Muenkel 0 #26 October 31, 2007 Quote>I'm still waiting for someone on the left to tell us who they think are >left-wing loons. Don't know if I qualify (since I don't vote democratic) but here's a partial list: PETA the ELF/ALF The US Communist Party Jesse Jackson Matt Damon Thanks Bill. My whole point in asking this question was to see who would step up to the plate and demonstrate honesty. Show that they can think for themselves and recognize lunacy from wherever it comes from. IMO, there are too many people who let a certain ideology lead them rather than forming their own ideology. In simpler words, there are too many sheep and that's scary. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #27 October 31, 2007 QuoteEventhough I do not agree with the WBC, isn't this part of their right to free speech, as protected by the US constitution? Wouldn't the winning of this lawsuit result in a serious infringement on that right? First off, the right to free speech is grossly misunderstood. It means that the GOVERNMENT may not arrest, imprison, torture or execute you for what you say. It doesn't say you're allowed to harass a grieving family at their son's funeral. Then there's the freedom to practice their religion. Well, if they want to hold church services where they get up and say that God hates fags, I suppose that would be their constitutionally protected business. But they seem to prefer saying those sorts of things outside other people's churches, where the congregations don't share the same set of beliefs. Does this mean I can stand outside a synagogue and denounce the Jewish congregation as "Christ killers" ? I don't think so, and I would certainly hope not. It's essentially the same kind of harassment, and in some states would even be considered a hate crime. I hope the family wins big and bleeds those assholes dry. Lawsuits were very effective against the Klan and the neo-Nazis and might just be the most effective way of finally shutting these shitbags down. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #28 October 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteEventhough I do not agree with the WBC, isn't this part of their right to free speech, as protected by the US constitution? Wouldn't the winning of this lawsuit result in a serious infringement on that right? First off, the right to free speech is grossly misunderstood. It means that the GOVERNMENT may not arrest, imprison, torture or execute you for what you say. It doesn't say you're allowed to harass a grieving family at their son's funeral. Then there's the freedom to practice their religion. Well, if they want to hold church services where they get up and say that God hates fags, I suppose that would be their constitutionally protected business. But they seem to prefer saying those sorts of things outside other people's churches, where the congregations don't share the same set of beliefs. Does this mean I can stand outside a synagogue and denounce the Jewish congregation as "Christ killers" ? I don't think so, and I would certainly hope not. It's essentially the same kind of harassment, and in some states would even be considered a hate crime. I hope the family wins big and bleeds those assholes dry. Lawsuits were very effective against the Klan and the neo-Nazis and might just be the most effective way of finally shutting these shitbags down. I agree, and while I'm no lawyer, I can not imagine that the right to free speech has no limitations once you start fucking with other people. EDIT: The limits can't be all that generous; it must just be a matter of someone willing to push back. I mean, I can be tossed from the ballpark at one of my daughter's games by some teenage umpire for being too boisterous in the stands. Could I sue them for violating my free speech rights?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 October 31, 2007 QuoteI mean, I can be tossed from the ballpark at one of my daughter's games by some teenage umpire for being too boisterous in the stands. Could I sue them for violating my free speech rights? You can in Minnesota ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 October 31, 2007 Quoteooh, if hollywood is in the mix, don't forget Steven Seagal. If we're going to list out loony leftist hollywood types one post at a time, then we need to send donations to Sangiro to purchase a few more hard drives. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #31 October 31, 2007 Quote can be tossed from the ballpark at one of my daughter's games by some teenage umpire for being too boisterous in the stands. Could I sue them for violating my free speech rights? You could, But you would lose. Free Speech has limitations. My first job ever was as a little league Umpire. At 14 I was paid $3 a game for minor league (under 10yo) and $4 a game for major league (10 to 12yo). At almost every game I had to have the security guys escort at least one parent from the game for exactly that reason. We had a zero tolerance policy for parents that yelled at the umps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #32 October 31, 2007 Quote Quote can be tossed from the ballpark at one of my daughter's games by some teenage umpire for being too boisterous in the stands. Could I sue them for violating my free speech rights? You could, But you would lose. Free Speech has limitations. My first job ever was as a little league Umpire. At 14 I was paid $3 a game for minor league (under 10yo) and $4 a game for major league (10 to 12yo). At almost every game I had to have the security guys escort at least one parent from the game for exactly that reason. We had a zero tolerance policy for parents that yelled at the umps. That is what I thought. So my next question for the legal experts is: Do I lose because free speech has it's limitations, or do I lose because I signed a contract when registering my daughter that stipulates I agree to certain rules of conduct; and in breaking those rules I forfiet my privelege to attend the event? I think it would be easier and cheaper for them to pin it on breaking a contractual agreement than on violation of constitutional rights. But if it came down to it, could they say my free speech rights do not include the right to scream obsessively - even if not using profanities - at an umpire?