it could have been misinterpreted.
But what other relief would this family have in a suit like this, besides damages? Injunctive relief isn't going to do anything after the fact. If you are willing to allow people to sue, they have to be able to get a remedy.
I'm willing to let them sue, I just don't think they win.
They don't get relief. I'm sorry, it sucks, but sometimes, things suck in a free country.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
mcd, American Greetings would have pulled up Geisel v. Penguin, and that would have been the end. And it's the point brought up in that case that illustrates what I was saying.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
Yeah, this. Besides, that's parody and copyright law, neither of which has anything to do with this case.
Again, the problem was that there was standing case law that opposed them. Gabe even pointed that out himself. And what that law said is you're welcome to speak, as long as you don't drag bystanders into it. Phelps can have his hatefest. But he doesn't get to drag a grieving family who has nothing to do with what he's spewing into the fucking mess.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
mcd, American Greetings would have pulled up Geisel v. Penguin, and that would have been the end. And it's the point brought up in that case that illustrates what I was saying.
So who holds the copyright on "God hates fags?"
Look up that case. Read why the court rejected Penguin's claims to parody.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
mcd, American Greetings would have pulled up Geisel v. Penguin, and that would have been the end. And it's the point brought up in that case that illustrates what I was saying.
So who holds the copyright on "God hates fags?"
Look up that case. Read why the court rejected Penguin's claims to parody.
As I've said a couple of times now, I'm not saying they will win; I'm saying they should win.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
mcd, American Greetings would have pulled up Geisel v. Penguin, and that would have been the end. And it's the point brought up in that case that illustrates what I was saying.
So who holds the copyright on "God hates fags?"
Look up that case. Read why the court rejected Penguin's claims to parody.
As I've said a couple of times now, I'm not saying they will win; I'm saying they should win.
And the fact that you have YET to prove that you have read the reasoning in that case makes me wonder if you actually know what it was. Because I have a feeling if you read it, you'd probably change your tune.
Actually, Thin, I've finally figured out the rebuttal to your argument - Tart As A Double Entendre.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
mcd, American Greetings would have pulled up Geisel v. Penguin, and that would have been the end. And it's the point brought up in that case that illustrates what I was saying.
So who holds the copyright on "God hates fags?"
Look up that case. Read why the court rejected Penguin's claims to parody.
As I've said a couple of times now, I'm not saying they will win; I'm saying they should win.
And the fact that you have YET to prove that you have read the reasoning in that case makes me wonder if you actually know what it was. Because I have a feeling if you read it, you'd probably change your tune.
Well, yet again, the book wasn't political speech; it was commercial speech (I'm sorry, satirizing the OJ Simpson trial doesn't really make for "political speech"). It wouldn't be entitled to the same level of strict scrutiny that should be applied to unpopular political speech. The fact that it was a book, and infringing on someone's copyright for commercial use also doesn't help their case much.
If the Westboro Baptist Church was outside the funeral, shouting "buy our books, buy our books," I would say that their speech would not be protected.
Well, yet again, the book wasn't political speech; it was commercial speech (I'm sorry, satirizing the OJ Simpson trial doesn't really make for "political speech"). It wouldn't be entitled to the same level of strict scrutiny that should be applied to unpopular political speech. The fact that it was a book, and infringing on someone's copyright for commercial use also doesn't help their case much.
If the Westboro Baptist Church was outside the funeral, shouting "buy our books, buy our books," I would say that their speech would not be protected.
So, just because it's "political speech", the WBC gets the right to drag an innocent bystander into the mix? Because that's what they did.
The rejection of the parody defense was not because it was "commercial speech", Than. It was because the subject of parody wasn't The Cat in the Hat. If the WBC was actually protesting the conduct of the dead soldier himself, then yes, I'd see a defense for free speech to be made. But they weren't - they were using him as a prop for their own twisted words, no matter who they hurt in the process.
Commercial speech = speech that "proposes a commercial transaction" or "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and it s audience."
Satirizing the OJ trial might not fit neatly into political speech but it ain't commercial speech.
Posts
I think its the intent behind the use of whatever slogans they use. If you just go to a gathering holding up signs of "You Suck" with the intent of just being a jackass, well then it's not political speech as your intent is just to be immature. But if you go with the intent in pushing a specific viewpoint/agenda/get a point across then it becomes political speech since you are trying to bring attention to your worldview.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
These protests aren't for the grieving families, nor are they directed to the dead soldiers. Those signs are for all the millions of Americans who will read about this shit on CNN.
They are trying to get their message out, in a rather desperate and ridiculous way.
If that happened at a funeral of a family member of mine, there would be a zero% chance of them not getting the absolute shit kicked out of them. Probably with bats.
