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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I don't know what's wrong with your head. I went back and reread your posts, and your entire argument is incoherent.

It's ok Kuci. I don't expect you to understand, since it's somewhat complex. You should have just stuck with , as it was by far your best attempt at making a valid response.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Does that mean you think
....
or

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.

Thats content... Dont PROTEST at funerals...

Don't "demonstrate" actually. It doesn't address any specific type of content. Only methods of how any content would be considered interfering.

The courts have repeatedly knocked down laws that discriminate based upon content.

This law doesn't discriminate based on content. It doesn't matter what content you use in your demonstrations.

Let me guess, you think supporting "The Patriot Act" is patriotic too because pols gave it a nice name?

Nope. But it's nice to see you've fallen back on guessing what I might possibly think about completely unrelated issues.

It's good for some chuckles.

Now stop with the BS, the laws targeted protestors, not people standing around with blessings for the family and friends.

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

Where have I argued that, much less "always" ?

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

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5083404#post5083404

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

"Wtf? I argued the law is not the law because we dont agree about the intent of the law or the motives of the lawmakers? I'd love to see the quote you used for that nonsense.

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.

This comes from my first post
....
Clearly I'm arguing about the constitutionality (look at what I quoted for my response) of both the laws and this lawsuit. I've mentioned the 1st Amendment several times so if you think I haven't been arguing about the constitutionality of this you're nuts.

Your "first post" that you quoted was directed at another poster, and was only a portion of the post. You left out the part of your first post you directed at me. Here's what you responded to me about initially:

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

Nope... no Constitution there. Later you try to pretend that's what we were talking about, but it doesn't change what actually happened. Sorry. Our discussion is not about the Constitution, but rather whether or not this law is based on the content of demonstrations or not.

Content or not. That's it. Everything else you are blathering on about are just attempts to try to obfuscate the issue.

Murder aint an act of freedom, holding a sign that says soldiers are dying because the USA is corrupt IS an act of freedom. Does that require an explanation?

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.

That was your argument, and thats 51% making the decision.

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... )

Now you say its unlikely an amendment would pass with 51%.

Of course it's unlikely an amendment would pass with 51% popular support. Are you saying otherwise?

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

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.

The Constitution has not been amended yet, therefore flag burning and protesting funerals are protected.

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.

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.

Of course it was an argument, you said our society has deemed funerals deserving of respect.

Not quite. Technically, deserving of respect to the point where certain types of demonstrations are illegal.

The flag has not been deemed deserving and that was your distinction between the two.

No. (Again, technically, it has not been determined to be deserving of respect to such a point... meaning it is not illegal.)

Sure it explains how the law came to be, but its still an argument for why you believe the two situations are different.

No. My arguments for why they are different are my arguments as for why they are different. The "argument" you are referencing was this:

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

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.

Geez, we know why and how the law came to exist. What a waste of time.

You just admited my explanation for how the law came to exist is correct. Sorry, that means your explanation that it came to exist to address specific content has just been refuted by you. Thank you for playing.

[Kuciwalker]

You knew the post I replied to with was completely specious (and a deliberate misinterpretation of my argument). At least, if you didn't then you're actually dumb...

Consider your first serious response to me (which had nothing to do with Berz):

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.

This post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and my argument: they were banning protests at a specific place because that place was central to the message of the protest. Therefore they were violating the First Amendment.

Then you responded to Berz with the start of this inane line of reasoning:

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

Either you were trying to justify the charges, in which case your argument is completely beside the point - what "our society has deemed deserving of respect" is irrelevant to First Amendment jurisprudence - or you were merely explaining why someone passed an unconstitutional law, in which case your post is useless, because it's obvious why the passed the law and no one really cares, least of all Berz.

Then you had another post displaying your ignorance of the free speech issues involved (and ignorance of the previous posts as well):

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...

As mentioned before, the location is central to the content (as flag-burning is central to the message of protesters who burn flags, which is a meaningful example because it deals with very similar First Amendment issues and has actually gone to the Supreme Court), so it can't exist elsewhere.

Then you try to cop out with:

I was not making the argument, just issuing a statement of how things are.

Berz knows what the law is because the results are in the OP. We're both arguing that the law as applied is unconstitutional.

Then you moved into you weird argument about the exact correspondence between the mechanisms of government and what our society desires, which is sketchy at best (pleny of cases where the judiciary makes unpopular decisions) and meaningless at worse (if it's just a redefinition).

Then you've got this bit:

In this case you were arguing that the law is something other than what it is. You claim that the law is making content illegal, whereas I (and the law) are claiming that it targets demonstrations of a certain type, regardless of content.

Again blatantly wrong, because 1) IIRC many of these laws were in part designed because of groups like Phelps' and 2) once more, the location is part of the content.

[Berzerker]

Clearly the answer is, "Both."

