Man wins case against funeral protesters (ie Phelps)
Al
A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
at the funeral.
It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a
fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
etc
*Hemidactylus*
wf3h
although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
George
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:1193908380.4...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
People don't have a right to privacy, especially during funeral
processions? If not, why not?
George
Will in New Haven
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
The signs were displayed in public. The funerals were held
outdoors.The protestors were _clearly_ within their rights. Note that
I would not vote to convict the dead Marines father if he had fired
into the protestors and killed a few of them. However, that would
involve his right to a jury trial.
Will in New Haven
--
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
AC
I suppose, if these lunatics were trespassing, then I imagine you could get
an injunction against them, but I don't see how this would stand up to a
challenge.
The problem with an injunction is that's usually only for a limited time,
and it's not like that psychopath Phelphs and his little mafia are going to
be showing up at the same cemetary twice in close proximity in time.
I understand what the courts are trying to do here, but a First Amendment
challenge is going to wipe this out. Maybe there's some small chance that
you could nail them with some sort of disturbance of the peace violation,
but I doubt even that would stick. In America, monsters like Phelps have
the right to speak their mind, even if those minds are poisonous and vile.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
John Vreeland
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> opined:
This falls under "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress"
(IIED). It is a standard exception to the rights of Free Speech in
the USA. This is what Jerry Falwell tried to use against Larry Flynt
in that famous parody case, though Falwell failed as he is a public
figure.
--
My credentials? I have excellent karma on Slashdot.
---John Vreeland (IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
Greg Guarino
<vree...@snotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:33:08 -0000, Will in New Haven
><bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> opined:
>
>>On Nov 1, 6:32 am, "George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote:
>>> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
>>> > although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
>>> > on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
>>> > looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>>>
>>> People don't have a right to privacy, especially during funeral
>>> processions? If not, why not?
>>>
>>> George-
>>
>>The signs were displayed in public. The funerals were held
>>outdoors.The protestors were _clearly_ within their rights. Note that
>>I would not vote to convict the dead Marines father if he had fired
>>into the protestors and killed a few of them. However, that would
>>involve his right to a jury trial.
>>
>>Will in New Haven
>
>This falls under "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress"
>(IIED). It is a standard exception to the rights of Free Speech in
>the USA. This is what Jerry Falwell tried to use against Larry Flynt
>in that famous parody case, though Falwell failed as he is a public
>figure.
I have to think on his one for a while. My initial reaction is on the
side of free speech, even though reading the article made me very,
very angry at the "church" involved. But perhaps there is a place for
a law in a case like this, where the protests, as far as I can see,
had nothing whatsoever to do with the dead Marine, and everything to
do with making the pastor "important" (his word) through outrageous
behavior. One sign: "Thank God for IEDs".
Incidentally, their rationale, "God is punishing America for tolerance
of homosexuality", is pretty much identical to Pat Robertson's
position. But I'll bet he won't have the guts to defend these Taliban
wannbees.
Greg Guarino
Kermit
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:04:10 -0400, John Vreeland
>
>
>
> <vreej...@snotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:33:08 -0000, Will in New Haven
My rule of thumb on these matters is: would the proposed restriction
seriously curtail the free communication of ideas between adults?
Hence yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is forbidden, and
rightly so; there are no ideas, good or bad, that are being
communicated. Just false information that frightens or injures people.
I am not allowed to use a loudspeaker to shout my opinions into your
bedroom windows at night; I *am allowed to write letters to the
newspaper, or post on the internet for potentially millions to see.
Phelps has a website somewhere. If nobody is interested in his
message, that is not the constitution's problem.
If Phelps and his whelps (his church seems to be mostly his
dysfunctional family) are forced to picket outside the cemetery during
a funeral, there is no significant hindrance to his getting his
vicious and perverted ideas out. He is not trying to "speak"; he is
trying to hurt those most vulnerable, and whom he depends on to behave
in a reasonably civil manner. He can get what passes for a message out
in any number of other ways.
Compare this to the Secret Service confining Bush protesters to small
pens off the parade route during the last election campaign. This
significantly reduced their exposure, for no good purpose.
Kermit
Bill Hudson
wrote:
It's an interesting outcome. I imagine that the verdict probably has
a lot more to do with the jury's dislike of the Westboro group than
constitutional concerns. On one hand I support the 1st amendment
whole-heartedly, but on the other hand I think that the Westboro
group's behavior may in fact be on the borderline between protected
speech and speech that is outside protection. Some of the precedents
for this would be decisions that exclude speech that is "likely to
incite violence" (or so I heard a 'constitutional law expert' saying
on the radio). There is no absolute right, not even free speech.
It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal.
wf3h
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
because there's no guarantee they violated the right to privacy.
speech is, by its very nature, a public event. you can't have a
private speech event. and freedom of speech is guaranteed in the
constitution.
wf3h
> On Nov 1, 1:25 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> My rule of thumb on these matters is: would the proposed restriction
> seriously curtail the free communication of ideas between adults?
>
> Hence yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is forbidden,
that's because people could die. no one is physically in danger here.
>
> If Phelps and his whelps (his church seems to be mostly his
> dysfunctional family) are forced to picket outside the cemetery during
> a funeral, there is no significant hindrance to his getting his
> vicious and perverted ideas out. He is not trying to "speak"; he is
> trying to hurt those most vulnerable,\\
but there is no constitutional guarantee about being 'emotionally'
hurt in the constitution. in fact, freedom of speech virtually
guarantees SOMEONE is going to be hurt.
and whom he depends on to behave
> in a reasonably civil manner. He can get what passes for a message out
> in any number of other ways.
and this is a way. why is THIS way forbidden vs. others?
>
Greg G.
house to express themselves, they can't stand outside your window and
shout in, they can't do it outside your hospital room, and they can't
follow you around. I think a funeral service is well within those
bounds. They could protest at the cemetery at other times.
--
Greg G.
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.
--Dale Carnegie
.
Desertphile
wrote:
The cult doesn't have that much money of course.... but it is a
start for other people to also sue the cult for such abuses.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Invasion of privacy is a tort action, not a criminal action
(unless tresspassing is included), nor is it a violation of "free
speech."
Desertphile
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story
"Fred Phelps took the stand after Snyder, testifying that he had
not considered whether children would see a sign carried by
protesters with the words 'Semper Fi Fags' and two stick figures
that appeared to be engaged in sodomy, according to the Associated
Press."
I rather suspect thar Mister Phelps is a homosexual. Data suggests
this is the case. (Adams, H.E., L.W. Wright Jr, B.A. Lohr (1996)
dissertation titled "Is 'homophobia' associated with homosexual
arousal?" published in _Journal of Abnormal Psychology_ 105(3))
loua...@yahoo.com
> I rather suspect thar Mister Phelps is a homosexual. Data suggests
> this is the case. (Adams, H.E., L.W. Wright Jr, B.A. Lohr (1996)
> dissertation titled "Is 'homophobia' associated with homosexual
> arousal?" published in _Journal of Abnormal Psychology_ 105(3))
I'm less sure of this. Anti-gay is only the latest of his gigs
according to the most detailed bio I was able to find
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm
although hate and abuse have always been major themes for him. It may
well be that gays are just handy.
AC
If the cemetary is privately owned, then all Constitutional constraints are
out the window.
But let's look at another example. Let's say that Phelps showed up at a
veterans' hospital with his gang and began loudly chanting outside the
windows of wounded soldiers? These hospitals are, by and large, funded out
of the public purse, and yet do you think that a conviction on disturbance
wouldn't stand up in court.
I think there is an argument to be made for Phelps' manner of protest doing
harm, that a funeral is inherently a private event and that the Constitution
does not protect freedom of speech on private property or at private
functions. This is similar to the essential notion that you don't enjoy
unlimited freedom of speech on talk.origins, that attempts at spamming or
other violations of netiquette can be censored by the moderator, because a
moderated newsgroup is not a public forum, but rather a private one where
DIG is, for all intents and purposes, the owner.
Now, if it was a funeral procession down a public street, then I suspect
that the case against Phelps and his gang of sociopaths would be much
weaker, although he probably could get nailed with a misdemeanor disturbance
of the peace citation.
In short, the First Amendment does not grant you rights of unlimited speech
in a private venue, and a funeral, I think, can be very strongly argued to
be a private event.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
josephus
just like you cannot protest nude infront of a school in session. the
right to reasonable behavior is also included in free speach. I suspect
the church has been making itself a nuisannce in generaal. crazy
behavior is not free speach.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
Cj
news:13impue...@corp.supernews.com...
> Greg G. wrote:
>
>> On Nov 1, 8:35 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 1, 4:21 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Nov 1, 1:25 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>My rule of thumb on these matters is: would the proposed restriction
>>>>seriously curtail the free communication of ideas between adults?
>>>
>>>>Hence yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is forbidden,
>>>
>>>that's because people could die. no one is physically in danger here.
>>>
>
Actually Phelps and his crackpot crew are physically in danger... someday
they're going to pull that stunt and a relative is going to break out a gun
and shut them up for good. I would clearly call their behavior as inciting
to violence.
Cj
wf3h
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:13:00 -0700, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > >http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story
>
> > > A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
> > > father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
> > > had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
> > > at the funeral.
>
> > > It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a
> > > fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
> > > military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
> > > messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>
> > > etc
> > although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
> > on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
> > looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>
> Invasion of privacy is a tort action, not a criminal action
> (unless tresspassing is included), nor is it a violation of "free
> speech."
>
seems to me the action was taken not against an 'invasion of privacy',
but an offensive method of speech. they didn't drive their cars into
someone's living room. they shrieked their offensive message at the
family of a dead hero.
and that is legal.
wf3h
that's why the 1st amendment exists. what is 'crazy' behavior? and why
is speech 'behavior'?
Chris Krolczyk
> Actually Phelps and his crackpot crew are physically in danger... someday
> they're going to pull that stunt and a relative is going to break out a gun
> and shut them up for good. I would clearly call their behavior as inciting
> to violence.
Regardless of that (and I suspect that your scenario may happen soon;
there's only so much stress grieving relatives can handle after a
death,
and having to deal with frothing loonballs at the funeral site is a
really
good way to push people with firearms over the edge), Phelps and
his vomitous little clan have the right to "protest" regardless of
how
sickening I or you find his "Nazis for Jeebus" act.
I also think that a party of counter-protestors bearing signs that
call Phelps
and his family a bunch of inbred, goat-fucking retards is completely
and utterly appropriate, to say the least. Handing some of them to
attendees of the funeral who feel the urge to join in on the fun is
only icing on the cake, IMHO.
-Chris Krolczyk
Dick C
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:13:00 -0700, wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-
westboro1031,0,7191706.story
>> >
>> > A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
>> > father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
>> > had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
>> > at the funeral.
