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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The same argument was used (unsuccessfully) re: flag burning.

They allow flag burning in courtrooms?

[Kuciwalker]

[Straybow]

It's a civil case. The verdict and the judgment can both be appealed and will be, certainly. It will go through round after round until it isn't news any more.

[Berzerker]

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

Maybe we could form a group to go around attacking people for saying stupid stuff.

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

So the 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of non-hateful speech?

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

They were sued for content, not location. If they were holding signs expressing sympathy, support, and blessings they would not have been sued. The laws are subject to the Constitution and I dont see a way around the 1st Amendment.

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.

Which means they were sued for content, and content is why these laws have been passed.

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

Which is a smokescreen, these people were not charged or sued for obstructing traffic or making alot of noise.

[Berzerker]

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

When the "invaders" of your privacy are standing on public land holding signs.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which is a smokescreen, these people were not charged or sued for obstructing traffic or making alot of noise.

They were charged with interrupting a service, which while on public property, our society has deemed deserving of respect.

Do you support unlimited free speech in all public places?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which means they were sued for content, and content is why these laws have been passed.

I'm sure they were sued for content. That's irrelevent.

If you want to pretend the laws are based on content, feel free. Have fun explaining why the exact same content would not be illegal elsewhere though...

[Berzerker]

They were charged with interrupting a service, which while on public property, our society has deemed deserving of respect.

Interrupting how? By being within a few hundred yards with signs?

Do you support unlimited free speech in all public places?

What I believe is irrelevant, whether or not the 1st Amendment protects their religious freedom and speech is the issue.

[Wycoff]

You're missing something here, Berz. This isn't a cut-and-dried 1st amendment case in which the state arrests someone for saying something. These people weren't arrested for what they said or for where they were saying it. The state had no role in this.

What did happen is that the plaintiff brought a civil action against them for their actions. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, the Westboro baptist church, had committed two torts against him: invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He's claiming that, through their actions, Westboro injured him, and he's seeking damages from them to compensate for those injuries.

IIED, though rarely a winner, is a legitimate tort. A plaintiff can recover from a defendant if the defendant intentionally subjects a plaintiff to "extreme or outrageous conduct (conduct beyond the bounds of civilized society)," and that conduct causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs usually fail to satisfy the "extreme or outrageous" or the "severe emotional distress" elements. If they do satisfy those elements, though, the plaintiff wins. The 1st Amendment is no bar to that (with the exception of parody of public figures ala Falwell v Hustler). The fact that the IIED was partially based on the content of the defendent's speech is no no bar to the tort- in fact, it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in proving the "outrageousness" element.

This case could lead to some interesting 1st Amendment jurisprudence. SCOTUS has extensively delved into the confluence of tort and 1st amendment law in the defamation (libel & slander) cases and in privacy rights / likeness and trademark areas. I don't think that SCOTUS has addressed this particular situation, though. It will be interesting to see if they get the chance to address it.

(As a side note, I think that a statute imposing a ban on picketing funerals might withstand constitutional scrutiny if based on a time manner place restriction. As pointed out earlier, these people wouldn't be allowed to picket in a courtroom, for example.)

[Berzerker]

I'm sure they were sued for content.

It's to do with where they say it, not what they say.

Are you really sure?

If you want to pretend the laws are based on content, feel free. Have fun explaining why the exact same content would not be illegal elsewhere though...

The laws were passed to deal with these people and their message, of course the laws are about content. You want me to explain why the content was made illegal in one place and not another? Because the content is seen by people attending the funeral and it upsets them. Isn't that obvious?

[Kuciwalker]

They were charged with interrupting a service, which while on public property, our society has deemed deserving of respect.

That's a bad argument, our society has deemed that the flag deserves respect too.

[Berzerker]

You're missing something here, Berz. This isn't a cut-and-dried 1st amendment case in which the state arrests someone for saying something. These people weren't arrested for what they said or for where they were saying it. The state had no role in this.

The laws came first

A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.

I'd say the involvement of government at both the federal and state level has been established thru law. But yes, we know this is a lawsuit. The debate is about the constitutionality of the laws and any lawsuits.

What did happen is that the plaintiff brought a civil action against them for their actions. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, the Westboro baptist church, had committed two torts against him: invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He's claiming that, through their actions, Westboro injured him, and he's seeking damages from them to compensate for those injuries.

Then homosexuals and ALL the other groups identified as "abominations" to God can sue damn near every religion in the country and the Bible can be banned as "hate speech"... The privacy issue needs clarification - these people do not attend the funeral, they stand at a distance holding signs. "Privacy" is limited by "property", we dont have much of either (just ourselves) when we venture onto public lands. To suggest we have a privacy right against seeing things we find offensive is ridiculous and will only lead to, at "best", speech the majority allows.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's a bad argument, our society has deemed that the flag deserves respect too.

I was not making the argument, just issuing a statement of how things are. I always end up arguing with Berz about whether the law is the law. It's fun.

(And technically... No, our society has not deemed that the flag is deserving of such respect that desecrating it is illegal.)

[Berzerker]

we aren't arguing about whether the law is the law (whatever that means), we're arguing about whether or not the laws (and the grounds for lawsuits) are constitutional.

No, our society has not deemed that the flag is deserving of such respect that desecrating it is illegal.)

I doubt that, but if 51% of the people supported a ban, would that make it constitutional?

Oh, and blaming me for your bad argument

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
When the "invaders" of your privacy are standing on public land holding signs.

That's not an answer Berz. Unless you'd care to explain how exactly a funneral is a public event rather than a private mourning for families and friends. One also doesn't have the right to speech that is intended to incite violence.