Right in the parking lot too, or wherever the fuck they wave around those signs.
I could just wait till their next protest, then have me and my cousins descend upon them in ski masks.
It would accomplish pain. Maybe some fractured cheekbones and jaws.
Or it would probably be smarter to just fuck up the leader really bad. Like not at a protest.
Far less chance of getting caught that way.
Feature them on the nightly news then.
In the ICU
If it's political, fine (I really don't think it is though). It's still disruption of a private event.
The ceremony is usually held in some sort of public commons, like a graveyard, or a church. It would be different if it were in someone's private home.
I'm still not seeing the problem with simply letting the criminal law take care of this, unless it's some sort of visceral need to see these people suffer.
Violence is not an effective way to solve the Westboro church problem. Those who would inflict violence on these people would only be doing so to satisfy their animalistic desires. I also seriously wonder why someone on a message board who has in no way been affected personally by these people would choose to express his desire to fracture their cheekbones. I mean, do you feel this way about everyone in the news who pisses you off?
Proof that even if he's not that funny now, he used to be.
but still .... it's still disruptive right?
I've seen them on tv .... they're not that far away and they were making enough noise that you couldn't hear the chaplain very well.
ah I dunno .... either way, I hope it's outlawed.
I said if it was a family member of mine who they did this too. I don't give a shit about them beyond general disgust right now.
Reading comprehension. You failed.
I take it you've never felt the urge for revenge? Also while I haven't been affected personally I do know people that have and whats more, no one deserves this at their hardest time, I don't care if ive' never met them in my life.
I guess I am not detached enough.
good
guess that takes care of that.
I think that the right to sue deserves as much protection as free speech, in many cases it is the only way for an individual to seek a redress of grievences. The award being high is not the fault of anyone but the jury and the actions of the defendants.
I took that to mean that you feel there are different levels of things people should be able to sue for. And that hurting the plantiff's feelings is either low on your list, or not on there at all.
My feeling is that, no matter the award, anyone has the right to file a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. At that point, it is on them to show they have been wronged, and on the jury and judge to do the rest.
Frankly, I've always been a believer that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Clearly the WBC behaved in an irresponsible manner. The fact that this case even went to trial and the judgement seem to support that.
I would hope if you were the organizer of such demonstrations you'd go though the effort to check into the legality. Especially since this, like many other "obscure" ordinances, isn't exactly hard to find out about: if, as a member of the WBC, you were to check the wikipedia entry for your own organization, you'll find out in the article that several states have indeed passed such laws...at which point I'd say it's on you to check any individual state before you start printing out the signs.
Already addressed in a way that I agree with, just want you to know I wasn't ignoring this part.
(If you don't get the reference, you need to read the PA archive sometime.)
The WBC has every right to make their point. They have no right to drag someone uninvolved into it.
I always got the impression that the guys could likely have defended against that (potential) lawsuit, but that the consequences of losing (even though the odds were small) combined with the costs of winning (legal fees) made it a better idea to back down.
Though I don't even have an Internet Law Degree(TM), so I could be entirely wrong.
And really, I'm not even saying that I think the WBC will prevail in the end; I just think that they should.
But what other relief would this family have in a suit like this, besides damages? Injunctive relief isn't going to do anything after the fact. If you are willing to allow people to sue, they have to be able to get a remedy.
mcd, American Greetings would have pulled up Geisel v. Penguin, and that would have been the end. And it's the point brought up in that case that illustrates what I was saying.
They don't get relief. I'm sorry, it sucks, but sometimes, things suck in a free country.
Again, the problem was that there was standing case law that opposed them. Gabe even pointed that out himself. And what that law said is you're welcome to speak, as long as you don't drag bystanders into it. Phelps can have his hatefest. But he doesn't get to drag a grieving family who has nothing to do with what he's spewing into the fucking mess.
Look up that case. Read why the court rejected Penguin's claims to parody.
And the fact that you have YET to prove that you have read the reasoning in that case makes me wonder if you actually know what it was. Because I have a feeling if you read it, you'd probably change your tune.
If the Westboro Baptist Church was outside the funeral, shouting "buy our books, buy our books," I would say that their speech would not be protected.
So, just because it's "political speech", the WBC gets the right to drag an innocent bystander into the mix? Because that's what they did.
The rejection of the parody defense was not because it was "commercial speech", Than. It was because the subject of parody wasn't The Cat in the Hat. If the WBC was actually protesting the conduct of the dead soldier himself, then yes, I'd see a defense for free speech to be made. But they weren't - they were using him as a prop for their own twisted words, no matter who they hurt in the process.
This right here.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Satirizing the OJ trial might not fit neatly into political speech but it ain't commercial speech.