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

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Wycoff


This question has already been answered.

Oh gosh, that's an amazing coincidence.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker The location strikes me as central to the message.

That would be a tough argument to make, IMO. The substance of their protest is that God is punishing the U.S. for its toleration of homosexuals by killing U.S. soldiers. It seems to me that they could make that argument in town square or in the public park. People don't have to be in a cemetary to be aware that soldiers are dying in Iraq. They'll still know and understand what Phelps is saying if they hear it in the park or in town square. Phelps could spread the same message without ever picketing the cemetary.

Picketing in front of / in the cemetary before and during the funeral only seems to serve one sure purpose: to make sure that the soldier's family and friends sees their message. It seems to me that Phelps is gloating and trying to rub it in to the fallen soldier's loved ones. If anything, it bolsters the plaintiff's argument that Phelps and Co. were intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the fallen soldier's family members.

If I were in their shoes, I don't think that I'd want to argue that being at the cemetary is necessary to the message. It would give the other side a chance to explore why being at the cemetary is so central, which will lead many people to the same conlusion as mine.

[Berzerker]

It would help if you'd read the article.

I did, and the article doesn't mention where the protestors were standing. Therefore I'm not privy to their arguments regarding that matter. Is that all you have?

I note you didn't respond to Aeson's point about whether you can burn your American flag inside a courtroom. The Supreme Court has upheld time, manner, place restrictions on speech in the past, as long as it applies to everyone and there is some good reason for it.

And this is comparable to people holding signs outside on public land? They didn't disrupt the funeral, they made the attendees angry with their message. Are you sure we should be applauding another attack on free speech and religion? Its easy in this case because the messengers are scum, but the "precedent" here is downright scary. Suing people over hurt feelings

[Imran Siddiqui]

the "precedent" here is downright scary

You act like this is something totally rare and unprecedented... how cute.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wycoff
This question has already been answered.

that's why he brought it up

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker that's why he brought it up

I couldn't tell whether he was being sarcastic or seriously posing a hypothetical. It's hard to tell sometimes.

[Berzerker]

Clearly the answer is, "Both."

The reason the suit was filed was almost surely because of the content. The laws themselves clearly do not address the content.

So people standing at the entrance to the cemetery with signs expressing love for the fallen soldier are banned too? The law you cited gave the people in charge of the cemetery the power to decide what is allowed, do you suppose they will base their decisions on content? Of course the law is about content, thats what demonstrations are all about. The law(s) was written because of these people, to argue it has nothing to do with content is naive...naive enough to believe the Patriot Act is patriotic because of the words used by the pols (yeah yeah, the law is "neutral", thats the ticket).

No one gets to demonstrate within a certain distance/time of a military funeral at a federal cemetary, regardless of the content.

Actually, the law gives cemetery bureaucrats the power to decide and they will decide based on content. But you're missing the point, a "demonstration" already has a known content - opposition. Thats why this law will never be used to punish people for holding signs of support for the soldier and loved ones.

Just the latest gem for now (about not needing to change the laws for drugs to be legal):

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...404#post5083404

"But I dont need to change any laws, just to have the laws obeyed."

So you turned what I said once in another thread into what I "always" say? Thats either dishonest or dumb...or both... As for what I meant, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if those laws were enforced, we wouldn't have this drug war. That means we dont need to repeal or change drug laws, we just need the Constitution enforced.

You argue that the law is concerned with the content rather than with location. This is clearly not the case. Obviously the law makes no distinction between the content of the demonstrations, only their proximity, timing, implements, loudness, ect.

Is the motive behind the law related to content? Is it the intent of the pols to block these people from protesting at funerals? Yup... Is it the intent of the pols to block people from holding signs in support of the fallen soldiers? Nope. Will the law be used to punish people who hold signs of support? Nope. It has everything to do with content...

Depends on where you're holding the sign. (If you're holding it through their skull... it may even be murder. )

I was not saying murder is an act of freedom though. I guess that does require an explanation, as you seem to have missed the obvious fact. I was simply using it as an example of a type of law that I am sure everyone agrees is constitutional, as well as another law that everyone agrees is unconstitutional, to illustrate that a law that is passed by 51% may or may not be constitutional. I did so to answer your question:

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

Sorry that you received an answer you weren't able to handle.