>> >
>> > It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a
>> > fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
>> > military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
>> > messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>> >
>> > etc
>
>> although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
>> on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
>> looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>
> Invasion of privacy is a tort action, not a criminal action
> (unless tresspassing is included), nor is it a violation of "free
> speech."
A couple of points come to mind. You have the rigtht to state your
opinions. But you do not have the right to state them anywhere you want.
And everyone else has the right not to listen to them.
As far as the fact that this is a civil matter, I suspect it is at least as
much about the manner the opinions were stated as it is the opinions
themselves. If they would have quietly stated their opinions at a distance
then there would most likely not have been a lawsuit.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Jack Mollier
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
> > > on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
> > > looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>
> > People don't have a right to privacy, especially during funeral
> > processions? If not, why not?
>
> > George-
>
> The signs were displayed in public. The funerals were held
> outdoors.The protestors were _clearly_ within their rights. Note that
> I would not vote to convict the dead Marines father if he had fired
> into the protestors and killed a few of them. However, that would
> involve his right to a jury trial.
>
> Will in New Haven
I agree with you, and would love to be on that jury. As an
alternative, you can support the Patriot Guard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders
Jack
John McKendry
> On Nov 2, 11:47 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:13:00 -0700, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > >http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story
>>
>> > > A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
>> > > father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
>> > > had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
>> > > at the funeral.
>>
>> > > It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a
>> > > fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
>> > > military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
>> > > messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>>
>> > > etc
>> > although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
>> > on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
>> > looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>>
>> Invasion of privacy is a tort action, not a criminal action
>> (unless tresspassing is included), nor is it a violation of "free
>> speech."
>>
>
> seems to me the action was taken not against an 'invasion of privacy',
> but an offensive method of speech.
Happily we don't have to rely on how it seems to you; we can
examine the language of the judgment. Phelps and two of his
daughters "were found liable ... for invasion of privacy and
intentional infliction of emotional distress".
http://cjonline.com/stories/110107/loc_213976417.shtml
> they didn't drive their cars into
> someone's living room. they shrieked their offensive message at the
> family of a dead hero.
>
> and that is legal.
Not always. The courts have always recognized limits to the
right of free speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater has
already been mentioned, and is perhaps the best-known example,
but it's not the only one. Intentional infliction of emotional
distress is commonly a component of actions for libel, and
while the courts have made it difficult for public figures
to win libel actions, they have always recognized that willful
damage to a person's reputation can be punishable at law,
and falls outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Threats and incitements to do physical harm, obscenity, and
fighting words are also unprotected.
If the case is appealed, the judgment will not automatically
be reversed on First Amendment grounds. The offenses, invasion
of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
are not and never have been protected by the First Amendment.
The appeal will hinge on the facts of the Phelps's behavior
and on whether the judge instructed the jury correctly
on the law.
John
wf3h
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> >http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-
> >
> >> on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
> >> looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>
> > Invasion of privacy is a tort action, not a criminal action
> > (unless tresspassing is included), nor is it a violation of "free
> > speech."
>
> A couple of points come to mind. You have the rigtht to state your
> opinions. But you do not have the right to state them anywhere you want.
why not? the burden of proof is on those who assert this, not on the
constitution.
> And everyone else has the right not to listen to them.
> As far as the fact that this is a civil matter, I suspect it is at least as
> much about the manner the opinions were stated as it is the opinions
> themselves. If they would have quietly stated their opinions at a distance
> then there would most likely not have been a lawsuit.
>
i agree. but, again, there is no constitutional provision for stating
one's opinions 'at a distance'.
wf3h
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:37:31 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>
> > seems to me the action was taken not against an 'invasion of privacy',
> > but an offensive method of speech.
>
> Happily we don't have to rely on how it seems to you; we can
> examine the language of the judgment. Phelps and two of his
> daughters "were found liable ... for invasion of privacy and
> intentional infliction of emotional distress".
>
> http://cjonline.com/stories/110107/loc_213976417.shtml
i used to live in chicago when the 1st mayor daley was alive. he
ordered the chicago police to confiscate all copies of an unauthorized
biography about him. was he suffering an 'invasion of privacy'? does
that idea trump the 1st amendment? if so, where does the 1st say that?
>
> > they didn't drive their cars into
> > someone's living room. they shrieked their offensive message at the
> > family of a dead hero.
>
> > and that is legal.
>
> Not always. The courts have always recognized limits to the
> right of free speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater has
> already been mentioned, and is perhaps the best-known example,
because it can kill people. being offensive does not kill people. this
example is not a talisman to wish away the 1st amendment.
> but it's not the only one. Intentional infliction of emotional
> distress is commonly a component of actions for libel,
now you're confused. libel is saying an untruth about someone. that's
why it's actionable. being offensive is not libelous.
>
> If the case is appealed, the judgment will not automatically
> be reversed on First Amendment grounds. The offenses, invasion
> of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
> are not and never have been protected by the First Amendment.
> The appeal will hinge on the facts of the Phelps's behavior
> and on whether the judge instructed the jury correctly
> on the law.
agreed.
Ron O
> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> > A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
> > father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
> > had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
> > at the funeral.
>
> > It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a
> > fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
> > military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
> > messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>
> > etc
>
> on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
> looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
It looks pretty slippery. I read the article and the claim is that
the fellow didn't even read the placards before and during the
funeral, but he saw them on the news and got upset.
The protesters are probably mental cases, and have no regard for
decent human behavior, but they are going to have to argue after the
fact, when the affected person didn't seem to notice that it was going
on at the time.
Ron Okimoto
Inez
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story
>
> A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
> father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
> had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
> at the funeral.
>
> It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a
> fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
> military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
> messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>
> etc
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I am a big proponent of
free speech, but a group shouldn't be able to arbitrarily victimize
people with their hate. This sort of thing can tangibly harm people
who are already grieving.
On the other hand, I definitely find suing for money to be distasteful
in cases that don't include actual financial damages. Jail is
probably a better deterrent and I don't especially see why a person
deserves to get rich off their misfortune.
The Last Conformist
> "josephus" <dogb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Didn't one of Phelps's parishioners get beaten up in NYC a couple
years ago?
Desertphile
Ah, thank you--- I did not know that. Wow, talk.origins really is
informative! I suppose he would spew hate at women and girls if
his cult wasn't made up of several women (family members).
Desertphile
wrote:
Yes, it was legal and if that was all they did then the jury
should not have found them guilty. The reality is that the cult
did not only express ugly opinions.
John McKendry
> On Nov 2, 9:41 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:37:31 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>>
>> > seems to me the action was taken not against an 'invasion of privacy',
>> > but an offensive method of speech.
>>
>> Happily we don't have to rely on how it seems to you; we can
>> examine the language of the judgment. Phelps and two of his
>> daughters "were found liable ... for invasion of privacy and
>> intentional infliction of emotional distress".
>>
>> http://cjonline.com/stories/110107/loc_213976417.shtml
>
> i used to live in chicago when the 1st mayor daley was alive. he
> ordered the chicago police to confiscate all copies of an unauthorized
> biography about him. was he suffering an 'invasion of privacy'? does
> that idea trump the 1st amendment? if so, where does the 1st say that?
>
You seem to be disagreeing with something other than what I
actually said, and I can't quite make out what it is. You can
see the text of the complaint at (one-line URL)
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/
2007-02-23-Snyder's%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
There are five counts: Defamation, Invasion of Privacy -
Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Invasion of Privacy - Publicity
Given to Private Life, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress, and Civil Conspiracy. Each one of these is a
recognized ground for a civil action. Are you saying that
the courts have gotten it wrong for the past two centuries,
and that all these offenses are actually protected by
the First Amendment?
(Other court documents related to this case can be found
at http://www.citmedialaw.org/snyder-v-phelps , for anyone
who feels like checking.)
>>
>> > they didn't drive their cars into
>> > someone's living room. they shrieked their offensive message at the
>> > family of a dead hero.
>>
>> > and that is legal.
>>
>> Not always. The courts have always recognized limits to the
>> right of free speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater has
>> already been mentioned, and is perhaps the best-known example,
>
> because it can kill people. being offensive does not kill people. this
> example is not a talisman to wish away the 1st amendment.
>
And this is not an example I am using. Note how this sentence
continues:
>> but it's not the only one. Intentional infliction of emotional
>> distress is commonly a component of actions for libel,
>
> now you're confused. libel is saying an untruth about someone. that's
> why it's actionable. being offensive is not libelous.
>
First, note I didn't say that infliction of emotional distress
is libel. Rather, they frequently appear as parts of the same
legal action. If I am confused about this, I take some comfort
in the realization that I share my confusion with the eight
justices of the Supreme Court who concurred in the opinion
in Hustler Magazine v Falwell (an 8-0 decision, Justice
Kennedy not participating).
( http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hustler.html )
Jerry Falwell sued Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt
for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. That's three separate counts. The district
court threw out the invasion-of-privacy claim, and the jury
found for Hustler on the libel claim, but for Falwell on the
emotional-distress claim.
The Supreme Court overturned the finding for Falwell on
First-Amendment grounds. Here's how Justice Rehnquist explained
it:
<quote>
Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict
emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude,
and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions
have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in
question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate
about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less
than admirable are protected by the First Amendment.
"Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker
must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke
out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances
honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas
and the ascertainment of truth."
Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for
purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we
think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the
area of public debate about public figures.
</quote>
(The quote about "Debate on public issues" is from the Court's
earlier decision in Garrison v Louisiana,
http://supreme.justia.com/us/379/64/case.html .)
So what does this say? Summarizing, "most if not all
jurisdictions have chosen to make <intent to inflict
emotional distress> civilly culpable. While such a bad
motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort
liability in other areas of the law, we think the First
Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public
debate about public figures."
The Court says that the First Amendment offers special
protection to speech in the area of public debate about
public figures. By defining the area in which the First
Amendment offers this special protection, they also define
the area in which it does not.
If you want to argue that what the Phelpses did falls
into the area of public debate about public figures,
go ahead and make your case. That's a different argument.
The argument you have made so far is simply that all
offensive speech is protected, and that's not correct.
If the offensive speech is not part of a public debate
about public figures, "such a bad motive may be deemed
controlling for purposes of tort liability". You can sue
the bastards and win, in other words.
<snip rest>
John
wf3h
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:01:13 -0700, wf3h wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:41 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> >
> > i used to live in chicago when the 1st mayor daley was alive. he
> > ordered the chicago police to confiscate all copies of an unauthorized
> > biography about him. was he suffering an 'invasion of privacy'? does
> > that idea trump the 1st amendment? if so, where does the 1st say that?
