New law into effect today, all potential protests and expressions of free speech must be submitted to the Productive Use committee to determine if said content is of any value to the state.
Orochi_Rockman on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
and no, I doubt that would be the exact wording hehe
No, that's the point. Free speech shouldn't have to be "useful" because that's going to end up being a completely arbitrary way to decide what speech is protected and what speech isn't. The absolute best thing to do to in response to this kind of thing is to ignore these people. They have zero power over you and the tiny bit of power they do have, they get from exposure. I'm not saying if you ignore them they will go away necessarily, but I am saying that ignoring them will make them completely inconsequential. Which is the biggest blow you can score against what they're trying to do, edit: and you get to do that without endangering the constitution in any way, shape, or form.
Haven't seen this brought up yet, but a motorcycle club called the Patriot Guard Riders has been using the same freedom of assembly to drown out the westboro protesters at funerals www.patriotguard.org
Sakebomb on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Guys the Supreme Court actually has a three part test for dealing with EXACTLY this type of case. So you can stop all this wild assertions that asshole speech is protected everywhere. It is NOT. I think that this case will be handled pretty quickly by the SC. There is already precedence for rulings that would allow for this type of narrow regulation of protected speech (can't protest near a funeral).
THE PROCESS
The test used by the SC to determine the constitutionality of regulations placed on the time, place, and manner of protected speech are:
A) The regulation must be content-neutral. Meaning the focus of said regulation cannot be to simply ban a certain manner of protected speech.
The regulation must serve governmental interests. (This is interpreted as "keeping the peace" which is of significant interest to the government).
C) The regulation must leave open ample alternate channels for communication. (It's a big country, you don't HAVE to protest within ear shot of mourners at a funeral).
Like I said, using precedence properly, this one will be open-shut. Add to the fact that this is a Roberts court and its a done deal.
Yeah aren't there laws in place anyway which limit free speech because of "keeping the peace"?
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Can I stand on your street at two in the night with a bunch of people and shout?
By most opinions in this thread one could call public disturbance laws infringements of free speech.
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.
New law into effect today, all potential protests and expressions of free speech must be submitted to the Productive Use committee to determine if said content is of any value to the state.
Thats probably the best example of reductio ad absurdum seen all day
I'm not offhand sure that there have been any (probably have I guess).
Maybe I just don't like public protests at private ceremonies.
So we should only ensure people have the right to protest under certain specific conditions that the government deems allowable.
or maybe just not at private, intimate, expensive ceremonies.
They weren't even at the funeral they were several blocks away to the point the people suing didn't even see them.
But at what price range do we get for not allowing protests in the general vicinity? Merit badges for a boy scout troop means the city is off limit for protest? Ritual female circumcision mean you can't be within a mile? Promotion to Grand Wizard of the KKK means the county is a no protest zone? Does spending more mean you get more of a buffer zone? What if you're all alone, meditating? That's certainly intimate and private and it can be ceremonial.
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Can I stand on your street at two in the night with a bunch of people and shout?
By most opinions in this thread one could call public disturbance laws infringements of free speech.
Public disturbance stuff is borderline, but why bother fighting a public disturbance charge? Isn't that a warning, or at best, a fine? You'd spend more money going to trial on that than a fine would ever be. That's what we call a grey area. It doesn't get ironed out, because once the cops show up, people just go about their day. These people don't go about their day, they fight it in court and they win, because that's what the constitution is for. Even if you're an asshole.
Haven't seen this brought up yet, but a motorcycle club called the Patriot Guard Riders has been using the same freedom of assembly to drown out the westboro protesters at funerals www.patriotguard.org
Yeah but we can't silence them because we agree with them
and no, I doubt that would be the exact wording hehe
No, that's the point. Free speech shouldn't have to be "useful" because that's going to end up being a completely arbitrary way to decide what speech is protected and what speech isn't. The absolute best thing to do to in response to this kind of thing is to ignore these people. They have zero power over you and the tiny bit of power they do have, they get from exposure. I'm not saying if you ignore them they will go away necessarily, but I am saying that ignoring them will make them completely inconsequential. Which is the biggest blow you can score against what they're trying to do, edit: and you get to do that without endangering the constitution in any way, shape, or form.