You gave me and Kuci a civics lesson as to how and why the law was passed (why you ignore that history when claiming content is irrelevant is another question) and you said "society" decided funerals should be off limits. We pointed out that it is the Constitution that matters, not what "society wants. You appear to agree, I dont know why you couldn't just say that without getting sidetracked with a ridiculous analogy involving murder.

And you've missed the "content" entirely. There is nothing inherently wrong with 51% making a law. (This specific law though was actually passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate... )

That doesn't make it constitutional.

The Constitution represents part of what society has decided. Other laws that are in effect do as well. Both may change in the future as society changes it's views on what is acceptable and what is not, and even as the courts rule on whether the laws are constitutional or not.

But at this time, the law is the law. And it's not discriminating based on the content of the demonstrations.

So is the Constitution your basis or what "society" has decided? Sheesh!

You are (sorta) right about flag burning. It's possible flag burning could again be illegal before an amendment was made, but it would likely get shot down in SCOTUS again. It would still be law until that time if it happened.

Is burning the flag free speech? I already know what the courts have said.

Laws against protesting at funerals have not yet been deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Which is why they are still laws.

It's a law. You might not agree with it... but it's still the law until such time as it is not the law.

Jesus, can you stop stating the obvious? We are debating whether or not the law is constitutional.

My arguments for why they are different are my arguments as for why they are different.

And what was your argument? Society has deemed one worthy of protection but not the other.

Note that I did not mention "flag burning" at all. It is a simple explanation of what the infraction was, and how the fact that it occured on public property has been determined not to make it legal.

If you want to "argue" with that fact, feel free.

I didn't say you mentioned flag burning, but why do you keep stating the obvious as if you're giving us new information?

You just admited my explanation for how the law came to exist is correct.

I admitted it? Where did I deny the law was enacted by various state and Fed govts based on what society wants? You aint telling us anything by that, we already know why and how the law came to exist. But you keep denying the law targets content inspite of the fact the law(s) targeted these people, their protests, and their message.

Sorry, that means your explanation that it came to exist to address specific content has just been refuted by you. Thank you for playing.

Huh? Mission accomplished? Here is what you said:

No. You were talking about how it related to an "argument" which you had misinterpreted as an argument, when in reality all I had done is explain to Berz what the law is, and why we have it.

To which I said: Geez, we know why and how the law came to exist.

Where is this rebuttal?

[Berzerker]

I don't know exactly what MD's privacy rights laws are, but I do know that public land doesn't create a flat fiat for people to go onto it and say whatever they want to whenever they want to.

Nor does it create a right to privacy that allows people to sue for being offended on public land. The right to say what you want is protected by the religious freedom and free speech clauses of the 1st Amendment, not privacy rights.

There's a whole body of "forum analysis" differentiating between traditional public forums, dedicated public forums, and non-public areas. The Westboro church people wouldn't be allowed to go into a school during school hours, into a military base, into a public hospital room, or into a courtroom and start their protests. I don't know where graveyards fit in, and I'm unaware of any SCOTUS case deciding that issue. Once forum issues are decided, SCOTUS jurisprudence makes crystal clear that there can be time, manner, and place restrictions on who uses the forum.

But they can stand outside these institutions/buildings and protest.
Time manner and place is irrelevant here, this is about their message.

As for the privacy law and the expectation of privacy issue- there is the tort of intrusion, which is designed to punish a defendant for intruding on a plaintiff when that plaintiff had an expectation of privacy. It is possible to have an expectation of privacy in a public place- a public hospital room, for example.

The analogy would be banning protests outside the hospital, not a room.

[Berzerker]

You act like this is something totally rare and unprecedented... how cute.

Well, according to the article this is the first time someone has gotten a judgement against these people protesting funerals. But I sure can see the ramifications, if people can be sued for the anguish caused by their message, there's no end to the lawsuits. The gays can sue the Church for calling them an abomination to God, Jewish feminists can sue Limbaugh for calling them Feminazis, and the Jersey Girls can sue Ann Coulter for her harsh comments. Get in line, lawsuit heaven has arrived...