>
> You seem to be disagreeing with something other than what I
> actually said, and I can't quite make out what it is. You can
> see the text of the complaint at (one-line URL)
>
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/
> 2007-02-23-Snyder's%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
>
> There are five counts: Defamation, Invasion of Privacy -
> Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Invasion of Privacy - Publicity
> Given to Private Life, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
> Distress, and Civil Conspiracy. Each one of these is a
> recognized ground for a civil action. Are you saying that
> the courts have gotten it wrong for the past two centuries,
> and that all these offenses are actually protected by
> the First Amendment?
are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
did these idiots burst into a funeral home? someone's private home? so
where's the invasion of privacy?
hell...i can claim that religion is offensive to MY feelings. does
that mean religion will be outlawed, in spite of the 1st amendment?
there is no constitutional protection against being offended.
> >
> >> > they didn't drive their cars into
> >> > someone's living room. they shrieked their offensive message at the
> >> > family of a dead hero.
>
> >> > and that is legal.
>
> >> Not always. The courts have always recognized limits to the
> >> right of free speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater has
> >> already been mentioned, and is perhaps the best-known example,
>
> > because it can kill people. being offensive does not kill people. this
> > example is not a talisman to wish away the 1st amendment.
>
> And this is not an example I am using. Note how this sentence
> continues:
>
> >> but it's not the only one. Intentional infliction of emotional
> >> distress is commonly a component of actions for libel,
>
> > now you're confused. libel is saying an untruth about someone. that's
> > why it's actionable. being offensive is not libelous.
>
> First, note I didn't say that infliction of emotional distress
> is libel. Rather, they frequently appear as parts of the same
> legal action. If I am confused about this, I take some comfort
> in the realization that I share my confusion with the eight
> justices of the Supreme Court who concurred in the opinion
> in Hustler Magazine v Falwell (an 8-0 decision, Justice
> Kennedy not participating).
?? if they are PART of the same legal action then they are INSEPARABLE
in the legal action. emotional distress is not, in and of itself, a
reason to void the 1st amendment.
> > <quote>
> Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict
> emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude,
exactly my point...
> and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions
> have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in
> question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate
> about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less
> than admirable are protected by the First Amendment.
exactly my point.
>
> "Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker
> must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke
> out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances
> honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas
> and the ascertainment of truth."
>
> Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for
> purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we
> think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the
> area of public debate about public figures.
?? so where's the 'public figure' here?
>
> The Court says that the First Amendment offers special
> protection to speech in the area of public debate about
> public figures. By defining the area in which the First
> Amendment offers this special protection, they also define
> the area in which it does not.
>
> If you want to argue that what the Phelpses did falls
> into the area of public debate about public figures,
> go ahead and make your case. That's a different argument.
> The argument you have made so far is simply that all
> offensive speech is protected, and that's not correct.
i haven't said that at all. are you saying offensive speech is NEVER
protected? that ANY speech inflicting 'emotional distress' is NOT
protected?
> If the offensive speech is not part of a public debate
> about public figures,
i don't see a public figure here. i see people behaving offensively
and truly inflicting emotional distress on innocent victims....while
using their 1st amendment rights.
that's why the 1st exists.
josephus
the jusge was corrupt. you think there was NO EVIDENCE. and that its ok
to disrupt a funeral.
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> >
> > there is no constitutional protection against being offended.
>
> >>>>>they didn't drive their cars into
> >>>>>someone's living room. they shrieked their offensive message at the
> >>>>>family of a dead hero.
>
> >>>>>and that is legal.>
> > and truly inflicting emotional distress on innocent victims....while
> > using their 1st amendment rights.
>
> > that's why the 1st exists.
>
> and you think it was capricous and arbitrary. the jury were idiots and
> the jusge was corrupt. you think there was NO EVIDENCE. and that its ok
> to disrupt a funeral.
>
yes, i do. i think people have a right to be offensive in public, to
say offensive, bigoted things at funerals. i don't know what 'disrupt'
a funeral means. it doesn't appear in the constitution.
the reason the bill of rights exists is to protect us from majority
rule. it gives the minority the rights they would be denied if there
was democracy. i, as an atheist, have a right to be offensive to
christians and muslims by saying jesus is dead, and mohammed is no
prophet.
fred phelps has the right to say, at funerals, that the US deserves to
be destroyed because of 'fags'.
John McKendry
> On Nov 3, 9:44 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:01:13 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>> > On Nov 2, 9:41 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > i used to live in chicago when the 1st mayor daley was alive. he
>> > ordered the chicago police to confiscate all copies of an unauthorized
>> > biography about him. was he suffering an 'invasion of privacy'? does
>> > that idea trump the 1st amendment? if so, where does the 1st say that?
>>
>> You seem to be disagreeing with something other than what I
>> actually said, and I can't quite make out what it is. You can
>> see the text of the complaint at (one-line URL)
>>
>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/
>> 2007-02-23-Snyder's%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
>>
>> There are five counts: Defamation, Invasion of Privacy -
>> Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Invasion of Privacy - Publicity
>> Given to Private Life, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
>> Distress, and Civil Conspiracy. Each one of these is a
>> recognized ground for a civil action. Are you saying that
>> the courts have gotten it wrong for the past two centuries,
>> and that all these offenses are actually protected by
>> the First Amendment?
>
> are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
> feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
>
As a matter of long-settled law, there is no right to inflict
emotional distress on a private individual. The First Amendment
does not guarantee that you can follow me down a public street
shouting personal insults, true or not.
It's different if I am a public official, because then your speech
becomes public debate about a public figure, and that's protected.
It's different if you follow me down the street telling me to
repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand, because that's not
intent to inflict emotional distress. But if your invective is
directed at me, personally, with the clear intent to make my life
miserable and no other reason, then I can sue you for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and I can win the suit.
> did these idiots burst into a funeral home? someone's private home? so
> where's the invasion of privacy?
>
Those would be trespass. Privacy is not restricted to particular
locations; it's something you carry with you. What did the Phelpses
do that constitutes invasion of privacy? I don't know. I wasn't at
the trial and I don't have the testimony. But I can see the outlines
by reading the actual complaint:
<quote>
Count II
Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion Upon Seclusion
42. The defendants intentionally entered upon the solitude and seclusion
of the plaintiff and his family members. Additionally, the defendants
intruded upon the plaintiff’s private affairs and concerns.
43. Plaintiff Albert Snyder’s personal affairs are not a matter of public
concern. Matt’s private funeral was not a matter of public concern.
44. The aforementioned intrusion upon seclusion was highly offensive to a
reasonable person.
45. The conduct of the defendants has been sufficiently outrageous as to
entitle plaintiff an award of punitive damages.
Count III
Invasion Of Privacy - Publicity Given To Private Life
47. In addition, or alternatively, the defendants’ publicity given
to private life was and is an invasion of privacy.
48. The defendants’ actions and statements were highly offensive to a
reasonable person.
49. The defendants’ actions and statements were not consistent with
any legitimate concern to the public.
50. The conduct of the defendants has been sufficiently outrageous as to
entitle plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.
</quote>
IANATortL, but I'll bet that's a list of the legal standards that have
to be met to establish a claim of Invasion of Privacy.
> hell...i can claim that religion is offensive to MY feelings. does that
> mean religion will be outlawed, in spite of the 1st amendment?
>
> there is no constitutional protection against being offended.
There is a legal protection against being verbally attacked, if
you are a private citizen.
>> >
>> >> > they didn't drive their cars into
>> >> > someone's living room. they shrieked their offensive message at
>> >> > the family of a dead hero.
>>
>> >> > and that is legal.
>>
>> >> Not always. The courts have always recognized limits to the
>> >> right of free speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater has
>> >> already been mentioned, and is perhaps the best-known example,
>>
>> > because it can kill people. being offensive does not kill people.
>> > this example is not a talisman to wish away the 1st amendment.
>>
>> And this is not an example I am using. Note how this sentence
>> continues:
>>
>> >> but it's not the only one. Intentional infliction of emotional
>> >> distress is commonly a component of actions for libel,
>>
>> > now you're confused. libel is saying an untruth about someone. that's
>> > why it's actionable. being offensive is not libelous.
>>
>> First, note I didn't say that infliction of emotional distress
>> is libel. Rather, they frequently appear as parts of the same legal
>> action. If I am confused about this, I take some comfort in the
>> realization that I share my confusion with the eight justices of the
>> Supreme Court who concurred in the opinion in Hustler Magazine v
>> Falwell (an 8-0 decision, Justice Kennedy not participating).
>
> ?? if they are PART of the same legal action then they are INSEPARABLE
> in the legal action. emotional distress is not, in and of itself, a
> reason to void the 1st amendment.
>
??? When I first read your response, I thought, "How can you say
this when you're looking right at a case in which a magazine was sued
for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and was found liable on the count of emotional distress and
not liable on the others?" Now, of course, I see that you removed that
evidence. Still, the three counts of the original District Court
Hustler v Falwell were clearly separable.
>> > <quote>
>> Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict
>> emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude,
>
> exactly my point...
>
I really don't think so. It says that the law regards intent to
inflict emotional distress as a legally punishable civil wrong.
>
>> and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have
>> chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is
>> sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public
>> affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are
>> protected by the First Amendment.
>
> exactly my point.
>
Is it? Is it your point that the intent to inflict emotional distress
can be cause for a successful lawsuit, unless the speech can be shown
to be public debate about public affairs?
>
>> "Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must
>> run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of
>> hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly
>> believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the
>> ascertainment of truth."
>>
>> Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of
>> tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment
>> prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public
>> figures.
>
> ?? so where's the 'public figure' here?
>
I'm sorry you're having a hard time following the argument. There
is no public figure here. That's why the First Amendment doesn't protect
the Phelpses.
>
>> The Court says that the First Amendment offers special
>> protection to speech in the area of public debate about public figures.
>> By defining the area in which the First Amendment offers this special
>> protection, they also define the area in which it does not.
>>
>> If you want to argue that what the Phelpses did falls
>> into the area of public debate about public figures, go ahead and make
>> your case. That's a different argument. The argument you have made so
>> far is simply that all offensive speech is protected, and that's not
>> correct.
>
> i haven't said that at all.
You have certainly failed to make it clear that you recognize any
legal restrictions on Phelps' "right" to say anything he wants to,
short of shouting "Fire" in a theater.
> are you saying offensive speech is NEVER
> protected? that ANY speech inflicting 'emotional distress' is NOT
> protected?
>
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Any speech that could
possibly hurt someone's feelings is unprotected by the First Amendment,
and the state, on behalf of its citizens, can outlaw the expression
of ideas that are sufficiently unpopular or upsetting.
No, wait, that's stupid. Let me go back and check what I actually
said.
Here it is: "The Court says that the First Amendment offers special
protection to speech in the area of public debate about public figures.
By defining the area in which the First Amendment offers this special
protection, they also define the area in which it does not."
The Constitution is concerned with the role and limits of government.
It has little to say about the behavior of private citizens, except
insofar as the government might be inclined to interfere with that
behavior.
>> If the offensive speech is not part of a public debate about public
>> figures,
>
> i don't see a public figure here.
