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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

I agree with your rage.

Phelps' group should be stopped, in my opinion, from defaming any military funeral. Phelps is an embarrassment to Christianity, and is the opposite of Christian in his actions and opinion, IMO.

Unfortunately...REALLY unfortunately, Phelps seems to have the constitution on his side, (freedom of speech and religious expression), so I can't figure out how to deny him and still keep the very freedoms that he is abusing, and that were defended by the dead military guy whose fueral he is debasing.

---

Agreed with this completely. I can't see how one could argue that Phelps has his first amendment rights to picket. However, it's amazingly distasteful, and I'm pretty sure I would punch every single one of them in the jaw if I saw them in real life.

As has been said before, the First Amendment is there not to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. I would sincerely like to see a law that prevent people from picketing a funeral, but I doubt it would be constitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Maybe.

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

---

I can think of a way... find research on their businesses and picket them.

Or you could just punch them in their face when you see them. Not legal, and not very moral, but sometimes I think things need to be done like this.

(Note: Big difference between thinking something like this has to be done, and thinking it should be the law.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

(Note: Big difference between thinking something like this has to be done, and thinking it should be the law.)

---

True.

Big difference. My granny called it gumption. WBC has it in spades. I hope somebody has the gumption to stand up to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this.

---

The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.

Sounds like freedom of speech is too radical for you too, SnC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.

---

Freedom of Speech doesn't come without cost. The cost, aside from the lives of men and women who vigorously defend it, includes instances of that freedom being used to enable arrogance that cannot be distiguished from stupidity.

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.

---

Sorry, Drachen,

I was switching back and forth between the game and the spurs chat room and failed to notice your and Blake's clarification of the public/private issue as it was referenced. My bad, and I apologize. If you look at the timing between SnC and I on our discussion of it, you will notice that it is right about 8p.m., and was brief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I was starting to think I was on ignore

---

Blake, repeat the apology as given to Drachen. Mea Culpa.

Now that is funny. Apology accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.

---

It's not a matter of pure mind, or disagree with their message. It's a matter of interfering with other peoples events. That is just wrong, no matter how you see it.

The first amendment recognizes that we have the right to peaceable assemble. This group is violating that peace.

were there any disturbances at town hall meetings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's not a matter of pure mind, or disagree with their message. It's a matter of interfering with other peoples events. That is just wrong, no matter how you see it.

The first amendment recognizes that we have the right to peaceable assemble. This group is violating that peace.

---

AFAIK, the only thing violent is their message. And there's no mention in the first amendment about 'interfering with other peoples events'.
What's that even supposed to mean?
You can be protesting, praying or doing whatever form of expression, and I can be right next to you doing the exact same thing even if the actual message is entirely opposite.
There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. It actually boggles my mind that you think there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

AFAIK, the only thing violent is their message. And there's no mention in the first amendment about 'interfering with other peoples events'.
What's that even supposed to mean?
You can be protesting, praying or doing whatever form of expression, and I can be right next to you doing the exact same thing even if the actual message is entirely opposite.
There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. It actually boggles my mind that you think there is.

---

Peace has more than one meaning. How about peace and quiet...

Why in hell are you defending these people who trample on the rights of others to peaceable assemble?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Peace has more than one meaning. How about peace and quiet...

---

How about it? :lol

We're talking about free speech. What kind of freedom of speech requires you to be quiet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why in hell are you defending these people who trample on the rights of others to peaceable assemble?

---

What rights of others have they trampled?
How did they prevent others from peacefully assemble?

And you're obviously confused. I'm defending freedom of speech. Something that looks like you have a very difficult time understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

The very essence of whatever judicial decisions come out of this thing, regardless of how far up it goes.


I also think that since the law that Cane references went into effect, Phelps, et.al. have been careful to position themselves in such a way as to abide by the law AND maximize the likely pain to the folks they are offending, all the while garnering as much publicity as possible. One of Phelps' kids or kids' spouse is a lawyer, and they are very careful.

---

Actually, several of them are, as is Fred Phelps. I believe he was disbarred in Kansas but he can still practice in federal courts. My understanding is that he was a pretty good attorney. Obviously, he and his family are jackasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why in hell are you defending these people who trample on the rights of others to peaceable assemble?

---

............WC ponders while advocating that the WBC's right to peacably assemble be trampled.

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

I believe the Supreme COurt has agreed to review this case. I would not be surprised if it is overturned, or at least, the attorney fees. I don't know the facts of the case but intential infliction of emotional distress is a heafty burden to prove. It is not as simple as being upset, sad or bothered.

I don't know if hate speech was raised in the complaint, it would be interesting to see if the Court would squeeze in something like that to overrule the lower court. Someone with more constitutional experience might have a better theory.

WC,

Given your opinion of freedom of speech, what type of protesting would be acceptable?

After all, the whole point of protesting is to interrupt the activities of someone else.

Protestors at political events disrupt the other party's ability to get their message acrosss. Protestors forming picket lines at work disrupt the ability of that business's employees to enter, or patrons to buy their goods. etc etc.

Using your definition of freedom of speech, I should be able to jail someone on the beach next to me for playing music too loudly, if it disrupts my family's ability to peacefully assemble on the beach to enjoy the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

If it were the state preventing them from assembling peacefully, there would be an action. In this case, it is a group of protestors who are acting under their own constitutional rights. I do not think your logic flies legally speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

While it can be argued that they are trying to disrupt a peaceful assembly (funeral), it cannot be said that they are preventing it from happening, ergo denying their right to assemble.

The implied 'infringement' is dicey at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

One person's right to peaceably assemble does not give that person the right to restrict someone else's right to peaceably assemble.

We get it, the WBC are assholes. But they've got just as much right to assemble as the funeral goers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

ElNono...
Are you purposely missing my point?

---

No, I'm not. You simply do not have a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

They themselves, in claiming they have a first amendment right, are violating the first amendment right of others.

---

That would require that one side's first amendment rights have priority over the other. There's no such thing in a public setting. Everybody's first amendment rights are exactly the same, and they all can express at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We have the right to peaceable assemble. Sounds like a funeral to me. They are violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly, and should be jailed in my view for that violation of others constitutional rights.

---

You keep on skipping the question:
How are they 'violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You keep on skipping the question:
How are they 'violating others rights to have a peaceful assembly'?

---

My God.

You really that daft?

Intentional noise, slander, etc. at a solemn event!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

And you're obviously confused. I'm defending freedom of speech. Something that looks like you have a very difficult time understanding.

---

WC started with a twisted reading of the 1st Amendment language, then started piling absurdities on top of that misunderstanding.

He focused on the adverb, ignored the context, and conflated the 1st amendment with the obligation to keep the king's peace, i.e. to refrain from disorderly conduct. Hence WC's claim that the "peace" of funeral was "violated."

Quote:

---

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.

---

Note the introductory clause, WC. "Congress shall make no law..."

It puts Congress in the straight-jacket here. It does not create a federal obligation to prevent disruptions of political rallies (or of any other kind of peaceable assembly). Per contra, it qualifies the infinitive "to assemble".

Petition the government for a redress of grievances with signs, chants and songs? Ok.

With torches, sidearms and agricultural implements? Not so ok.