Westboro hit for $11 mil in damages

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
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 co ...[text shortened]... ia for retards? No. THAT is an opinion, and it is covered under your 1st amendment rights.

I disagree that I wouldn't win. If you think that people never win frivolous lawsuits, then your knowledge of legal history is more deficient than you realize.

Slogans like "God hates fags" are also opinions. [Here I go being obtuse again, no doubt, but...] If the parent of the retarded kid has to prove that the abusive language is directed specifically at him, with intent to 'shatter', then so does the family of the deceased at a funeral. The Phelps can argue that their message is aimed at a broader audience. Their signs aren't just about the deceased person [and even those have broader scope; they say 'soldiers' - plural]; they condemn America and homosexuality, even though the deceased was not a homosexual in this case.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I disagree that I wouldn't win. If you think that people never win frivolous lawsuits, then your knowledge of legal history is more deficient than you realize.

Slogans like "God hates fags" are also opinions. [Here I go being obtuse again, no doubt, but...] If the parent of the retarded kid has to prove that the abusive language is directed specifical ...[text shortened]... n America and homosexuality, even though the deceased was not a homosexual in this case.

I'm not playing anymore.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
I'm not playing anymore.

Perhaps reasoning never was your game.

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 ch had no problem understanding this, what is your difficulty in grasping this simple concept?

Could you cite to a case where the tort of "extreme emotional distress" was used to award damages regarding statements of a political or religious nature? Thank you. Have you read the case of Falwell v. Hustler?

Please also stop using inflammatory and incorrect characterizations like stating that the defendants here "invaded the funeral". According to the media reports cited earlier in this thread, they were hundreds of feet away from the funeral on public land.

EDIT: You would do well to point the "high school kids you teach [shudder!] to this case: http://volokh.com/files/funeralpicketing.pdf

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Isn't political speech that is mean illegal in Canada? As a matter of fact, isn't it criminal there?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

You guys fall right into the right wing's trap. They want you to tolerate their intolerance of others. All extremes are repressed, everywhere. In nature, in society - these people are some pretty virile people. I think you'll grant me that, and I'll grant you that this is the situation the founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. I think it's probably protected speech. Intellectually, I can appreciate that. Viscerally, I'd beat them about the head. It's an ugly issue.

Originally posted by no1marauder
EDIT: You would do well to point the "high school kids you teach [shudder!] to this case: http://volokh.com/files/funeralpicketing.pdf

Doesn't this decision in this case actually support a more moderate version of Sham's view? This decision strikes down anti-picketing legislation on the grounds that it is too broad, and thus could prohibit all sorts of expression, even demonstrating in support of fallen soldiers and their families. But nothing in this decision indicates that there could not be a prohibition on certain forms of virulent expression very near to funerals (much nearer than 300 feet) that doesn't violate the first amendment.

Originally posted by bbarr
Doesn't this decision in this case actually support a more moderate version of Sham's view? This decision strikes down anti-picketing legislation on the grounds that it is too broad, and thus could prohibit all sorts of expression, even demonstrating in support of fallen soldiers and their families. But nothing in this decision indicates that there could not ...[text shortened]... n very near to funerals (much nearer than 300 feet) that doesn't violate the first amendment.

Sham's basic error is factual based on a sloppy reading of the record where he insists that the members of the WBC "invaded the funeral". This is certainly not so.

The court finds the particular wording of the statute "content neutral"; a statute banning "virulent expression" would be extremely problematical under 1st Amendment law. However, the court does recognize a "right" not to have a funeral "interfered" with. It then uses standard 1st Amendment language to say that the government must "narrowly tailor" any restrictions on free speech even where a governmental "compelling interest" is implicated. Nothing in that is remarkable; it's a "yelling fire in a theater" analogy merely pointing out that even free speech rights aren't absolute.

The court's decision states:

Sections 5(1)(b) and (c) restrict substantially more speech than that which would interfere
with a funeral or that which would be so obtrusive that funeral participants could not avoid it.
Accordingly, the provisions are not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest but
are instead unconstitutionally overbroad. In