[Imran Siddiqui]

if people can be sued for the anguish caused by their message

Intentional inflection of emotional distress has been around for many decades in the common law.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Nor does it create a right to privacy that allows people to sue for being offended on public land.

You seem to be making a slippery slope argument here, but you ignore how the law actually works. It takes more than simple offense to win an IIED claim.

The right to say what you want is protected by the religious freedom and free speech clauses of the 1st Amendment, not privacy rights.

I don't dispute that.

But they can stand outside these institutions/buildings and protest.

Not without limiation. For example, SCOTUS has upheld statutes prohibiting protests outside of school during school hours (Grayned v City of Rockford), and has upheld distance limitations for protesting outside of abortion clinics (Madsen v Women's Health Center, Schneck v Pro Choice Network)

Time manner and place is irrelevant here, this is about their message.

...and the way that they present their message. Of course it is. It's an IIED case. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants intentionally injured him through their outrageous behavior. That includes both what they said and how they said it. The only legal issue remaining is whether Phelps' actions were outrageous enough to allow such a verdict.

Content neutrality is typically only relevant when reviewing speech regulation by the government. If a town wants to ban protesting at cemetaries during funerals, then it would have to ban all picketing or protesting during funerals, regardless of the issue. However, such a regulation/statute/ordinance isn't at issue in this case. We have two separate debates intertwined- 1. whether this IIED action is constitutional and 2. whether it would be constitutional for a governmental body to pass a statute banning picketing during a funeral.

You seem to be arguing that this IIED claim is pure speech regulation, and thus squarely within the realm of the 1st Amendment. I think that it's more than just a speech issue; it's also intentionally harrassing and incredibly spiteful behavior designed to emotionally attack the plaintiff.

The analogy would be banning protests outside the hospital, not a room.

Maybe. I don't know how far away they were or where exactly they were standing. It may be more like protesting in the Hotel lobby. Regardless, SCOTUS has placed limitations on picketing even outside medical facilities.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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?

That's a question of fact to be determined on a case by case basis. Free speech (godhatesfags.com has been operating for years, as has the "church" and its leaders) does not extend to targetted harassment of individuals, nor does a claim of free speech rights create a privilege to engage in otherwise unlawful conduct.

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.

It depends on the nature of the acts purporting to be speech and the circumstances of the claimed harm.

And you're right, speech can't harm people physically - it's impossible, so being illegal isn't very meaningful.

If you get up in the face of a 90-year old with a severe cardiac condition, yell "Give me your money or I'll break your neck, mother****er!" at the top of your lungs, and said 90-year old recoils back, falls, and has a fatal heart attack as a result, good luck explaining to a jury how speech can't cause physical harm, in the legal meaning of the word "cause."

[Dr Strangelove]

......members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.

This is what I'm concerned about. What do they have to smile about? If it were up to me I'd have the whole group under surveillance now. They've got to be up to something.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Well, according to the article this is the first time someone has gotten a judgement against these people protesting funerals. But I sure can see the ramifications, if people can be sued for the anguish caused by their message, there's no end to the lawsuits. The gays can sue the Church for calling them an abomination to God, Jewish feminists can sue Limbaugh for calling them Feminazis, and the Jersey Girls can sue Ann Coulter for her harsh comments. Get in line, lawsuit heaven has arrived...

There is a differnece. Neither the Church, Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are invading the sanctity of a very personal moment.

I'll thank you to qualify what you mean by "church". right now my church is facing an ass-kicking via a bunch of African bishops in the pay of an American group of wealthy conservatives just because it refused to discriminate against gays.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

This is what I'm concerned about. What do they have to smile about? If it were up to me I'd have the whole group under surveillance now. They've got to be up to something.

I imagine they had a couple of reasons to smile. They likely have found ways to hide or legally protect their money similar to how the Catholic Church, several none profits, and even some corporations have compartmentalized their assets to protect against law suits plus Westboro Baptist is filled with attention seekers (that's why they started high profile protests at funerals). They seem to believe in the maxim that any publicity is good publicity.