You can't ignore them though. They have huge signs and megaphones.
oh and sure you don't endanger the constitution .... instead, you get to remember the day your loved one was buried and called a faggot at the funeral.
I think the constitution would survive that being outlawed.
and no, I doubt that would be the exact wording hehe
No, that's the point. Free speech shouldn't have to be "useful" because that's going to end up being a completely arbitrary way to decide what speech is protected and what speech isn't. The absolute best thing to do to in response to this kind of thing is to ignore these people. They have zero power over you and the tiny bit of power they do have, they get from exposure. I'm not saying if you ignore them they will go away necessarily, but I am saying that ignoring them will make them completely inconsequential. Which is the biggest blow you can score against what they're trying to do, edit: and you get to do that without endangering the constitution in any way, shape, or form.
You can't ignore them though. They have huge signs and megaphones.
oh and sure you don't endanger the constitution .... instead, you get to remember the day your loved one was buried and called a faggot at the funeral.
I think the constitution would survive that being outlawed.
Pretty sure the dad ignored them just fine until he turned on the TV.
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Can I stand on your street at two in the night with a bunch of people and shout?
By most opinions in this thread one could call public disturbance laws infringements of free speech.
Public disturbance stuff is borderline, but why bother fighting a public disturbance charge? Isn't that a warning, or at best, a fine? You'd spend more money going to trial on that than a fine would ever be. That's what we call a grey area. It doesn't get ironed out, because once the cops show up, people just go about their day. These people don't go about their day, they fight it in court and they win, because that's what the constitution is for. Even if you're an asshole.
So what you're saying is that public disturbance laws are unconstitutional, but that nobody cares enough about it?
I tend to favor the ignoring assholes method, but actively fundraising against them is good too.
The WBC people are candyasses. They chickened out of going to hold a protest in that mining town in West Virginia where the miners died in a cave-in a while back.
They're vile, but not stupid- they know that if they'd gone to a remote mining community in West Virginia and pulled this crap, they might not have come out alive. And, in a place like that, no one would have seen anything......
Not that I support that type of thing, even against these ass hats, but I wouldn't have shed any tears over it.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
The speech has to present a clear and present danger to public safety. The go-to example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one.
Can I stand on your street at two in the night with a bunch of people and shout?
By most opinions in this thread one could call public disturbance laws infringements of free speech.
Public disturbance stuff is borderline, but why bother fighting a public disturbance charge? Isn't that a warning, or at best, a fine? You'd spend more money going to trial on that than a fine would ever be. That's what we call a grey area. It doesn't get ironed out, because once the cops show up, people just go about their day. These people don't go about their day, they fight it in court and they win, because that's what the constitution is for. Even if you're an asshole.
So what you're saying is that public disturbance laws are unconstitutional, but that nobody cares enough about it?
I'm not sure, those are very local laws, and I'm sure the wording varies based on where you are. I bet more than one is, but I doubt very many people would bother taking that to trial. I mean, if you were playing music, and the cops came and told you to turn it down, would you turn it into a goddamn federal case or would you just turn the music down and be annoyed at your neighbors?
Edit: And after reading a bit (admittedly, a very little bit) disturbing the peace is completely irrelevant, as it's generally about noise disturbance and not with regard to speech and/or protest.
Haven't seen this brought up yet, but a motorcycle club called the Patriot Guard Riders has been using the same freedom of assembly to drown out the westboro protesters at funerals www.patriotguard.org
Yeah but we can't silence them because we agree with them
I doubt that'd even matter if protesting at funerals was outlawed.
WARNING: This is just something to think about and not to stir shit up. Don't get all silly goose on this one.
Here's a question for you guys:
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
I think the appellant in this case has sufficiently argued that the church's behavior satisfied all of these elements.
1. Protest a funeral and calling the deceased a faggot is arguably extreme and outrageous.
2. The church intentionally protested.
3. This element is only satisfied by the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person with no emotional frailties be emotionally disturbed by a group of protesters calling their dead son a faggot?