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #33 October 31, 2007 Quotecould they say my free speech rights do not include the right to scream obsessively - even if not using profanities - at an umpire? I am far from a legal expert, But my Opinion is that you loose the right to free speach when it Disrupts the event that people are gathered for. Want to protest the Umps? Have you own event where you can be loud as you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #34 October 31, 2007 QuoteBut if it came down to it, could they say my free speech rights do not include the right to scream obsessively - even if not using profanities - at an umpire? At what point in your scenario did the GOVERNMENT violate you right to free speech? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #35 October 31, 2007 QuoteDoes this mean I can stand outside a synagogue and denounce the Jewish congregation as "Christ killers" ? Much as most people viscerally dislike it - in the US (due to the 1st Amendment), the default answer to your question is "Yes". That's because the 1st Amendment, if is to really have genuine teeth and meaning, protects not just popular speech (which is easy to do), but hugely unpopular speech of the most vile and offensive nature - for it is that type of speech that must be protected if the principle of "freedom of speech" is carried out in practice, as opposed to abandoned when the going gets really, really tough. This is absolutely crucial. A good example of the above is the times when the Ku Klux Klan planned to march thru certain predominantly Jewish neighborhoods like Skokie, Illinois. Objectors sued to stop them on the grounds that the marches would be so offensive to the locals - basically amounting to "fighting words" - that violence might ensue. But the judges said the march must be allowed: the KKK's 1st Amendment right to march thru the public streets, even if it was highly provocative, trumped the locals' desire to not have to tolerate being mortified and appalled by that conduct in their own neighborhood; and the police would simply have to figure out a way to protect the KKK marchers from harm, as long as they were otherwise behaving lawfully. As for your specific example, a judge would look at, on balance, whether your conduct is so disruptive and/or intimidating that it effectively deprives the congregation's members of their right to worship there - which is a much higher bar to clear than merely being extremely vile and offensive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #36 October 31, 2007 QuoteA good example of the above is the times when the Ku Klux Klan planned to march thru certain predominantly Jewish neighborhoods like Skokie, Illinois. Objectors sued to stop them on the grounds that the marches would be so offensive to the locals - basically amounting to "fighting words" - that violence might ensue. The difference here was that the scum I mean Klan went through legal channels to have their march and obtained the permits. Freedom of Speech required those permits be granted. If they had gone into a Black Church or other gathering and started spewing their filth (Disrupting the assembly) they would have been arrested. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 October 31, 2007 Quote First off, the right to free speech is grossly misunderstood. It means that the GOVERNMENT may not arrest, imprison, torture or execute you for what you say. It doesn't say you're allowed to harass a grieving family at their son's funeral. I think you're the one that misunderstands. Free speech is that - it doesn't mean all speech that doesn't make anyone feel bad. The baseball example fails muster - heckling an ump isn't political speech. Whereas the Westboro fucks are engaging in that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #38 October 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteA good example of the above is the times when the Ku Klux Klan planned to march thru certain predominantly Jewish neighborhoods like Skokie, Illinois. Objectors sued to stop them on the grounds that the marches would be so offensive to the locals - basically amounting to "fighting words" - that violence might ensue. The difference here was that the scum I mean Klan went through legal channels to have their march and obtained the permits. Freedom of Speech required those permits be granted. There is an ongoing debate in the legal community, and different judges have issued conflicting rulings on this, on whether local ordinances requiring advance permits for a demonstration or march are themselves a violation of the 1st Amendment. Some arguments that permit requirements themselves are unconstitutional are: (a) Permits naturally require the applicants to identify themselves to the government. Yet true freedom of speech can only exist when people are free to speak or demonstrate anonymously, should they so choose - otherwise, the fear of retaliation could have a chilling effect on people exercising that right. (b) Constitutional rights are self-executing; that is, people are automatically permitted to exercise those rights - without advance notice to or permission of the government - simply by virtue of their being in the Constitution. Thus it is unconstitutional for governments to require people to obtain advance permits to exercise those rights. (By the way, similar arguments to (a) and (b) can be used re: 2nd Amendment rights, too.) (c) For speech truly to be free, people must be able to exercise that right spontaneously, whenever the cause, need or desire might appear to them. If we are truly a government "Of The People" (yes, I know - we're a republic, and not a pure democracy), then We The People must be free to speak openly to the public or our government at a moment's notice, while the need to do so might be most timely. Quote If they had gone into a Black Church or other gathering and started spewing their filth (Disrupting the assembly) they would have been arrested. Depends. If they did that on church or other private property, especially inside the building, and refused to desist upon request, then I'd agree. But if they did the same thing on the public thoroughfare in front of the church, then that's the same thing as Tom's (tbrown's) synagogue example above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #39 October 31, 2007 $2.9M compensatory damages. Punitive damaged to be determined. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HeadCone 0 #40 October 31, 2007 Jury awards father $2.9M in funeral case Jury awards father $2.9M in funeral case Jury awards grieving father $2.9 million in verdict against military funeral protesters By ALEX DOMINGUEZ Associated Press Writer | AP Oct 31, 2007 A grieving father won a $2.9 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members staged a demonstration at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags." 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. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. BALTIMORE (AP) _ A grieving father won a $2.9 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. © 2007 The Associated Press -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 October 31, 2007 Quote$2.9M compensatory damages. Punitive damaged to be determined. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story "Snyder testified that he never saw the content of the signs as he entered and left St. John's Roman Catholic Church on the day of his son's funeral. He glimpsed the signs for the first time during television news reports later that day. A Google search on the Internet weeks later led him to the church's Web site and the posting about Matthew Snyder." and yet the jury pressed on. This one will end up like most smoker lawsuit verdicts - tossed aside. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #42 November 1, 2007 Quote$2.9M compensatory damages. Punitive damaged to be determined. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story Plus $6 million punitive damages, plus another $2 million for inflicting emotional distress. Good job, I'd like to see those fuckers try to even buy a tank of gas now. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #43 November 1, 2007 QuoteQuote First off, the right to free speech is grossly misunderstood. It means that the GOVERNMENT may not arrest, imprison, torture or execute you for what you say. It doesn't say you're allowed to harass a grieving family at their son's funeral. I think you're the one that misunderstands. Free speech is that - it doesn't mean all speech that doesn't make anyone feel bad. The baseball example fails muster - heckling an ump isn't political speech. Whereas the Westboro fucks are engaging in that. Not really. Nobody from the Westboro Church was arrested or jailed for their despicable protest. The government didn't try to move them along, or harass them for trespassing, or assembling without a permit. So as far as that goes, their right to free speech was protected, and as much as I hate to admit it, rightly so. But that doesn't mean that the Snyder family or the congregation of their Catholic church had to put up with any of it. This lawsuit was not a criminal proceeding, it was a civil case for the harm inflicted. And it only had to be decided by a majority of the jurors, on a preponderance of the evidence. So the Westboro Church and it's members might be bankrupted by the judgement, but not a one of them is sitting behind bars. Their freedom of speech is protected, but they're NOT immune to the consequences of their reprehensible act. Nor should they be. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 November 1, 2007 so show me the 2.9M in damages done to them, when they didn't even see it happening at the funeral. Show me $1000 in damages first. The damages are all punitive. You might look up the SLAPP lawsuits. Not exactly applicable, but the same sort of implications. The "free" in free speech doesn't just mean freedom. If it costs you $11M, it's hardly free at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #45 November 1, 2007 You can't put a price on distress. Only trial lawyers and juries can! You owe me $3.00, 6 pints of your best blonde ale, and a 4-pound chicken for frustrating me. Fuck the Phelpses...I wish them slow, painful death from the bottom of my heart.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #46 November 1, 2007 Quote Fuck the Phelpses...I wish them slow, painful death from the bottom of my heart. Ditto!"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Esquilax 0 #47 November 1, 2007 It'd be nice to see them put up a LGBT crisis center in the former church building...Ostriches and rheas are the only birds that urinate and defecate separately. They read Parachutist while doing #2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