Very good. There is no public figure here. Let's take a look at
the sentences that you truncated:
If the offensive speech is not part of a public debate
about public figures, "such a bad motive may be deemed
controlling for purposes of tort liability". You can sue
the bastards and win, in other words.
That's a summary of (part of) Mr. Justice Rehnquist's opinion in
Hustler v Falwell.
> i see people behaving offensively and
> truly inflicting emotional distress on innocent victims....while using
> their 1st amendment rights.
>
> that's why the 1st exists.
The First Amendment exists to guarantee that the government will
not suppress the expression of uncomfortable or unpopular ideas.
It does not prevent the government from enacting and enforcing
laws against libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. It permits such laws, and
it limits their application.
Fred Phelps has always tapdanced right on the line that
separates protected public discourse from unprotected
vilification of private persons. This time, in the judgment
of the jury that heard the facts of the case, he stepped
over it. I don't know whether they were right. I only argue
that there is such a line, that the First Amendment does not
grant an absolute right to offend.
John
Dick C
> On Nov 2, 9:27 pm, Dick C <foo.dic...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Desertphile wrote in talk.origins
>>
>> > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:13:00 -0700, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-
>> >
>> >> although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
>> >> on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
>> >> looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>>
>> > Invasion of privacy is a tort action, not a criminal action
>> > (unless tresspassing is included), nor is it a violation of "free
>> > speech."
>>
>> A couple of points come to mind. You have the rigtht to state your
>> opinions. But you do not have the right to state them anywhere you
>> want.
>
> why not? the burden of proof is on those who assert this, not on the
> constitution.
You do realize of course that the first amendment is a limit on what the
Government can do, not what a private citizen can do? In other words,
you can state your opinion, but you do not have the right to go onto
private property unless invited. And your right to state said opinion ends
at the property line. You can stand on the street and proclaim your ideas,
but I do not have to be bothered by them in my house. If you get too loud
you will be removed.
Also, where you can say what you want is limited, even in public areas.
Go into any public officials office uninvited and you will be removed
go to a public meeting and speak out of turn, on go on too long, and you
will be arrested.
>
>> And everyone else has the right not to listen to them.
>> As far as the fact that this is a civil matter, I suspect it is at
>> least as much about the manner the opinions were stated as it is the
>> opinions themselves. If they would have quietly stated their opinions
>> at a distance then there would most likely not have been a lawsuit.
>>
>
> i agree. but, again, there is no constitutional provision for stating
> one's opinions 'at a distance'.
On the other hand the courts have upheld other things that limit the
freedom of speech. And since this is a private action by one citizen
against another the constitution has limited authority.
wf3h
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:37:34 -0700, wf3h wrote:
> >
> > are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
> > feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
>
> As a matter of long-settled law, there is no right to inflict
> emotional distress on a private individual. The First Amendment
> does not guarantee that you can follow me down a public street
> shouting personal insults, true or not.
where does the constitution provide that infliction of of emotional
distress is prohibited?
>
> It's different if I am a public official, because then your speech
> becomes public debate about a public figure, and that's protected.
> It's different if you follow me down the street telling me to
> repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand, because that's not
> intent to inflict emotional distress. But if your invective is
> directed at me, personally, with the clear intent to make my life
> miserable and no other reason, then I can sue you for intentional
> infliction of emotional distress, and I can win the suit.
seems to me that's not what they were doing; they show up at ALOT of
funerals with their hateful political message. it's clearly NOT
directed at 1 person personally.
>
> > did these idiots burst into a funeral home? someone's private home? so
> > where's the invasion of privacy?
>
> Those would be trespass. Privacy is not restricted to particular
> locations; it's something you carry with you. What did the Phelpses
> do that constitutes invasion of privacy? I don't know. I wasn't at
> the trial and I don't have the testimony. But I can see the outlines
> by reading the actual complaint:
>
> <quote>
> Count II
> Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion Upon Seclusion
>
> 42. The defendants intentionally entered upon the solitude and seclusion
> of the plaintiff and his family members.
whether or not this happened will have to be decided by a court on
appeal, apart from the emotions of the trial.
Additionally, the defendants
> intruded upon the plaintiff's private affairs and concerns.
> 43. Plaintiff Albert Snyder's personal affairs are not a matter of public
> concern. Matt's private funeral was not a matter of public concern.
?? i was a volunteer guard at an abortion clinic. we had christian
thugs routinely show up to harass women,etc. if they stayed outside
the boundaries delimited by the courts, they could pretty much do
anything they wanted. and few things are more private than abortion.
THAT is probably the guiding precedent rather than some nebulous
'invasion of solitude'.
> 44. The aforementioned intrusion upon seclusion was highly offensive to a
> reasonable person.
and screaming 'baby killer' at me ISNT offensive? yet they had the
right to do it.
> Count III
> Invasion Of Privacy - Publicity Given To Private Life
> 47. In addition, or alternatively, the defendants' publicity given
> to private life was and is an invasion of privacy.
and an abortion, like a funeral, is a private event. yet christian
thugs have the right to protest at abortion clinics and invade the
privacy of women seeking abortions. it's settled law.
>
> > hell...i can claim that religion is offensive to MY feelings. does that
> > mean religion will be outlawed, in spite of the 1st amendment?
>
> > there is no constitutional protection against being offended.
>
> There is a legal protection against being verbally attacked, if
> you are a private citizen.\
really? then why is it legal to call me a baby killer for guarding an
abortion clinic? why has this been accepted by the supreme court?
> >
> >> > <quote>
> >> Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict
> >> emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude,
>
> > exactly my point...
>
> I really don't think so. It says that the law regards intent to
> inflict emotional distress as a legally punishable civil wrong.
for a public figure. private events...such as abortions or
funerals...seem not to be protected.
>
>
>
> >> and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have
> >> chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is
> >> sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public
> >> affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are
> >> protected by the First Amendment.
>
> > exactly my point.
>
> Is it? Is it your point that the intent to inflict emotional distress
> can be cause for a successful lawsuit, unless the speech can be shown
> to be public debate about public affairs?
exactly the opposite. offensive speech is protected.
>
>
>
> >> "Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must
> >> run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of
> >> hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly
> >> believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the
> >> ascertainment of truth."
>
> >> Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of
> >> tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment
> >> prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public
> >> figures.
>
> > ?? so where's the 'public figure' here?
>
> I'm sorry you're having a hard time following the argument. There
> is no public figure here. That's why the First Amendment doesn't protect
> the Phelpses.
well let me repost what you say:
seems to protect christianists protesting at abortion clinics. the
supreme court's already decided that. seems to protect them when they
call me a baby killer. the court's already decided that. seems to
protect them when they thrust their graphic pamphlets at women seeking
abortions...or when they write down my license number.
so, yes, the 1st DOES protect the phelpses. and that's what the court
will decide...for exactly the same reason. it's settled law.
>
> > are you saying offensive speech is NEVER
> > protected? that ANY speech inflicting 'emotional distress' is NOT
> > protected?
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Any speech that could
> possibly hurt someone's feelings is unprotected by the First Amendment,
> and the state, on behalf of its citizens, can outlaw the expression
> of ideas that are sufficiently unpopular or upsetting.
>
> No, wait, that's stupid. Let me go back and check what I actually
> said.
>
> Here it is: "The Court says that the First Amendment offers special
> protection to speech in the area of public debate about public figures.
> By defining the area in which the First Amendment offers this special
> protection, they also define the area in which it does not."
>
> The Constitution is concerned with the role and limits of government.
> It has little to say about the behavior of private citizens, except
> insofar as the government might be inclined to interfere with that
> behavior.
except that's plainly WRONG. i have personal experience that it's
WRONG. see my discussion above. it's settled law. i've seen the
results of the law...personally. i've experienced it. i've watched
police officers move abortion protesters outside of boundaries
established by courts AND then arrest no one. no one got sued
you saying that abortion protesters DONT hurt someone's feelings? you
saying the courts HAVENT decided this? it's settled law. offensive
speech directed at private citizens participating in private
events...abortions...is PROTECTED. we know that because that's what
the court has already decided.
> >
wf3h
> wf3h wrote in talk.origins
>
>
> >
> > why not? the burden of proof is on those who assert this, not on the
> > constitution.
>
> You do realize of course that the first amendment is a limit on what the
> Government can do, not what a private citizen can do? In other words,
> you can state your opinion, but you do not have the right to go onto
> private property unless invited.
correct...
And your right to state said opinion ends
> at the property line. You can stand on the street and proclaim your ideas,
> but I do not have to be bothered by them in my house. If you get too loud
> you will be removed.
i stated before my experience as a volunteer guard at an abortion
clinic. protesters were legally obliged to stay behind barriers, but
they were free to shout insults, to make characterizations about women
entering the clinic, etc....
>
> >
>
> --
> Dick #1349
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> ~Benjamin Franklin
??? does this apply to the 1st amendment?
>
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:37:34 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>> >
>> > are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
>> > feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
>>
>> As a matter of long-settled law, there is no right to inflict
>> emotional distress on a private individual. The First Amendment
>> does not guarantee that you can follow me down a public street
>> shouting personal insults, true or not.
>
> where does the constitution provide that infliction of of emotional
> distress is prohibited?
The Constitution does not provide that assault with a deadly weapon is
prohibited, either. Does that make assault legal?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Bobby Bryant
AC <mightym...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:13:00 -0700,
> wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
>>> father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
>>> had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
>>> at the funeral.
>>>
>>> It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a
>>> fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
>>> military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
>>> messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>>>
>>> etc
>>
>> on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
>> looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>
> could get an injunction against them, but I don't see how this would
> stand up to a challenge.
>
> The problem with an injunction is that's usually only for a limited
> time, and it's not like that psychopath Phelphs and his little mafia
> are going to be showing up at the same cemetary twice in close
> proximity in time.
>
> I understand what the courts are trying to do here, but a First
> Amendment challenge is going to wipe this out. Maybe there's some
> small chance that you could nail them with some sort of disturbance
> of the peace violation, but I doubt even that would stick. In
> America, monsters like Phelps have the right to speak their mind,
> even if those minds are poisonous and vile.
IMO it would be more likely to stand up if it had been based on "caused
mental anguish" rather than "violated right to privacy".
OTOH, people get thrown out of public events all the time for causing
a disturbance, and no one seems to think it's a first amendment
violation. (Of course, these days you can get bet up and thrown in
jail for wearing a t-shirt that criticises the speaker, but that's not
what I'm talking about.)
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
wf3h
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:03:25 -0800, wf3h wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:37:34 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>
> >> > are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
> >> > feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
>
> >> As a matter of long-settled law, there is no right to inflict
> >> emotional distress on a private individual. The First Amendment
> >> does not guarantee that you can follow me down a public street
> >> shouting personal insults, true or not.
>
> > where does the constitution provide that infliction of of emotional
> > distress is prohibited?
>
> The Constitution does not provide that assault with a deadly weapon is
> prohibited, either. Does that make assault legal?
