rushmc 23 #1 October 31, 2007 I have not thought much about the free speach freedom to assemble topics here but at first look.........YA!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 October 31, 2007 That's not freedom of speech, sir. Freedom of speech means that the government does not ban speech. Nevertheless, you can sue for damages from someone exercising that speech in a way that causes harm. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johndh1 0 #3 October 31, 2007 Oh, yeah, them again. When a schoolbus went off the raised highway down here in Huntsville, Alabama, they gave the same protest about how it was "God's punishment." Too bad there's not a drown-in-diarrhea-bomb to drop on Westboro Baptist Church. The community should be proud out there. I just think back to when they did the same thing at Matthew Shepard's funeral, and so many people were like "...well, he was a fag..."Roll Tide Roll Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 October 31, 2007 When Phelps takes a dirt nap, I expect large protests over it being "God's will" as punishment, and "Phelps was a fag" signs being there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johndh1 0 #5 October 31, 2007 Now THAT will be funny!Roll Tide Roll Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #6 October 31, 2007 QuoteI have not thought much about the free speach freedom to assemble topics here but at first look.........YA!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html Well it couldn't happen to a better group of people, as they tie in US troops deaths in Ira to the tollerance of gays, but it's not about freedom of speech even if that's the defense of the Bible-toting nuts. The US Const has a 1-way relationship between a person and the gov, meaning the gov owes these protections, not a civil entity. Odd thing is, virtually all military folks are more homophobic and generally conservative than the average American so their point holds no water. Before you celebrate too much, the institution is probably defiunct and thanks to your parties favor of, "a corporation is a person," the award will fall to to the ground unless it is against the people as well. If the judge awarded it against the people individually then it would stick, esp the punitive as you cannot BK from them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 October 31, 2007 I find it interesting how liberal many of the troops I served with were. The military was the CLOSEST cross-sample of society I have been around. It's more liberal than those who would stereotype it would think. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 October 31, 2007 QuoteI have not thought much about the free speach freedom to assemble topics here but at first look.........YA!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html so I guess you're a fan of billion dollar jury verdicts for dead smokers too...there's nothing to celebrate about this case, even if I personally like the idea of the church being bankrupt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 October 31, 2007 QuoteThat's not freedom of speech, sir. Freedom of speech means that the government does not ban speech. Nevertheless, you can sue for damages from someone exercising that speech in a way that causes harm. thanks sir, I was just trying to think ahead."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #10 October 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteI have not thought much about the free speach freedom to assemble topics here but at first look.........YA!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html Well it couldn't happen to a better group of people, as they tie in US troops deaths in Ira to the tollerance of gays, but it's not about freedom of speech even if that's the defense of the Bible-toting nuts. The US Const has a 1-way relationship between a person and the gov, meaning the gov owes these protections, not a civil entity. Odd thing is, virtually all military folks are more homophobic and generally conservative than the average American so their point holds no water. Before you celebrate too much, the institution is probably defiunct and thanks to your parties favor of, "a corporation is a person," the award will fall to to the ground unless it is against the people as well. If the judge awarded it against the people individually then it would stick, esp the punitive as you cannot BK from them. I agree with you. It is very hard, no, it is impossible, for me to understand they thought process of this group. I hope they keep getting sued until they can not afford to go to any more funerals"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #11 October 31, 2007 Assuming this is upheld upon appeal, what are the ramifications for anti-abortion protestors? Anti-Republican/anti-Democrat protests? Defending freedom of speech for people you agree with is without merit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #12 October 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteI have not thought much about the free speach freedom to assemble topics here but at first look.........YA!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html so I guess you're a fan of billion dollar jury verdicts for dead smokers too...there's nothing to celebrate about this case, even if I personally like the idea of the church being bankrupt. No, I think the amount is out of line however, as I stated before, I hope they get sued multiple times until they are banrupt. I expect the amount to be reduced, and rightfully so."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 October 31, 2007 QuoteAssuming this is upheld upon appeal, what are the ramifications for anti-abortion protestors? Anti-Republican/anti-Democrat protests? Defending freedom of speech for people you agree with is without merit Different things. The law recognizes that death is oen of those things that leaves loved ones particularly susceptible to emotional distress. Do you think there is a difference between a delegate at a political convention facing protests and a mother of a deceased at a funeral? The protests at these conventions are not designed to cause emotional distress. Protesting a funeral IS designed to cause emotional distress. It's their point in doing it. Funerals are treated differently. It's like suing a driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress after watching a kid get hit by his speeding car. You cant' get it in most places - unless it was YOUR kid and you saw it happen. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #14 October 31, 2007 Quote The protests at these conventions are not designed to cause emotional distress. Protesting a funeral IS designed to cause emotional distress. It's their point in doing it. Is protesting at an abortion clinic not equally so? What about yelling "SCAB!" at a replacement worker during a labour dispute? Are the union types not specifically trying to cause emotional distress? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #15 October 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteAssuming this is upheld upon appeal, what are the ramifications for anti-abortion protestors? Anti-Republican/anti-Democrat protests? Defending freedom of speech for people you agree with is without merit Different things. The law recognizes that death is oen of those things that leaves loved ones particularly susceptible to emotional distress. Do you think there is a difference between a delegate at a political convention facing protests and a mother of a deceased at a funeral? The protests at these conventions are not designed to cause emotional distress. Protesting a funeral IS designed to cause emotional distress. It's their point in doing it. Funerals are treated differently. It's like suing a driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress after watching a kid get hit by his speeding car. You cant' get it in most places - unless it was YOUR kid and you saw it happen. Thanks for this reply. I understood your point to me earlier. I just cant expess it as well as you. Thanks again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #16 November 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteAssuming this is upheld upon appeal, what are the ramifications for anti-abortion protestors? Anti-Republican/anti-Democrat protests? Defending freedom of speech for people you agree with is without merit Different things. The law recognizes that death is oen of those things that leaves loved ones particularly susceptible to emotional distress. Do you think there is a difference between a delegate at a political convention facing protests and a mother of a deceased at a funeral? The protests at these conventions are not designed to cause emotional distress. Protesting a funeral IS designed to cause emotional distress. It's their point in doing it. Funerals are treated differently. It's like suing a driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress after watching a kid get hit by his speeding car. You cant' get it in most places - unless it was YOUR kid and you saw it happen. I agree about the political conventions, but maybe not the abortion issue. I'd say a girl facing an unplanned pregnancy and/or abortion may be "particularly susceptible to emotional distress", and that the type of speech used by many anti-abortion protestors is intended to be distressing. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 November 1, 2007 QuoteIs protesting at an abortion clinic not equally so? Almost equal, in my opinion. I believe that they SHOULD have some protection. Not the doctors, but the patients. QuoteWhat about yelling "SCAB!" at a replacement worker during a labour dispute? Hell, no. It's an economic issue, not a personal one. QuoteAre the union types not specifically trying to cause emotional distress? They COULD be. But, think of the "glass plaintiff." It's the legal theory of a plaintiff being particularly susceptible to some type of injury. Funerals? Yeah. Abortions? Probably. Workign as a scab? Nope. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johndh1 0 #18 November 1, 2007 Hey, I am all for their right to be there, if they can take the local heat...but at the same time, I would hope they were able to hold up their un-powdered noses to the diarrhea bombs. I, myself, would love to subject them to fire-extenguishers and hoses to put out their flame. Those people are NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote "Freedom of Speech and Assembly." Have you seen them? Hideous, inbred hags. Their children are embarassed to be associated with, in spite of their soundbites - look closely at their interviews.Roll Tide Roll Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #19 November 1, 2007 Quote QuoteAre the union types not specifically trying to cause emotional distress? They COULD be. But, think of the "glass plaintiff." It's the legal theory of a plaintiff being particularly susceptible to some type of injury. Funerals? Yeah. Abortions? Probably. Workign as a scab? Nope. They COULD be??? If not why would they yell such a thing? Scab is a word that has been cultivated to evoke a negative emotional response much like RAT is among criminals and (curiously) police officers. I think the 'glass plaintiff' argument falls to the obvious intent of the defendant. It seems to me that you are getting very normative in your interpretation of an inviolable right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 November 1, 2007 Quote The protests at these conventions are not designed to cause emotional distress. Protesting a funeral IS designed to cause emotional distress. It's their point in doing it. no, they are designed to get attention. Read the only thread on this - I quoted one of the articles where the plaintiff says he didn't even know about these people until after he left and saw the news. If the intent was to cause emotional distress, they didn't do it very well, or the 1000ft separation prevented it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #21 November 1, 2007 You are comparing an essentially economic activity, the way I see it. By the way - I HATE unions, for the most part. However, callign someone a "SCAB" is no wose than calling someone "LAWYER" in my book. COntract law is different because it is based on economics. Business decisions are "No offense." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #22 November 1, 2007 Quote When Phelps takes a dirt nap, I expect large protests over it being "God's will" as punishment, and "Phelps was a fag" signs being there. I'd be there if I could, and piss all over his grave. "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
likearock 2 #23 November 1, 2007 QuoteAssuming this is upheld upon appeal, what are the ramifications for anti-abortion protestors? Anti-Republican/anti-Democrat protests? Defending freedom of speech for people you agree with is without merit Maybe I missed something but wasn't this a civil case? In a criminal case you might be concerned about precedent but in a civil case anyone can bring a lawsuit and win it. All they need is the sympathy of the jury. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #24 November 1, 2007 The law still matters in a civil case. If the judge allowed/disallowed testimony in error or failed to properly instruct the jury as to the pertinent law the judgment can be overturned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
btvr 0 #25 November 1, 2007 The wackos get what they deserve. Who gives a shit if they go broke. I sure as hell don't. They should have thought of that before hand. Now being a former Marine, I guess I have strong feelings for a Marine brother who died in service of his country and to have his dignity taken away by these nut bars. If I were the family... I would make sure that group got its just desserts in other ways! Stupid people think that their way is the right way and God's way. Well I guess God didn't see it that way, since they didn't get any help from him in the decision. I would think it is only a matter of time before this group pisses off the wrong people. I will be glad to hear it if/when it does happen. Why aren't they protesting the Govt? That Marine doesn't decide when and where or whom to fight. Talk about mental morons!! Thanks for letting my vent... Feel much better now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
