Crazy "God Hates Fags" church forced to pay $11 million

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The location strikes me as central to the message. Like with flag burning, I think this is protected speech.

I think it has two fundamental dissimilarities:
1. Even protected speech may not disrupt other activities. If they found it disrupted the funeral, it would not be protected.
2. Speech cannot defame or harm, emotionally or physically, others directly.

They found the latter, from what the article said. If this goes to the Supreme Court (if the church has enough money to take it that far, and/or gets someone like the ACLU to support them legally) it will be interesting, but I think they won't void it solely on first amendment grounds.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yup, this better not stand because it is CLEARLY discrimination based on content and a violation of both religious freedom and the freedom of expression. If y'all dont like the way our freedoms have been whittled away, this sure aint helping the cause... Cheering the decision is...shortsighted...

Perhaps you're right Berz. Maybe they should just have had a good kicking.

[Kuciwalker]

1. Even protected speech may not disrupt other activities.

Oh? What qualifies as disruption? What level of "dispruption" must be tolerated, and what level is bannable? Where did this fit on that scale?

2. Speech cannot defame or harm, emotionally or physically, others directly.

What claim about the soldiers did they make that is not demonstrably false? And you very well can harm other people emotionally and be still protected by the First Amendment. And you're right, speech can't harm people physically - it's impossible, so being illegal isn't very meaningful.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Berzerker


yup, this better not stand because it is CLEARLY discrimination based on content and a violation of both religious freedom and the freedom of expression. If y'all dont like the way our freedoms have been whittled away, this sure aint helping the cause... Cheering the decision is...shortsighted...



Oh really? So, if these people stood there with signs of support and blessings they'd be getting sued?

Hate speech is not protected. It's one thing to say you dislike homosexuality. It's another thing to preach hate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Hate speech is not protected.

In this country it is, like in all free countries.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
Careful... Your bedroom/A 380 suite/wherever is central to the message against premarital (or god-forbid... adulterous) sex.

They were on private property? I doubt that, since then the police could have just kicked them out.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

1. Even protected speech may not disrupt other activities.

Oh? What qualifies as disruption? What level of "dispruption" must be tolerated, and what level is bannable? Where did this fit on that scale?

2. Speech cannot defame or harm, emotionally or physically, others directly.

What claim about the soldiers did they make that is not demonstrably false? And you very well can harm other people emotionally and be still protected by the First Amendment. And you're right, speech can't harm people physically - it's impossible, so being illegal isn't very meaningful.

1) I leave for the courts to determine, but clearly some level is not tolerated.
2) I don't know the specifics, but a judge determined that the speech could cause emotional harm (or he would have dismissed the case), and I trust the opinion of someone well versed in the law and in the case more than you

Physical harm would be, say, suggesting that someone kill another person, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


In this country it is, like in all free countries.

You are so naive, it's almost cute.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh really?

Given that the laws against it that I know about are based on proximity to a cemetary... yes.

So, if these people stood there with signs of support and blessings they'd be getting sued?

It's very unlikely that he would have sued. Even if he did, it's very unlikely he could prove any form of emotional distress resulted of it.

You have a right to spew your hate-filled rhetoric if you want... just not in certain places.

[Kuciwalker]

That's not direct harm, snoopy.

xpost*3

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
2) I don't know the specifics, but a judge determined that the speech could cause emotional harm (or he would have dismissed the case), and I trust the opinion of someone well versed in the law and in the case more than you

That's a particularly bad argument from authority, given that I'm directly challenging the opinion (as I have framed it - the article wasn't very clear IMO).

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


They were on private property? I doubt that, since then the police could have just kicked them out.

I'm just illustrating the problem with the line of logic that it should be allowed simply because the location is central to the message. Public/private property is a much more valid argument of course. Which is why I used a private property example to illustrate the problem.

That said, just because it is on public property does not mean people are free to demonstrate there. There are necessary permits in many jurisdictions, and there are obvious areas, like courtrooms, where other rights take precidence. You can be held in contempt of court for outbursts in a courtroom.

Some places are off-limits for demonstrations. So what if a cemetery is? Hate-mongers can still spread their message in a multitude of ways.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm just illustrating the problem with the line of logic that it should be allowed simply because the location is central to the message.

The logic was that the speech couldn't be banned by location because location is central to the message. Since this only applies to the government, it has nothing to do with private property in the first place.

That said, just because it is on public property does not mean people are free to demonstrate there.

Of course not, but it does mean that the full weight of the First Amendment applies.

[Kuciwalker]

Some places are off-limits for demonstrations. So what if a cemetery is? Hate-mongers can still spread their message in a multitude of ways.

The same argument was used (unsuccessfully) re: flag burning.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
yup, this better not stand because it is CLEARLY discrimination based on content and a violation of both religious freedom and the freedom of expression. If y'all dont like the way our freedoms have been whittled away, this sure aint helping the cause... Cheering the decision is...shortsighted...

Where in the Constitution are invasions of my privacy protected, Berz?