>
> --
amendment exists, it means something. seems you're saying it means
nothing at all. has no particular value...protects nothing.
kinda makes me wonder what it's doing there; folks have so little use
for it.
Kermit
> On Nov 1, 4:21 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 1:25 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
> > My rule of thumb on these matters is: would the proposed restriction
> > seriously curtail the free communication of ideas between adults?
>
> > Hence yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is forbidden,
>
> that's because people could die. no one is physically in danger here.
Nor is anyone in physical danger if I burn a cross on your front lawn,
or shout in your bedroom window at night thru a loudspeaker.
But these are harassment by any standards, and you can get your
message across via other, equally convenient means. In fact, on the
face of it, those hypothetical acts and the Phelps display are less
convenient than other means. They are going out of the way (as far as
getting the message out) to disturb people.
Nobody rational is suggesting that Phelps's website be shutdown, nor
that he can't offer to pay money for a newspaper ad. But neither is
the newspaper obligated to take his money and print the ad. In the US
the courts decided that a minimum distance between anti-choice
protesters and women patients entering birth control clinics was
legal. Many of those women are under emotional stress as it is; the
protesters getting right in their face were a true emotional assault
on those women, and the legal requirement to back up 100 yards or
whatever it is is neither a hindrance to communication nor a
particular inconvenience to those protesters.
I certainly have the right to offer my opinion to you. I do not have
the right to stand face to face and shout at you, even on public
public sidewalks.
I understand that you don't sympathize with the message of the
reverend Phelps. Popular speech doesn't need legal rights spelled out;
only unpopular
>
>
>
> > If Phelps and his whelps (his church seems to be mostly his
> > dysfunctional family) are forced to picket outside the cemetery during
> > a funeral, there is no significant hindrance to his getting his
> > vicious and perverted ideas out. He is not trying to "speak"; he is
> > trying to hurt those most vulnerable,\\
>
> but there is no constitutional guarantee about being 'emotionally'
> hurt in the constitution. in fact, freedom of speech virtually
> guarantees SOMEONE is going to be hurt.
Is that so? Perhaps a lawyer here might offer an opinion if that has
ever been considered by the Supremes; I don't know. The ninth
amendment spells out that the Constitution protects rights which are
not specified, but which are expected by the people. The right to
privacy was declared a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS
decided that privacy was implied in the other rights specified by the
Constitution.
>
> > and whom he depends on to behave
> > in a reasonably civil manner. He can get what passes for a message out
> > in any number of other ways.
>
> and this is a way. why is THIS way forbidden vs. others?
It is subsidized by the emotions of others. Phelps is going out of his
way to be offensive, and forbidding this particular venue does not
hinder the communication of his beliefs or ...requests.
>
>
Kermit
John McKendry
> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:37:34 -0700, wf3h wrote:
>> >
>> > are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
>> > feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
>>
>> As a matter of long-settled law, there is no right to inflict
>> emotional distress on a private individual. The First Amendment
>> does not guarantee that you can follow me down a public street
>> shouting personal insults, true or not.
>
> where does the constitution provide that infliction of of emotional
> distress is prohibited?
>
You might as well try to argue your way out of a traffic
ticket because there's nothing in the Constitution that
says you have to stop at a red light.
>>
>> It's different if I am a public official, because then your speech
>> becomes public debate about a public figure, and that's protected.
>> It's different if you follow me down the street telling me to
>> repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand, because that's not
>> intent to inflict emotional distress. But if your invective is
>> directed at me, personally, with the clear intent to make my life
>> miserable and no other reason, then I can sue you for intentional
>> infliction of emotional distress, and I can win the suit.
>
> seems to me that's not what they were doing; they show up at ALOT of
> funerals with their hateful political message. it's clearly NOT
> directed at 1 person personally.
>
Well, see, this is a question of fact whose answer is not
in evidence here in this discussion. What exactly did they
do and say at this particular funeral? Can the jury consider
not only the actions at the funeral, but the subsequent
postings at godhatesfags.com concerning the funeral? I
think these questions matter.
>>
>> > did these idiots burst into a funeral home? someone's private home? so
>> > where's the invasion of privacy?
>>
>> Those would be trespass. Privacy is not restricted to particular
>> locations; it's something you carry with you. What did the Phelpses
>> do that constitutes invasion of privacy? I don't know. I wasn't at
>> the trial and I don't have the testimony. But I can see the outlines
>> by reading the actual complaint:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Count II
>> Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion Upon Seclusion
>>
>> 42. The defendants intentionally entered upon the solitude and seclusion
>> of the plaintiff and his family members.
>
> whether or not this happened will have to be decided by a court on
> appeal, apart from the emotions of the trial.
>
Perhaps we agree on this.
>
>> Additionally, the defendants
>> intruded upon the plaintiff's private affairs and concerns.
>> 43. Plaintiff Albert Snyder's personal affairs are not a matter of public
>> concern. Matt's private funeral was not a matter of public concern.
>
> ?? i was a volunteer guard at an abortion clinic. we had christian
> thugs routinely show up to harass women,etc. if they stayed outside
> the boundaries delimited by the courts, they could pretty much do
> anything they wanted. and few things are more private than abortion.
>
> THAT is probably the guiding precedent rather than some nebulous
> 'invasion of solitude'.
>
Thank you for what you did at the clinic. Regardless of
anything else I say here, I admire you for that.
"Invasion of solitude" may sound nebulous to you (and to me),
but I'll bet it has some pretty specific meanings in the
context of tort law.
But let's slow down and take a closer look at that clause
"if they stayed outside the boundaries delimited by the
courts". Where do the courts get a right to set boundaries?
Could it be that there is more than one right in play
here, and that the courts have crafted a compromise between
the right to free speech and the right to privacy? Do
you have another explanation?
>> 44. The aforementioned intrusion upon seclusion was highly offensive to a
>> reasonable person.
>
> and screaming 'baby killer' at me ISNT offensive? yet they had the
> right to do it.
>
From beyond the boundaries established by the courts.
>> Count III
>> Invasion Of Privacy - Publicity Given To Private Life
>> 47. In addition, or alternatively, the defendants' publicity given
>> to private life was and is an invasion of privacy.
>
> and an abortion, like a funeral, is a private event. yet christian
> thugs have the right to protest at abortion clinics and invade the
> privacy of women seeking abortions. it's settled law.
>
From beyond the boundaries...
>>
>> > hell...i can claim that religion is offensive to MY feelings. does that
>> > mean religion will be outlawed, in spite of the 1st amendment?
>>
>> > there is no constitutional protection against being offended.
>>
>> There is a legal protection against being verbally attacked, if
>> you are a private citizen.\
>
> really? then why is it legal to call me a baby killer for guarding an
> abortion clinic? why has this been accepted by the supreme court?
>
The courts have established the acceptable balance between
your right to privacy and the protesters' right to free
expression. That's what those boundaries are about.
>> >
>> >> > <quote>
>> >> Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict
>> >> emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude,
>>
>> > exactly my point...
>>
>> I really don't think so. It says that the law regards intent to
>> inflict emotional distress as a legally punishable civil wrong.
>
> for a public figure. private events...such as abortions or
> funerals...seem not to be protected.
You have this exactly backwards. For a public figure there
is very little protection from infliction of emotional
distress. For a private person, there is more protection,
although the offense has to be outrageous to overbalance
the offender's right to free expression.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have
>> >> chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is
>> >> sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public
>> >> affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are
>> >> protected by the First Amendment.
>>
>> > exactly my point.
>>
>> Is it? Is it your point that the intent to inflict emotional distress
>> can be cause for a successful lawsuit, unless the speech can be shown
>> to be public debate about public affairs?
>
> exactly the opposite. offensive speech is protected.
>
It's hard to argue with you in part because you don't seem
to recognize when you contradict yourself.
There's those darned boundaries established by courts again.
> you saying that abortion protesters DONT hurt someone's feelings? you
> saying the courts HAVENT decided this? it's settled law. offensive
> speech directed at private citizens participating in private
> events...abortions...is PROTECTED. we know that because that's what
> the court has already decided.
>
Here's the important idea you haven't grasped:
It is possible to disagree with you without taking up the
diametrically opposite position. If you assert that the
First Amendment protects all offensive speech, and I
disagree with you, I am not required to hold or defend
the position that the First Amendment does not protect
any offensive speech.
But I am beginning to realize what I should have seen
before, that you do not perceive shades of gray.
John
wf3h
> On Nov 1, 4:35 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On>
>
> Nor is anyone in physical danger if I burn a cross on your front lawn,
> or shout in your bedroom window at night thru a loudspeaker.
except, of course, the former is trespassing and the latter is
disturbing the peace which is not limited to the 1st amendment.
>
> But these are harassment by any standards, and you can get your
> message across via other, equally convenient means.
ah. so now we've invented a 'convenience' defense against the 1st.
boy you guys are rackin' 'em up. so far it seems that, if you hurt
someone's feelings. or if there's a more 'convenient' way of doing
something, then, by all means, the constitution can be gutted
no wonder bush is having a field day right now. seems very few
americans support the constitution.
In fact, on the
> face of it, those hypothetical acts and the Phelps display are less
> convenient than other means. They are going out of the way (as far as
> getting the message out) to disturb people.
uh...so? when martin luther king marched across the pettis
bridge...well, he COULD have written a letter to the editor...
>
> Nobody rational is suggesting that Phelps's website be shutdown, nor
> that he can't offer to pay money for a newspaper ad. But neither is
> the newspaper obligated to take his money and print the ad. In the US
> the courts decided that a minimum distance between anti-choice
> protesters and women patients entering birth control clinics was
> legal
yep. and the same applies to funerals.
. Many of those women are under emotional stress as it is; the
> protesters getting right in their face were a true emotional assault
> on those women, and the legal requirement to back up 100 yards or
> whatever it is is neither a hindrance to communication nor a
> particular inconvenience to those protesters.
and the same applies to funerals.
>
> I certainly have the right to offer my opinion to you. I do not have
> the right to stand face to face and shout at you, even on public
> public sidewalks.
>
> I understand that you don't sympathize with the message of the
> reverend Phelps. Popular speech doesn't need legal rights spelled out;
> only unpopular
exactly. very well put.
>
>
>
> > > and whom he depends on to behave
> > > in a reasonably civil manner. He can get what passes for a message out
> > > in any number of other ways.
>
> > and this is a way. why is THIS way forbidden vs. others?
>
> It is subsidized by the emotions of others. Phelps is going out of his
> way to be offensive, and forbidding this particular venue does not
> hinder the communication of his beliefs or ...requests.
and there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits going out of
one's way to be offensive. hell, anti abortion protesters often travel
great distances...
>
>
>
wf3h
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:03:25 -0800, wf3h wrote:
> >
> > where does the constitution provide that infliction of of emotional
> > distress is prohibited?
