Westboro hit for $11 mil in damages

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If they had not done as they were told, I believe some of the bricks may have found their intended mark.

Whereas this may be true (and I think you're right), #1's observation about the detaining of
protesters who do not listen to the police is also true. If the terms of their protesting were limited
to 45 minutes and location, and that time expired or things spiraled out of control such that the
police, in doing their job, had to get the protesters out of the vicinity (as happens with other
controversial protests), then disobedient protesters can and do get detained.

Just because the protesters went willingly doesn't mean that if they had refused they could have
been forced to leave. And, simply because they left under the protection of the police doesn't
mean that they received any 'special' treatment; if you were protesting and were being threatened,
you or I would (rightly) expect to receive the same protection.

That the assaulter wasn't prosecuted for smashing the window is a obscene misallocation of
justice; if a Klu Klux Klan member were to smash the window on a police car with some black
civil rights activists, we would expect them to do time.

Nemesio

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, not much. But it wouldn't be the first time a thread drifted from the original topic.

a lovely retort--"everyone else does it, so it's ok if I do, even if it does reveal my ignorance"

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
a lovely retort--"everyone else does it, so it's ok if I do, even if it does reveal my ignorance"

LOL - you're still sore about this a month later?? Great stuff. Guess I stepped on your toes a bit harder than I thought. How are they healing??

This would be an incredibly dull place if we were required to stick rigidly to the original poster's topic.

Originally posted by no1marauder
We should all hope that this verdict is reversed on appeal. No matter how distasteful the Phelps' message is, it is protected speech.

No, it's not.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
No, it's not.

Why isn't it protected speech?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Why isn't it protected speech?

"Freedom of speech" does not give one the right to inflict extreme emotional harm to a family during something as private and personal as a funeral. Cheering the death of a soldier and carrying signs saying "God hates you" and "You're going to hell" is not protected speech.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
"Freedom of speech" does not give one the right to inflict extreme emotional harm to a family during something as private and personal as a funeral. Cheering the death of a soldier and carrying signs saying "God hates you" and "You're going to hell" is not protected speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry, I don't see any exception clause for emotional harm.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sorry, I don't see any exception clause for emotional harm.

You'll need to study the first amendment a bit more closely and the various court cases that more narrowly define what "freedom of speech" is all about.. It doesn't say anything about slander, either, but that's also not allowed as a freedom, is it? Common sense is the best guidline. One cannot hide behind the first amendment as an excuse for outrageous misconduct calculated to cause extreme emotional duress to another.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
You'll need to study the first amendment a bit more closely and the various court cases that more narrowly define what "freedom of speech" is all about.. It doesn't say anything about slander, either, but that's also not allowed as a freedom, is it? Common sense is the best guidline. One cannot hide behind the first amendment as an excuse for outrageous misconduct calculated to cause extreme emotional duress to another.

Slander and/or libel can be hard to prove in court. Statements of opinion don't count; only statements of fact do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

If free speech that causes "emotional duress" was forbidden, then lots of people would claim "emotional duress" when they wanted to shut up someone they didn't like. The right of free speech is too important to be gutted by such a subjective consideration.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Slander and/or libel can be hard to prove in court. Statements of opinion don't count; only statements of fact do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

If free speech that causes "emotional duress" was forbidden, then lots of people would claim "emotional duress" when they wanted to shut up someone they didn't like. The right of free speech is too important to be gutted by such a subjective consideration.

I hate to tell you this, but the tort of mental distress is well known and long standing. What these people did at the funeral qualifies. Your concept of free speech granted by the the first amendment is simplistic to the point of being childish. The right of free speech is not absolute, you can't go around saying anything you want publicly and then claiming it's your God-given right to maliciously harm others.

(Please note simply insulting someone or being harsh does not qualify, but outrageous misconduct of a profound and shocking nature does, invading a funeral with signs, etc. was certainly that)

The high school kids I teach had no problem understanding this, what is your difficulty in grasping this simple concept?

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
The high school kids I teach had no problem understanding this, what is your difficulty in grasping this simple concept?

My difficulty is that I prefer to see evidence for audacious claims, rather than accepting them as true simply because you say so. So far you've produced nothing to support your claims. Forgive me if I don't take you very seriously until you do.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
I hate to tell you this, but the tort of mental distress is well known and long standing. What these people did at the funeral qualifies. Your concept of free speech granted by the the first amendment is simplistic to the point of being childish. The right of free speech is not absolute, you can't go around saying anything you want publicly and then cl ...[text shortened]... ch had no problem understanding this, what is your difficulty in grasping this simple concept?

Let's say a hypothetical guy on a website advocates killing off the mentally retarded, and I sue the guy and win $2 mil for emotional distress [perhaps I have a retarded son who is near death, or recently died]. Would you call that a just verdict?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
My difficulty is that I prefer to see evidence for audacious claims, rather than accepting them as true simply because you say so. So far you've produced nothing to support your claims. Forgive me if I don't take you very seriously until you do.

Now you're just being contrary. You yourself gave the link to the news story, and the facts aren't in question, even the defendants don't dispute them. Their entire defense was claiming they were protected by the 1st amendment, they didn't deny their actions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Let me rephrase this because you seem a bit thick-witted: INVADING A FUNERAL AND CHEERING AT THE DEATH OF SOMEONE'S CHILD WHILE THE PARENTS STAND BY, PROSTRATE WITH GRIEF, IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE ACT AND IS NOT PROTECTED UNDER OUR CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

IT JUST ISN'T DONE.

I'm done here, no point in continuing if you don't understand something so obvious.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Let's say a hypothetical guy on a website advocates killing off the mentally retarded, and I sue the guy and win $2 mil for emotional distress [perhaps I have a retarded son who is near death, or recently died]. Would you call that a just verdict?

Big sigh. You wouldn't win. the tort of mental distress must be (this is the language any law 101 student knows)

"Outrageous misconduct, calculated to cause, and which does cause, extreme emotional distress" It must be EXTREME, it must shock the senses of a normal person of average sensibilities. Having an ar-tard for a son doesn't help, unless of course the person knew in advance that you had a mongoloid kid and were broken up about it and used language designed to shatter you. Even then, that might not be enough. Repeatedly doing it after knowing it's affect on you probably would. That's why we have lawyers.
But simply advocating euthanasia for retards? No. THAT is an opinion, and it is covered under your 1st amendment rights.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
INVADING A FUNERAL AND CHEERING AT THE DEATH OF SOMEONE'S CHILD WHILE THE PARENTS STAND BY, PROSTRATE WITH GRIEF, IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE ACT AND IS NOT PROTECTED UNDER OUR CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

IT JUST ISN'T DONE.

LOL. That's how you 'win' arguments and 'convince' your high school students, isn't it? Just shout until you're red in the face and they quit out of sympathy.

I'm done here, no point in continuing if you don't understand something so obvious.

Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out, Sham.