4. Obviously this was met.
Having said that, what's the point of having this tort if all speech is to be considered free? If we are allowed to be assholes and say whatever we want, whenever we want, why do we have a civil suit with which we can recover damages from people being assholes? Doesn't IIED inherently limit free speech?
WARNING: This is just something to think about and not to stir shit up. Don't get all silly goose on this one.
Here's a question for you guys:
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
I think the appellant in this case has sufficiently argued that the church's behavior satisfied all of these elements.
1. Protest a funeral and calling the deceased a faggot is arguably extreme and outrageous.
2. The church intentionally protested.
3. This element is only satisfied by the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person with no emotional frailties be emotionally disturbed by a group of protesters calling their dead son a faggot?
4. Obviously this was met.
Having said that, what's the point of having this tort if all speech is to be considered free? If we are allowed to be assholes and say whatever we want, whenever we want, why do we have a civil suit with which we can recover damages from people being assholes? Doesn't IIED inherently limit free speech?
Why do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
EDIT: I guess I should rephrase because you said you were just asking a question. I will, however still be a dick and answer it with another question:
Do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
There are all kinds of common law that are designed to address civil, non-contractual situations that do so without violating the constitution. This one obviously does not.
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.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
WARNING: This is just something to think about and not to stir shit up. Don't get all silly goose on this one.
Here's a question for you guys:
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
I think the appellant in this case has sufficiently argued that the church's behavior satisfied all of these elements.
1. Protest a funeral and calling the deceased a faggot is arguably extreme and outrageous.
2. The church intentionally protested.
3. This element is only satisfied by the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person with no emotional frailties be emotionally disturbed by a group of protesters calling their dead son a faggot?
4. Obviously this was met.
Having said that, what's the point of having this tort if all speech is to be considered free? If we are allowed to be assholes and say whatever we want, whenever we want, why do we have a civil suit with which we can recover damages from people being assholes? Doesn't IIED inherently limit free speech?
Why do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
EDIT: I guess I should rephrase because you said you were just asking a question. I will, however still be a dick and answer it with another question:
Do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
There are all kinds of common law that are designed to address civil, non-contractual situations that do so without violating the constitution. This one obviously does not.
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?
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.
I'll be up front and admit that I didn't read the entire opinion (I have no interest in reading more case law outside of my assigned readings for law school), so I filled that element in from what I read in this thread.
WARNING: This is just something to think about and not to stir shit up. Don't get all silly goose on this one.
Here's a question for you guys:
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
I think the appellant in this case has sufficiently argued that the church's behavior satisfied all of these elements.
1. Protest a funeral and calling the deceased a faggot is arguably extreme and outrageous.
2. The church intentionally protested.
3. This element is only satisfied by the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person with no emotional frailties be emotionally disturbed by a group of protesters calling their dead son a faggot?
4. Obviously this was met.
Having said that, what's the point of having this tort if all speech is to be considered free? If we are allowed to be assholes and say whatever we want, whenever we want, why do we have a civil suit with which we can recover damages from people being assholes? Doesn't IIED inherently limit free speech?
Do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
when the only people being hurt are innocent families trying to bury their dead in peace?
WARNING: This is just something to think about and not to stir shit up. Don't get all silly goose on this one.
Here's a question for you guys:
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
I think the appellant in this case has sufficiently argued that the church's behavior satisfied all of these elements.
1. Protest a funeral and calling the deceased a faggot is arguably extreme and outrageous.
2. The church intentionally protested.
3. This element is only satisfied by the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person with no emotional frailties be emotionally disturbed by a group of protesters calling their dead son a faggot?
4. Obviously this was met.
Having said that, what's the point of having this tort if all speech is to be considered free? If we are allowed to be assholes and say whatever we want, whenever we want, why do we have a civil suit with which we can recover damages from people being assholes? Doesn't IIED inherently limit free speech?
The appellate decision seems to indicate that this case doesn't meet those requirements because the WBC protesters weren't specifically targeting Snyder or his son. Incidentally, the bold part didn't happen.
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.
WARNING: This is just something to think about and not to stir shit up. Don't get all silly goose on this one.
Here's a question for you guys:
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
I think the appellant in this case has sufficiently argued that the church's behavior satisfied all of these elements.