>
> You might as well try to argue your way out of a traffic
> ticket because there's nothing in the Constitution that
> says you have to stop at a red light.
>
but a ticket causes me emotional distress. is that a defense against a
ticket?
>
>
> > seems to me that's not what they were doing; they show up at ALOT of
> > funerals with their hateful political message. it's clearly NOT
> > directed at 1 person personally.
>
> Well, see, this is a question of fact whose answer is not
> in evidence here in this discussion. What exactly did they
> do and say at this particular funeral? Can the jury consider
> not only the actions at the funeral, but the subsequent
> postings at godhatesfags.com concerning the funeral? I
> think these questions matter.
no moreso than actions at abortion clinics which have already been
decided in favor of religious fanatics.
>
> >
> But let's slow down and take a closer look at that clause
> "if they stayed outside the boundaries delimited by the
> courts". Where do the courts get a right to set boundaries?
> Could it be that there is more than one right in play
> here, and that the courts have crafted a compromise between
> the right to free speech and the right to privacy? Do
> you have another explanation?
yeah. again, abortion rights. women have a right to privacy...and a
right to abortion. but the thugs who scream 'baby killer' have their
rights, too.
>
> >> 44. The aforementioned intrusion upon seclusion was highly offensive to a
> >> reasonable person.
>
> > and screaming 'baby killer' at me ISNT offensive? yet they had the
> > right to do it.
>
> From beyond the boundaries established by the courts.
EXACTLY...that's pretty much the ball game.
>
> > really? then why is it legal to call me a baby killer for guarding an
> > abortion clinic? why has this been accepted by the supreme court?
>
> The courts have established the acceptable balance between
> your right to privacy and the protesters' right to free
> expression. That's what those boundaries are about.
yep. agreed. that's why the phelpses will prevail. the law seems
pretty settled on the issue.
>
> >
> > except that's plainly WRONG. i have personal experience that it's
> > WRONG. see my discussion above. it's settled law. i've seen the
> > results of the law...personally. i've experienced it. i've watched
> > police officers move abortion protesters outside of boundaries
> > established by courts AND then arrest no one. no one got sued
>
> There's those darned boundaries established by courts again.
yep. that's why the phelpses will prevail in court. no one is arguing
that boundaries don't exist. they do. they have been upheld by courts.
but the phelpses will win because they will be following exactly the
same law already decided on the issue of abortion.
John McKendry
> On Nov 4, 5:17 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:03:25 -0800, wf3h wrote:
>> >
>> > where does the constitution provide that infliction of of emotional
>> > distress is prohibited?
>>
>> You might as well try to argue your way out of a traffic
>> ticket because there's nothing in the Constitution that
>> says you have to stop at a red light.
>>
>
> but a ticket causes me emotional distress. is that a defense against a
> ticket?
>
Well, as I said, I am not a tort lawyer. But I'll try to answer
your question as best I can, with the usual disclaimer that you
should not rely on my advice in a court of law, but should seek
competent counsel.
My source here is a paper called "THE TORT OF INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IN THE PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
SECTOR", downloadable from
http://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_labor_cavico.pdf (Adobe Reader
or other pdf reader required). According to this paper,
<quote>
In order to prevail in a lawsuit for intentional infliction
of emotional distress, the plaintiff typically must show
the following:
(1) the defendant intended to inflict emotional distress;
(2) the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous;
(3) the actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiff’s distress;
and (4) the resulting emotional distress to the plaintiff was severe.
According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, “[o]ne who by extreme
and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emo-
tional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional dis-
tress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily
harm".
</quote>
I have a (non-professional, remember) feeling your suit would
fail on items 1, 2, and 4. So my unlawyerly wild-ass guess is
no, you don't have a case. I also wouldn't be surprised if
you were assessed treble court costs for wasting everybody's
time, but again, that's just my unlawyerly guess.
But do you see how this works? There's a body of law, and
there's a body of legal practice and writings and precedent
that tell how courts have ruled and reasoned about those laws,
and then when someone brings suit, he/she has to show exactly
how the facts of the case match up with the requirements that
define the offense. It's really pretty simple conceptually,
but it's nothing like the "they hurt my feelings" that you
seem to imagine.
>> > seems to me that's not what they were doing; they show up at ALOT of
>> > funerals with their hateful political message. it's clearly NOT
>> > directed at 1 person personally.
>>
>> Well, see, this is a question of fact whose answer is not
>> in evidence here in this discussion. What exactly did they
>> do and say at this particular funeral? Can the jury consider
>> not only the actions at the funeral, but the subsequent
>> postings at godhatesfags.com concerning the funeral? I
>> think these questions matter.
>
> no moreso than actions at abortion clinics which have already been
> decided in favor of religious fanatics.
>
You don't think the facts about the Phelpses' behavior have
any bearing on the outcome of the suit? It doesn't matter what
they actually did or said, whatever it was is protected by
the First Amendment? You have an interesting view of how
the law works.
>>
>> But let's slow down and take a closer look at that clause
>> "if they stayed outside the boundaries delimited by the
>> courts". Where do the courts get a right to set boundaries?
>> Could it be that there is more than one right in play
>> here, and that the courts have crafted a compromise between
>> the right to free speech and the right to privacy? Do
>> you have another explanation?
>
> yeah. again, abortion rights. women have a right to privacy...and a
> right to abortion. but the thugs who scream 'baby killer' have their
> rights, too.
>
I'm sorry, but that doesn't look like another explanation.
That looks like there is more than one right in play here,
and the courts have crafted a compromise between the right
to free speech and the right to privacy.
>>
>> >> 44. The aforementioned intrusion upon seclusion was highly offensive to a
>> >> reasonable person.
>>
>> > and screaming 'baby killer' at me ISNT offensive? yet they had the
>> > right to do it.
>>
>> From beyond the boundaries established by the courts.
>
> EXACTLY...that's pretty much the ball game.
I am really trying to understand your thinking here,
and failing miserably. The boundaries are there because the
courts recognize two legitimate and conflicting rights. Each
state makes its own boundaries, based on its own interpretation
of what's permitted and what's forbidden according to that
state's body of laws and practice regarding speech and
privacy. Different states will have different physical
boundaries and different restrictions on permissible speech
and behavior. An Operation Rescue "counsellor" from Florida
needs to be coached on local law before working in Ohio
(for instance). There is no one-size-fits-all rule that
you can say anything you want to if you're 30 feet away.
>>
>> > really? then why is it legal to call me a baby killer for guarding an
>> > abortion clinic? why has this been accepted by the supreme court?
>>
>> The courts have established the acceptable balance between
>> your right to privacy and the protesters' right to free
>> expression. That's what those boundaries are about.
>
> yep. agreed. that's why the phelpses will prevail. the law seems
> pretty settled on the issue.
>
>>
>> >
>> > except that's plainly WRONG. i have personal experience that it's
>> > WRONG. see my discussion above. it's settled law. i've seen the
>> > results of the law...personally. i've experienced it. i've watched
>> > police officers move abortion protesters outside of boundaries
>> > established by courts AND then arrest no one. no one got sued
>>
>> There's those darned boundaries established by courts again.
>
> yep. that's why the phelpses will prevail in court. no one is arguing
> that boundaries don't exist. they do. they have been upheld by courts.
> but the phelpses will win because they will be following exactly the
> same law already decided on the issue of abortion.
And you know this without even knowing what they did. That's
impressive. I will be quite surprised if the appeals court
hands down its opinion without bothering to hear the evidence,
though.
John
Dick C
> On Nov 4, 7:27 am, Dick C <foo.dic...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> wf3h wrote in talk.origins
>>
>>
>> >
>> > why not? the burden of proof is on those who assert this, not on the
>> > constitution.
>>
>> You do realize of course that the first amendment is a limit on what
>> the Government can do, not what a private citizen can do? In other
>> words, you can state your opinion, but you do not have the right to go
>> onto private property unless invited.
>
> correct...
>
> And your right to state said opinion ends
>> at the property line. You can stand on the street and proclaim your
>> ideas, but I do not have to be bothered by them in my house. If you get
>> too loud you will be removed.
>
> i stated before my experience as a volunteer guard at an abortion
> clinic. protesters were legally obliged to stay behind barriers, but
> they were free to shout insults, to make characterizations about women
> entering the clinic, etc....
And your point is? They were required to stay away from the private
property. That is pretty much what I said. They were yelling, not using
amplifiers. And they could certainly have been sued for a variety of
reasons.
>> --
>> Dick #1349
>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>> ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> ??? does this apply to the 1st amendment?
It's my sig file. If you look at my posts since shortly after 9/11 you
will see it is on almost every post of mine.
It is a statement about how we are reacting to the threat of terrorism.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
wf3h
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:01:32 -0800, wf3h wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:17 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:03:25 -0800, wf3h wrote:
> >
> > but a ticket causes me emotional distress. is that a defense against a
> > ticket?
>
> Well, as I said, I am not a tort lawyer. But I'll try to answer
> your question as best I can, with the usual disclaimer that you
> should not rely on my advice in a court of law, but should seek
> competent counsel.
>
> My source here is a paper called "THE TORT OF INTENTIONAL
> INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IN THE PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
> or other pdf reader required). According to this paper,
i just got out of bed with my lawyer...happens to also be my
wife...her opinion is that the phelpses probably will prevail for
exactly the same reason abortion protesters do.
> But do you see how this works? There's a body of law, and
> there's a body of legal practice and writings and precedent
> that tell how courts have ruled and reasoned about those laws,
> and then when someone brings suit, he/she has to show exactly
> how the facts of the case match up with the requirements that
> define the offense. It's really pretty simple conceptually,
> but it's nothing like the "they hurt my feelings" that you
> seem to imagine.
i never mentioned 'feelings'....others did. i don't see how that's a
defense. and it's not because the courts have already ruled. the
intent of the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress, but to
convey a political message of bigotry and hatred. and that's permitted
under the 1st amendment.
>
> > no moreso than actions at abortion clinics which have already been
> > decided in favor of religious fanatics.
>
> You don't think the facts about the Phelpses' behavior have
> any bearing on the outcome of the suit? It doesn't matter what
> they actually did or said, whatever it was is protected by
> the First Amendment? You have an interesting view of how
> the law works.
?? and how is THEIR action different that that of abortion protesters
screaming at women entering abortion clinics? you have an interesting
view of how the law works...especially since the supreme court has
already ruled on similar events. subsitute 'abortion' for 'fag' and
it's pretty apparent it's a parallel situation.
> > yeah. again, abortion rights. women have a right to privacy...and a
> > right to abortion. but the thugs who scream 'baby killer' have their
> > rights, too.
>
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't look like another explanation.
ah. it's your word against mine, eh?
in that case, the court will decide. it certainly looks like another
explanation to me.
> That looks like there is more than one right in play here,
> and the courts have crafted a compromise between the right
> to free speech and the right to privacy.
>
> >
> >> > and screaming 'baby killer' at me ISNT offensive? yet they had the
> >> > right to do it.