I'll try to get to the rest later, but that was just too much.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You knew the post I replied to with was completely specious (and a deliberate misinterpretation of my argument).

Which is why I gave it to you as a valid response. It was a joke, as was my initial response to you... you handled it well. That ended our conversation on that point, as I was more interested in discussing things with Berz.

You later jumped back into the fray by quoting something I had explained to Berz, and we took off on a new tangent then.

Consider your first serious response to me (which had nothing to do with Berz):

Ok.

This post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and my argument: they were banning protests at a specific place because that place was central to the message of the protest. Therefore they were violating the First Amendment.

To give a non-specious example of why your reasoning fails, consider a "message" about the judicial system. You could try to make the same argument that the courtroom is central to that message... and of course the courtroom is public property... but it still won't mean we should allow demonstrations in the courtroom during trials. The process deserves some decorum, and determining that the process of burial deserves some decorum is no different in this regard.

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

Either you were trying to justify the charges, in which case your argument is completely beside the point - what "our society has deemed deserving of respect" is irrelevant to First Amendment jurisprudence - or you were merely explaining why someone passed an unconstitutional law, in which case your post is useless, because it's obvious why the passed the law and no one really cares, least of all Berz.

I was not explaining why someone passed an "unconstitutional" law. I was explaining why the law was passed. Which BTW, Berz had just given his explanation of.

Then we get to the really juicy part. The part which is eating you up inside. You completely misread my statement, and tried to argue against me as if I had used it to validate the law, when all I had done is explain how the law came to be.

Now you are frantically trying to throw up distractions to hide this point, since it is patently obvious that you were incorrect in your interpretation of my statement, and thus the entire rest of our dialog is based on a misconception on your part.

As mentioned before, the location is central to the content (as flag-burning is central to the message of protesters who burn flags, which is a meaningful example because it deals with very similar First Amendment issues and has actually gone to the Supreme Court), so it can't exist elsewhere.

You keep relying on a defunct argument. Are you really so retarded that you can't figure out how someone could express their hate of gays in the military without interrupting a funeral? Do you really think that people need to be able to interrupt any proceeding on public property, anytime, if they can draw some half-assed correlation of the setting to their message?

We'd have complete anarchy with your interpretation of the right of free speech.

Then you try to cop out with:

I was not making the argument, just issuing a statement of how things are.

Berz knows what the law is because the results are in the OP. We're both arguing that the law as applied is unconstitutional.

Try reading it again. Sooner or later even you can figure it out. (I know you already realize it, which is what your so desperate to try to cover up... but all you're doing is digging your hole deeper. )

I was not making the argument that you implied with the statement (which what you quoted here was in direct response to): "That's a bad argument, our society has deemed that the flag deserves respect too."

You are implying that I had said that the law is justified because of how it came to be. That is not true. I simply said how it came to be.

You were creating an "argument" to argue against and trying to attribute it to me. It is not what I said.

Then you moved into you weird argument about the exact correspondence between the mechanisms of government and what our society desires, which is sketchy at best (pleny of cases where the judiciary makes unpopular decisions) and meaningless at worse (if it's just a redefinition).

I simply said society creates/supports laws. I was obviously using the broadest sense of the term. (Perfectly valid definition of the term btw. No redefinition required. Look it up.) You kept trying to argue against that and so I kept responding in that frame of reference, even though it was meaningless because you were arguing against something we both know is perfectly true.

Again blatantly wrong, because 1) IIRC many of these laws were in part designed because of groups like Phelps' and 2) once more, the location is part of the content.

I have already posted the specific law in question. Other laws are for other discussions. I'm glad you sorta recall something about some unspecified laws, but it's hardly a useful argument. Even if the laws were spurred by these types of demonstrations, it doesn't mean they restrict specific content of demonstrations.

This particular law simply defines restrictions on where and when a particular sort of demonstration can occur in the immediate vicinity of federal cemetaries.

And once again... your "location is part of the message" is flawed. You can make your statements without interrupting functions on public property. And we can't survive as a society if government has no right to restrict where demonstrations can occur. You'd have people demonstrating on the table in diplomatic talks. You'd have people picketing inside the oval office all the time. Virtually every courtroom would just be one giant demonstration during any disputed case. You might think that's a good thing, but anyone with a brain understands why there are some limits to "free speech", even on public property which would qualify as "location part of the message".

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I'll try to get to the rest later, but that was just too much.

You can't differentiate between the reason the father probably sued, and the reason the laws exist and what they actually say. It's not even close to the same thing. Yet you've taken statements dealing with each and set it them up as some sort of idiot's guide to creating false-dichotomies.

It is very funny, I'll give you that. Glad you can laugh at yourself.

[Berzerker]

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."

Ah, so you found 1 example from a different thread? Thats "always"? The drug war is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, that is the law I want enforced - the Constitution. Certainly you can make the distinction between laws that do or dont violate the Constitution.