1. Protest a funeral and calling the deceased a faggot is arguably extreme and outrageous.
2. The church intentionally protested.
3. This element is only satisfied by the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person with no emotional frailties be emotionally disturbed by a group of protesters calling their dead son a faggot?
4. Obviously this was met.
Having said that, what's the point of having this tort if all speech is to be considered free? If we are allowed to be assholes and say whatever we want, whenever we want, why do we have a civil suit with which we can recover damages from people being assholes? Doesn't IIED inherently limit free speech?
Why do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
EDIT: I guess I should rephrase because you said you were just asking a question. I will, however still be a dick and answer it with another question:
Do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
There are all kinds of common law that are designed to address civil, non-contractual situations that do so without violating the constitution. This one obviously does not.
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?
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.
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"
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
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.
Which ones?
Peyote use for one.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
when the only people being hurt are innocent families trying to bury their dead in peace?
But these decisions aren't going to exist in an airtight container. Judicial decisions made today will impact future decisions by way of becoming existing case law. Since the decision wouldn't rest simply on a funeral being a funeral, you'd end up with much more broad language expressing why the event in question was an inappropriate venue for said protest. Something along the lines of "an emotionally charged event" or some-such. Then we get to deal with what's considered an "emotionally charged event." See how that could become a problem?
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.
I sure don't agree with 'Free Speech Zones' that keep protesters away from public places where they'd like to protest what the government is doing or wants to do. I hate the westborough baptists and their rhetoric to death, but I can't say that they should be treated any differently than any other person with unpopular opinions.
Part of free speech is accepting that a few people will use it to voice, as obnoxiously as possible, their horribleness. At least when that horribleness is in plain sight, society as a whole can deal with it.
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.
Which ones?
That God will heal you without medical intervention.
A few kids have died because their parents sincerely believed that and now they are going to jail.
Its glorious. But then again, I'm a religious fascist at heart.
when the only people being hurt are innocent families trying to bury their dead in peace?
But these decisions aren't going to exist in an airtight container. Judicial decisions made today will impact future decisions by way of becoming existing case law. Since the decision wouldn't rest simply on a funeral being a funeral, you'd end up with much more broad language expressing why the event in question was an inappropriate venue for said protest. Something along the lines of "an emotionally charged event" or some-such. Then we get to deal with what's considered an "emotionally charged event." See how that could become a problem?
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
[...]
... 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?
I think it would follow the same reasoning as prohibitions against raising false alarms. There's a presumption that when people make statements of fact, they do so with a view to expressing what they believe to be the truth. If a person is lying or speaking with total disregard for the truth, their statements don't just lack value, they have the potential for harm. It's pretty clear that society has no stake in protecting that kind of speech. When it actually causes harm, society does have a stake in condemning the practice, so there are laws against false alarms and the IIED tort.
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.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Posts
No, that's the point. Free speech shouldn't have to be "useful" because that's going to end up being a completely arbitrary way to decide what speech is protected and what speech isn't. The absolute best thing to do to in response to this kind of thing is to ignore these people. They have zero power over you and the tiny bit of power they do have, they get from exposure. I'm not saying if you ignore them they will go away necessarily, but I am saying that ignoring them will make them completely inconsequential. Which is the biggest blow you can score against what they're trying to do, edit: and you get to do that without endangering the constitution in any way, shape, or form.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
www.patriotguard.org
Can I stand on your street at two in the night with a bunch of people and shout?
By most opinions in this thread one could call public disturbance laws infringements of free speech.
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.
Thats probably the best example of reductio ad absurdum seen all day
There would be other ways to find out about the WBC.
Also, I don't really think that's useful to the families of the deceased.
They weren't even at the funeral they were several blocks away to the point the people suing didn't even see them.