>
> >> From beyond the boundaries established by the courts.
>
> > EXACTLY...that's pretty much the ball game.
>
> I am really trying to understand your thinking here,
> and failing miserably. The boundaries are there because the
> courts recognize two legitimate and conflicting rights. Each
> state makes its own boundaries, based on its own interpretation
> of what's permitted and what's forbidden according to that
> state's body of laws and practice regarding speech and
> privacy. Different states will have different physical
> boundaries and different restrictions on permissible speech
> and behavior. An Operation Rescue "counsellor" from Florida
> needs to be coached on local law before working in Ohio
> (for instance). There is no one-size-fits-all rule that
> you can say anything you want to if you're 30 feet away.
and you're missing the point entirely. i don't care if the boundary is
30 feet or 3000 feet. it's irrelevant. if you concede that the
phelpses have the right to protest, then you've conceded my argument.
how far the boundaries are set back is irrelevant to the fact that
they have the right to protest in some of the most offensive ways
possible.
period.
>
>
chris thompson
Well, there was this:
"are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!"
> defense. and it's not because the courts have already ruled. the
> intent of the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress, but to
> convey a political message of bigotry and hatred. and that's permitted
> under the 1st amendment.
If, in the course of your political message, you intrude upon another
person's privacy, or use the infliction of emotional distress to
convey that message, you are liable for a civil action.
>
>
>
> > > no moreso than actions at abortion clinics which have already been
> > > decided in favor of religious fanatics.
>
> > You don't think the facts about the Phelpses' behavior have
> > any bearing on the outcome of the suit? It doesn't matter what
> > they actually did or said, whatever it was is protected by
> > the First Amendment? You have an interesting view of how
> > the law works.
>
> ?? and how is THEIR action different that that of abortion protesters
> screaming at women entering abortion clinics? you have an interesting
> view of how the law works...especially since the supreme court has
> already ruled on similar events. subsitute 'abortion' for 'fag' and
> it's pretty apparent it's a parallel situation.
Here is how the Phelpses crossed the line:
they researched the background of the dead soldier and his family.
They made an issue of the father's marital history. They used past
actions of the dead soldier in their demonstration. Those constitute
an invasion of privacy and intentional emotional distress- under any
circumstances, let alone a funeral. Where they were at that point, or
on whose property, is immaterial. They crossed a legal line, and
they're liable now. Not for criminal actions, since what they did is
not a crime; but for civil penalties, since what they did, did intrude
on the family at a time they had every right to expect privacy and
restraint.
Had they not used personal information about the dead soldier and his
family, they would not be liable for anything. But they did, so they
are. If abortion protesters revealed the names of the women, the
names of the fathers, their phone numbers, or other private
information, they too would be liable for civil actions.
Chris
Michael Ejercito
> In article <slrnfiju0u.6dm.mightymartia...@rotten.egg.sandwich>,
> AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:13:00 -0700,
> > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story
>
> >>> A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
> >>> father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
> >>> had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
> >>> at the funeral.
>
> >>> fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
> >>> military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
> >>> messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>
> >>> etc
>
> >> although i'm an atheist, i wonder how this is legal. if what i read
> >> on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
> >> looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>
> > I suppose, if these lunatics were trespassing, then I imagine you
> > could get an injunction against them, but I don't see how this would
> > stand up to a challenge.
>
> > The problem with an injunction is that's usually only for a limited
> > time, and it's not like that psychopath Phelphs and his little mafia
> > are going to be showing up at the same cemetary twice in close
> > proximity in time.
>
> > I understand what the courts are trying to do here, but a First
> > Amendment challenge is going to wipe this out. Maybe there's some
> > small chance that you could nail them with some sort of disturbance
> > of the peace violation, but I doubt even that would stick. In
> > America, monsters like Phelps have the right to speak their mind,
> > even if those minds are poisonous and vile.
>
> IMO it would be more likely to stand up if it had been based on "caused
> mental anguish" rather than "violated right to privacy".
could be sued for that exact same reason.
The mental anguish has to be caused by an action that is a legal
wrong in itself.
Michael
chris thompson
Nonsense. I can do all kinds of things for which I could not be
prosecuted. I could walk down the street behind you yelling out your
telephone number, address, credit card numbers, and social security
number. I could sleep with your wife, your daughter (if she was above
the age of consent), and maybe even your son (again, if above the age
of consent, but surely not in all jurisdictions). I probably wouldn't
get prosecuted for any of that, but you could sure sue my ass off for
it.
Chris
AC
Good grief. The First Amendment does not apply to private individuals, but
rather to the conduct of government. If Phelps had been standing in the
proverbial town square shouting this at the top of his lungs, then there is
nothing anyone could do. But he wasn't in the proverbial town square, he
was invading a *private* function, and all bets are off. Just as DIG could,
if he wanted to, ban you from talk.origins with little or no meaningful
rationale (since he effectively owns TO as per the nature of moderated
Usenet groups), so a jury could find Phelps and his clan libel.
Your argument is so overarching that how could anyone hope to sue anyone for
libel, or how could a city enact a noise bylaw against someone going up and
down the road at 3am reciting the Communist Manifesto.
The jury did not find Phelps guilty of some sort of speaking some sort of
banned speech, but rather of causing undue emotional distress to those at a
private function. The speech wasn't banned, but rather the mode of
expression. By the same token, a town council can have a noise bylaw that
*includes* speech. An individual is free to recite the Communist Manifesto,
he's just not free to do it in a place or in a fashion that would unduly
effect others in a detrimental fashion.
Please remember the underlying notion of the liberties as put forth in the
Bill of Rights; your right to swing your fist *ends* at the tip of my nose.
This seems as textbook an application of that rule as any I have seen.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 9:27 pm, Dick C <foo.dic...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Desertphile wrote in talk.origins
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> On Oct 31, 11:24 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-
>> >
>> >> on CNN is true, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anyone.
>> >> looks like a violation of the 1st amendment to me.
>>
>> > (unless tresspassing is included), nor is it a violation of "free
>> > speech."
>>
>> A couple of points come to mind. You have the rigtht to state your
>> opinions. But you do not have the right to state them anywhere you want.
>
> constitution.
So I can show up outside your house at 3am and starting yelling obscenities
at you? Wow, maybe I'll give it a try. I trust you won't be phoning the
police on me.
>
>> And everyone else has the right not to listen to them.
>> As far as the fact that this is a civil matter, I suspect it is at least as
>> much about the manner the opinions were stated as it is the opinions
>> themselves. If they would have quietly stated their opinions at a distance
>> then there would most likely not have been a lawsuit.
>>
>
> i agree. but, again, there is no constitutional provision for stating
> one's opinions 'at a distance'.
The First Amendment does not infer absolute freedom of speech. This is
hardly a new legal concept. You're little different than anyone else trying
to read their own personal interpretations of the Constitution upon many
years of SCOTUS interpretation.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Kermit
> On Nov 4, 5:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:35 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > On>
> > > that's because people could die. no one is physically in danger here.
>
> > Nor is anyone in physical danger if I burn a cross on your front lawn,
> > or shout in your bedroom window at night thru a loudspeaker.
>
> except, of course, the former is trespassing and the latter is
> disturbing the peace which is not limited to the 1st amendment.
I'm not sure what you mean by "disturbing the peace ... is not limited
to the 1st amendment".
>
>
>
> > But these are harassment by any standards, and you can get your
> > message across via other, equally convenient means.
>
> ah. so now we've invented a 'convenience' defense against the 1st.
This is largely why SCOTUS decided that requiring a minimum distance
between anti-choice protesters and family planning clinic patients was
acceptable. What must be weighted is the cost to others (you,
sleeping or relaxing in your home) and your ability to get your
message out. Do you think that if you lived in a city apartment I
could shout in your window at night with a loudspeaker, even from the
public sidewalks?
Do you think I *should be able to?
>
> boy you guys are rackin' 'em up. so far it seems that, if you hurt
> someone's feelings. or if there's a more 'convenient' way of doing
> something, then, by all means, the constitution can be gutted
Would you consider a crowbar across the shins to be a mere bruise?
There are degrees of assault and other criminal behavior. They often
provide the most interesting legal cases. I certainly think that
people have and should have the right to express dangerous ideas,
offer unpleasant opinions, and otherwise communicate. But that doesn't
mean they have an unlimited right to do so under any and all
circumstances.
The cost for Phelps to move back (say, off cemetery grounds) is
trivial; the pain to the family for burying a son or daughter is
immense.
>
> no wonder bush is having a field day right now. seems very few
> americans support the constitution.
I used the example of his Secret Service people moving protesters away
from a travel route and into temporary pans to show what (I find) is
unacceptable. The cost to Bush of leaving the protesters alone would
be trivial (to see folks who actually disagree with him), while the
cost to the protesters of confining them is greater (they were not
just moved back, but off the travel route, away from the reporters and
TV cameras as well as being held (albeit for a short time)). I believe
the excuse was that they were potential threats, but of course any
real assassin would likely keep a low profile until too late.
>
> > In fact, on the
> > face of it, those hypothetical acts and the Phelps display are less
> > convenient than other means. They are going out of the way (as far as
> > getting the message out) to disturb people.
>
> uh...so? when martin luther king marched across the pettis
> bridge...well, he COULD have written a letter to the editor...
Heh, yes. Phelps was not marching; he was trying to hurt people. King
was trying to shame folks into being better than they were, and he was
at a numeric disadvantage. We've let Nazis march on public streets in
this country, and I think that was the right decision. We also allowed
counter -protesters (at a safe distance). A family should not have to
subsidize this kind of angry public discourse with their grief.
>
>
>
> > Nobody rational is suggesting that Phelps's website be shutdown, nor
> > that he can't offer to pay money for a newspaper ad. But neither is
> > the newspaper obligated to take his money and print the ad. In the US
> > the courts decided that a minimum distance between anti-choice
> > protesters and women patients entering birth control clinics was
> > legal
>
> yep. and the same applies to funerals.
Eh? I thought you were disagreeing with me. I support maintaining an
emotional buffer zone between Phelps and grieving families. Now you
say that it is appropriate to tell anti-choice demonstrators to back
off a little?
>
> >Many of those women are under emotional stress as it is; the
> > protesters getting right in their face were a true emotional assault
> > on those women, and the legal requirement to back up 100 yards or
> > whatever it is is neither a hindrance to communication nor a
> > particular inconvenience to those protesters.
>
> and the same applies to funerals.
Yeess...
>
>
>
> > I certainly have the right to offer my opinion to you. I do not have
> > the right to stand face to face and shout at you, even on public
> > public sidewalks.
>
> > I understand that you don't sympathize with the message of the
> > reverend Phelps. Popular speech doesn't need legal rights spelled out;
> > only unpopular
>
> exactly. very well put.
>
>
>
> > > > and whom he depends on to behave
> > > > in a reasonably civil manner. He can get what passes for a message out
> > > > in any number of other ways.