[Berzerker]

This law doesn't discriminate based on content. It doesn't matter what content you use in your demonstrations.

Of course it does, thats why the law was written and passed. Are you oblivious to that reality? The very fact it is a DEMONSTRATION tells us something about the content, its a protest and the funeral is part of the message.

Your "first post" that you quoted was directed at another poster, and was only a portion of the post. You left out the part of your first post you directed at me. Here's what you responded to me about initially:

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

Nope... no Constitution there. Later you try to pretend that's what we were talking about, but it doesn't change what actually happened. Sorry. Our discussion is not about the Constitution, but rather whether or not this law is based on the content of demonstrations or not.

Content or not. That's it. Everything else you are blathering on about are just attempts to try to obfuscate the issue.

You didn't bother reading my response, I was raising the Constitution the moment you took the bait.

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.

See?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And while I'm not privy to their arguments,

It would help if you'd read the article.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kuci, aside from an emoticon, 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.

I'm doubting the Supreme Court strikes down the invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress arguments. IIED has been a tort for a very long time, and the 1st Amendment does not (and has not) run roughshod over that, even if you'd like it to.

[Arrian]

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by snoopy369


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.

What about if neo-nazis wanted to have a march through a predominantly Jewish town filled with Holocaust survivors? Is that emotionally harmful and worth being banned?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

People may know that its a law suit, but, from the way terms have been used in this thread by multiple people, it's not clear that everyone really understood what was going on here.

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.

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. 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.

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. Like I said, I don't know MD tort law- maybe there's a case law establishing that mourners at a funeral have an expectation of privacy strong enough to carry an action for intrusion.

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.

IIED isn't about protecting from offensive speech, it's about reimbursing a plaintiff who suffers severe emotional distress from a defendant who intentionally engaged in extremely offensive behavior. The "extremely offensive behavior, behavior beyond the boundaries of civilized society" hurtle is extremely high. For example, a passerby who is deeply offended by a Neo-Nazi rally can't sue for IIED, even if they suffer severe emotional distress, because holding political rallies are deemed to be within the bounds of civilized society, regardless of the subject matter. There'd also be a weaker argument for intent in this situation.

However, if a Neo-nazi drew a swastika on his forehead, tracked down a Jewish Holocaust survivor who happened to be walking down a public sidewalk, got in the Holocaust survivor's face, and started screaming that the Holocaust survivor should have died in the Holocaust, that Hitler was right etc. until the Holocaust survivor suffered severe emotional trauma, then that holocaust survivor has a colorable IIED action. This goes far beyond punishing someone for saying something that another finds offensive; it goes to preventing people from intentionally and severely tormenting one another. IIED claims can only win in extreme cases.

Are these torts Constitutional as applied to this case? I think that there could be stong arguments both ways. Phelps and co. are on the boundary, IMO. The tort claims are weakened by the fact that they were some distance away from the funeral (and the IIED claim is weakened, IMO, because this isn't the first time that Phelps has done this. We may be to a point where we've become so used to this behavior that it is no longer considered extemely outrageous.)

It is an interesting situation all around- personal privacy, dignity, and protection against severe psycho-emotional trauma one one corner and freedom to demonstrate wherever, whenever in the other. I come down to saying that this is constitutional, and that Phelps and co can be restricted- IMO, they could get their message out just as clearly and effectively in a town square or a park without singling out a particular person's funeral to destroy. You obviously think otherwise.

edited for clarity

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
What about if neo-nazis wanted to have a march through a predominantly Jewish town filled with Holocaust survivors? Is that emotionally harmful and worth being banned?

This question has already been answered.

Generally demonstrations aimed at amorphous groups of people are o.k. The thing that makes this Phelps case distinguishable, IMO, is that, though they're rallying against an amorphous group (U.S. society), they're doing it in a way so as to extremely distress a discrete group of people (the dead soldier's parents, spouse, and siblings) and to disrupt a particular ceremony that is of extreme emotional importance to the family.

It would be like allowing a Neo-Nazi rally to be held at a holocaust survivor's funeral or at a Holocaust memorial on Holocaust rememberance day with the intent to disrupt and ruin the ceremonies.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I'm doubting the Supreme Court strikes down the invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress arguments. IIED has been a tort for a very long time, and the 1st Amendment does not (and has not) run roughshod over that, even if you'd like it to.

I think that a court seeking to overturn this IIED verdict on free speech grounds would have to justify their doing so by holding that, as a matter of law, the Phelps' actions weren't extreme enough to satisfy the "extreme outrageousness" element of IIED.

I think that this- might - have a chance, simply because Phelps has done this before without incurring an IIED suit. If this had been Phelps & co.'s first funeral protest, then I'd have a hard time imagining that a court would strike down the verdict for not being outrageous enough. By this point, though, the Phelps family might have a chance with that argument.