But at what price range do we get for not allowing protests in the general vicinity? Merit badges for a boy scout troop means the city is off limit for protest? Ritual female circumcision mean you can't be within a mile? Promotion to Grand Wizard of the KKK means the county is a no protest zone? Does spending more mean you get more of a buffer zone? What if you're all alone, meditating? That's certainly intimate and private and it can be ceremonial.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Public disturbance stuff is borderline, but why bother fighting a public disturbance charge? Isn't that a warning, or at best, a fine? You'd spend more money going to trial on that than a fine would ever be. That's what we call a grey area. It doesn't get ironed out, because once the cops show up, people just go about their day. These people don't go about their day, they fight it in court and they win, because that's what the constitution is for. Even if you're an asshole.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Yeah but we can't silence them because we agree with them
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You can't ignore them though. They have huge signs and megaphones.
oh and sure you don't endanger the constitution .... instead, you get to remember the day your loved one was buried and called a faggot at the funeral.
I think the constitution would survive that being outlawed.
Pretty sure the dad ignored them just fine until he turned on the TV.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
So what you're saying is that public disturbance laws are unconstitutional, but that nobody cares enough about it?
They're vile, but not stupid- they know that if they'd gone to a remote mining community in West Virginia and pulled this crap, they might not have come out alive. And, in a place like that, no one would have seen anything......
Not that I support that type of thing, even against these ass hats, but I wouldn't have shed any tears over it.
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm not sure, those are very local laws, and I'm sure the wording varies based on where you are. I bet more than one is, but I doubt very many people would bother taking that to trial. I mean, if you were playing music, and the cops came and told you to turn it down, would you turn it into a goddamn federal case or would you just turn the music down and be annoyed at your neighbors?
Edit: And after reading a bit (admittedly, a very little bit) disturbing the peace is completely irrelevant, as it's generally about noise disturbance and not with regard to speech and/or protest.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
I doubt that'd even matter if protesting at funerals was outlawed.
I'd wager that's ok as they weren't actually near the funeral.
I've seen pictures and video of them right outside with megaphones and signs that could easily be seen and heard though.
Here's a question for you guys:
What's the point of having tort law if you can't sue for it?
Specifically:
IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is a tort that you can sue someone else for if their behavior satisfies all of the tort's requirements. The textbook elements are: (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes severe emotional disturbance (4) to another.
I think the appellant in this case has sufficiently argued that the church's behavior satisfied all of these elements.
1. Protest a funeral and calling the deceased a faggot is arguably extreme and outrageous.
2. The church intentionally protested.
3. This element is only satisfied by the reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person with no emotional frailties be emotionally disturbed by a group of protesters calling their dead son a faggot?
4. Obviously this was met.
Having said that, what's the point of having this tort if all speech is to be considered free? If we are allowed to be assholes and say whatever we want, whenever we want, why do we have a civil suit with which we can recover damages from people being assholes? Doesn't IIED inherently limit free speech?
Why do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
EDIT: I guess I should rephrase because you said you were just asking a question. I will, however still be a dick and answer it with another question:
Do you think a tort law can/should subvert the constitution?
There are all kinds of common law that are designed to address civil, non-contractual situations that do so without violating the constitution. This one obviously does not.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
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?
Edit:
I'll be up front and admit that I didn't read the entire opinion (I have no interest in reading more case law outside of my assigned readings for law school), so I filled that element in from what I read in this thread.
when the only people being hurt are innocent families trying to bury their dead in peace?
The appellate decision seems to indicate that this case doesn't meet those requirements because the WBC protesters weren't specifically targeting Snyder or his son. Incidentally, the bold part didn't happen.
Lots of sincerely held religious beliefs are illegal in the U.S.
Sounds like it does. Not sure what the protocol is for striking something like that down. I guess they just did?
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Which ones?
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Because they break other laws. Not because they are "extreme"
but they're listening to every word I say
Peyote use for one.
but they're listening to every word I say
etc etc
illegal with good cause.
This is irrelevant to the point I was making. What I said is only within the context of the tort rules on emotional distress.
but they're listening to every word I say
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.
Part of free speech is accepting that a few people will use it to voice, as obnoxiously as possible, their horribleness. At least when that horribleness is in plain sight, society as a whole can deal with it.
That God will heal you without medical intervention.
A few kids have died because their parents sincerely believed that and now they are going to jail.
Its glorious. But then again, I'm a religious fascist at heart.
unfortunately, I do =(
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.
but they're listening to every word I say