Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Causing mental anguish is a tort, and the obvious remedy is a lawsuit, not hate speech legislation.

---

Agreed. Even then, the whole "I'm offended, you owe me money" concept is something I'm not a big fan of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

For exmaple, I certainly support your right to say whatever you want, but if you decide you want to exercise your right on my private property I don't view it as an infringement on your freedom of speech if I decide I want to have you removed from my property. In that sense I think you have to admit that WC does kinda have a point.

---

In this particular case:

Quote:

---

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.

---

Could be wrong, but I'm gonna bet that WH was not really referring to private property when saying "whole damn country should be a free speech zone"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Walt Whitman, vigilante?

---

Who's being a vigilante? Just expressing my opinion.

And yes, take a special kind for whatever the hell these guys are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

For exmaple, I certainly support your right to say whatever you want, but if you decide you want to exercise your right on my private property I don't view it as an infringement on your freedom of speech if I decide I want to have you removed from my property. In that sense I think you have to admit that WC does kinda have a point.

---

In the abstract, yes; but this appears not to be the case here. WBC holds their rallies in public areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Who's being a vigilante? Just expressing my opinion.

And yes, take a special kind for whatever the hell these guys are.

---

Encouraging vigilantes to mete out violence to WCB isn't too different from what you claim WCB is doing: inciting against gays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Encouraging vigilantes to mete out violence to WCB isn't too different from what you claim WCB is doing: inciting against gays.

---

Except they are encouraging christians to do it, in a majority christian country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

In this particular case:



Could be wrong, but I'm gonna bet that WH was not really referring to private property when saying "whole damn country should be a free speech zone"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

In the abstract, yes; but this appears not to be the case here. WBC holds their rallies in public areas.

---

Private property would obviously be the no-brainer. The point, I think, that WC was trying to make was whether or not a similar case could be made when a group uses a cemetary for a private function. I.e., should the act of a cemetary granting a private group the use of it's facility for a private funeral grant that private group the right to decide who can and can't show up?

Sure, I don't see why not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Except they are encouraging christians to do it, in a majority christian country.

---

How is that different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Private property would obviously be the no-brainer. The point, I think, that WC was trying to make was whether or not a similar case could be made when a group uses a cemetary for a private function. I.e., should the act of a cemetary granting a private group the use of it's facility for a private funeral grant that private group the right to decide who can and can't show up?

---

Quote:

---

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.

---

Vigilantes are a minority, and so are gays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Vigilantes are a minority, and so are gays.

---

so are picketers at marine funerals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Private property would obviously be the no-brainer. The point, I think, that WC was trying to make was whether or not a similar case could be made when a group uses a cemetary for a private function. I.e., should the act of a cemetary granting a private group the use of it's facility for a private funeral grant that private group the right to decide who can and can't show up?

---

yeah, Had WBC been at the cemetary, I am sure that the family could have asked the cemetary owners to throw them out. Too bad they weren't at the cemetary so this could have happened.

"majority christian country"

bullshit spin

It's Constitutionally secular country that happens to have a lot of Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"majority christian country"

bullshit spin

It's Constitutionally secular country that happens to have a lot of Christians.

---

It's [sic] Constitutionally secular country whose population reflects a large, Christian majority.

fify

This is one of those horrible situations where our hearts wish that there was a way to legally outlaw this obvious breach of common decency by the Phelps people.

But, we also know intellectually that to give in to our hearts is to deny the most fundamental rights of our forefathers and the thousands of men (and women) who have given their lives to defend our constitutional right to be assholes of the first order.

We simply cannot deny Phelps the right to be the pubic asshole that he is, and to have his supporters defend that.

Wh, you are such a creative thinker...can you come up with an effective method of 'putting down the Phelps crowd without forfeiting the freedom of speech that the rest of us enjoy and that he and his ilk are abusing?

The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this. If anything this is an invasion of privacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this. If anything this is an invasion of privacy.

---

Maybe that is an argument that can be made. Off the top of my head, I would guess that folks would suggest that if the funeral was in a 'public arena', i.e. a public cemetery...the privacy argument won't hold...but hey, it's worth a shot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Maybe that is an argument that can be made. Off the top of my head, I would guess that folks would suggest that if the funeral was in a 'public arena', i.e. a public cemetery...the privacy argument won't hold...but hey, it's worth a shot...

---

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

---

Quote:

---

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

---

Beats me. Isn't there?

I mean, where my dad's family is from, there are church cemeteries, and I think that some of the other church cemeteries are private, so I guess I always assumed there were.

But, you're probably right. I guess a 'municipal' or even 'military' cemetery is, by definition, public. Good point.

Blake, it seems that people can't read. Both you and I have tried several times make many in this thread aware of the fact that the protesters were in a public place, not private. They were not at the cemetery they were nearby in an adjacent public park. Any discussion of the rights that one has on private property doesn't have any bearing on this case. Oh well, I guess it will just be our little secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Blake, it seems that people can't read. Both you and I have tried several times make many in this thread aware of the fact that the protesters were in a public place, not private. They were not at the cemetery they were nearby in an adjacent public park. Any discussion of the rights that one has on private property doesn't have any bearing on this case. Oh well, I guess it will just be our little secret.

---

I was starting to think I was on ignore

Terrible situation, but at least we know the group isn't exactly growing...it's dying like every other religious entity, they just happen to be more vocal than most. They are the ultimate RL trolls, but the irony is that they are protected by the very people they troll.

The members get a lot of prank calls too, if they haven't changed their numbers by now there's places where you can find the the numbers to "peacefully" troll them back.



"alright, we got a broken window!" :rollin

Not that violence and attempts to inflict injury on people is funny. However, trolls must be able and willing to deal with the consequences of their actions when this subject clearly boils human emotions, sometimes to the point of physical action. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Wh, you are such a creative thinker...can you come up with an effective method of 'putting down the Phelps crowd without forfeiting the freedom of speech that the rest of us enjoy and that he and his ilk are abusing?

---

Maybe.

Social disapprobation. Contrary assholes of the first order, hounding WBC like they hound others.