>
> > > and this is a way. why is THIS way forbidden vs. others?
>
> > It is subsidized by the emotions of others. Phelps is going out of his
> > way to be offensive, and forbidding this particular venue does not
> > hinder the communication of his beliefs or ...requests.
>
> and there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits going out of
> one's way to be offensive. hell, anti abortion protesters often travel
> great distances...
Yup. OK then; I'm glad we got that sorted out...
>
>
Kermit
wf3h
wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:14 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > i just got out of bed with my lawyer...happens to also be my
> > wife...her opinion is that the phelpses probably will prevail for
> > exactly the same reason abortion protesters do.
>
> Well, there was this:
>
> "are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
> feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!"
>
> > defense. and it's not because the courts have already ruled. the
> > intent of the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress, but to
> > convey a political message of bigotry and hatred. and that's permitted
> > under the 1st amendment.
>
> If, in the course of your political message, you intrude upon another
> person's privacy, or use the infliction of emotional distress to
> convey that message, you are liable for a civil action.
incorrect. women have a right to abortion, based on privacy. but
abortion protesters have the right to call them 'baby killers'.
>
> >
> > ?? and how is THEIR action different that that of abortion protesters
> > screaming at women entering abortion clinics? you have an interesting
> > view of how the law works...especially since the supreme court has
> > already ruled on similar events. subsitute 'abortion' for 'fag' and
> > it's pretty apparent it's a parallel situation.
>
> Here is how the Phelpses crossed the line:
>
> they researched the background of the dead soldier and his family.
> They made an issue of the father's marital history
irelevant. you think abortion protesters don't do similar things? they
protest in front of abortion doctors' houses, for example.
>
> Had they not used personal information about the dead soldier and his
> family, they would not be liable for anything. But they did, so they
> are. If abortion protesters revealed the names of the women, the
> names of the fathers, their phone numbers, or other private
> information, they too would be liable for civil actions.
?? they do this routinely. they routinely publish names and addresses
of abortion doctors on websites.
> >
>
wf3h
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 03:56:42 -0700,
>
>
>
>
>
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > > why not? the burden of proof is on those who assert this, not on the
> > constitution.
>
> So I can show up outside your house at 3am and starting yelling obscenities
> at you? Wow, maybe I'll give it a try. I trust you won't be phoning the
> police on me.
hmmm...wasnt aware the funeral was at 3 AM. if that's the case, then
you have an argument.
>
> >
> > i agree. but, again, there is no constitutional provision for stating
> > one's opinions 'at a distance'.
>
> The First Amendment does not infer absolute freedom of speech. This is
> hardly a new legal concept. You're little different than anyone else trying
> to read their own personal interpretations of the Constitution upon many
> years of SCOTUS interpretation.
?? try telling it to abortion protesters. they seem to have proved you
wrong. you guys keep trying to use arguments that the courts have
already settled. when abortion protesters are outlawed THEN you'll
have a case.
until then, go read the law.
>
wf3h
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:05:54 -0800,
>
>
>
>
>
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>
> > kinda makes me wonder what it's doing there; folks have so little use
> > for it.
>
> Good grief. The First Amendment does not apply to private individuals, but
> rather to the conduct of government. If Phelps had been standing in the
> proverbial town square shouting this at the top of his lungs, then there is
> nothing anyone could do. But he wasn't in the proverbial town square, he
> was invading a *private* function, and all bets are off.
really?
then why are abortion protesters allowed to protest at abortion
clinics? clinics are private institutions. the women entering them are
private citizens exercising a legal right.
Just as DIG could,
> if he wanted to, ban you from talk.origins with little or no meaningful
> rationale (since he effectively owns TO as per the nature of moderated
> Usenet groups), so a jury could find Phelps and his clan libel.
wrong. there is no provision in law for one person suing another for
exercising a constitutional right. if i write a letter to the editor,
am i liable if i hurt another person's feelings?
>
>>
> The jury did not find Phelps guilty of some sort of speaking some sort of
> banned speech, but rather of causing undue emotional distress to those at a
> private function.
gee. i bet that's the first time such an argument has EVER been used
to suppress speech. if a woman has undue emotional distress because
she's called a baby killer at an abortion clinic, are the christian
thugs who call her that liable?
well...since the courts have already ruled against you, you're gonna
have a tough time proving it.
The speech wasn't banned, but rather the mode of
> expression. By the same token, a town council can have a noise bylaw that
> *includes* speech. An individual is free to recite the Communist Manifesto,
> he's just not free to do it in a place or in a fashion that would unduly
> effect others in a detrimental fashion.
wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong.
where did you get this idea? you just winging it as you go along?
because abortion protesters do EXACTLY what you say is illegal every
day of the week. having seen it in person, i can tell you, you're just
plain wrong.
>
> Please remember the underlying notion of the liberties as put forth in the
> Bill of Rights; your right to swing your fist *ends* at the tip of my nose.
> This seems as textbook an application of that rule as any I have seen.
>
really? well it certainly doesn't look like a US textbook.
wf3h
> On Nov 4, 3:56 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > ah. so now we've invented a 'convenience' defense against the 1st.
>
> This is largely why SCOTUS decided that requiring a minimum distance
> between anti-choice protesters and family planning clinic patients was
> acceptable.
FINALLY!! finally you got it!! man, it TOOK you long enough. i just
had to beat you over the head with it about 50 times...that's all.
protesters at funerals, like protesters at abortion clinics, have a
right to free speech. they have a right to be offensive.
thank you for FINALLY conceding the point.
>
>
> > > In fact, on the
> > > face of it, those hypothetical acts and the Phelps display are less
> > > convenient than other means. They are going out of the way (as far as
> > > getting the message out) to disturb people.
>
> > uh...so? when martin luther king marched across the pettis
> > bridge...well, he COULD have written a letter to the editor...
>
> Heh, yes. Phelps was not marching; he was trying to hurt people
no one knows what this means. racists were 'hurt' by king's message.
could they have sued?
. King
> was trying to shame folks into being better than they were, and he was
> at a numeric disadvantage.
well, golly, it's certainly nice to have YOUR stamp of approval on
what the intention of the 1st is! yes, why bother with protest or
speech at all?? just ring you up and find out what you approve of.
that'll pretty much settle it, won't it?
We've let Nazis march on public streets in
> this country, and I think that was the right decision. We also allowed
> counter -protesters (at a safe distance). A family should not have to
> subsidize this kind of angry public discourse with their grief.
?? do you know where some of the first american nazis marched? in a
town called skokie, IL. the reason they CHOSE that town was because of
the large number of holocaust survivors. those folks saw their
children butchered and turned into ashes.
so tell me again about 'subsidizing' with grief.
go ahead. let's hear your argument about why jews don't have grief
while the families of soldiers do.
>
>
>
> > > Nobody rational is suggesting that Phelps's website be shutdown, nor
> > > that he can't offer to pay money for a newspaper ad. But neither is
> > > the newspaper obligated to take his money and print the ad. In the US
> > > the courts decided that a minimum distance between anti-choice
> > > protesters and women patients entering birth control clinics was
> > > legal
>
> > yep. and the same applies to funerals.
>
> Eh? I thought you were disagreeing with me. I support maintaining an
> emotional buffer zone between Phelps and grieving families. Now you
> say that it is appropriate to tell anti-choice demonstrators to back
> off a little?
where did i ever state otherwise? it's irrelevant.
>
John McKendry
> On Nov 4, 8:33 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:01:32 -0800, wf3h wrote:
>> > On Nov 4, 5:17 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:03:25 -0800, wf3h wrote:
>> >
>> > but a ticket causes me emotional distress. is that a defense against a
>> > ticket?
>>
>> Well, as I said, I am not a tort lawyer. But I'll try to answer
>> your question as best I can, with the usual disclaimer that you
>> should not rely on my advice in a court of law, but should seek
>> competent counsel.
>>
>> My source here is a paper called "THE TORT OF INTENTIONAL
>> INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IN THE PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
>> SECTOR", downloadable fromhttp://www.hofstra.edu/PDF/law_labor_cavico.pdf(Adobe Reader
>> or other pdf reader required). According to this paper,
>
> i just got out of bed with my lawyer...happens to also be my
> wife...her opinion is that the phelpses probably will prevail for
> exactly the same reason abortion protesters do.
>
"...probably will prevail..."? This is the first appearance of the
word "probably" in this discussion, I'm pretty sure. Up until now
there's been no "probably" about it, has there? "Probably"
would have to mean that the decision on (so far hypothetical)
appeal will depend on the facts of the case, such as what the
Phelpses actually did and said, rather than on some generic
principal that protesters always have more rights than plain
old private citizens. And that is my position, not yours.
>> But do you see how this works? There's a body of law, and
>> there's a body of legal practice and writings and precedent
>> that tell how courts have ruled and reasoned about those laws,
>> and then when someone brings suit, he/she has to show exactly
>> how the facts of the case match up with the requirements that
>> define the offense. It's really pretty simple conceptually,
>> but it's nothing like the "they hurt my feelings" that you
>> seem to imagine.
>
> i never mentioned 'feelings'....others did. i don't see how that's a
> defense. and it's not because the courts have already ruled. the
> intent of the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress, but to
> convey a political message of bigotry and hatred. and that's permitted
> under the 1st amendment.
As Chris Thompson pointed out, you did mention feelings:
> are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
> feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
(Thanks, Chris.) But that aside, when you say "the intent of
the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress", that's an
example of what we call "proof by assertion", and it's the
heart of what's wrong with your argument. You fail to understand
that there might be a difference between what you assume to be
the case and what's true.
>>
>> > no moreso than actions at abortion clinics which have already been
>> > decided in favor of religious fanatics.
>>
>> You don't think the facts about the Phelpses' behavior have
>> any bearing on the outcome of the suit? It doesn't matter what
>> they actually did or said, whatever it was is protected by
>> the First Amendment? You have an interesting view of how
>> the law works.
>
> ?? and how is THEIR action different that that of abortion protesters
> screaming at women entering abortion clinics? you have an interesting
> view of how the law works...especially since the supreme court has
> already ruled on similar events. subsitute 'abortion' for 'fag' and
> it's pretty apparent it's a parallel situation.
You didn't answer my questions. You do that a lot, in fact.
You take the discussion off in the direction you want to go,
which is usually backwards to a point you've already made.
>> > yeah. again, abortion rights. women have a right to privacy...and a
>> > right to abortion. but the thugs who scream 'baby killer' have their
>> > rights, too.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that doesn't look like another explanation.
>
> ah. it's your word against mine, eh?
>
In the part you removed, I said
>> Could it be that there is more than one right in play
>> here, and that the courts have crafted a compromise between
>> the right to free speech and the right to privacy?
and you said
> yeah. again, abortion rights. women have a right to privacy...and a
> right to abortion. but the thugs who scream 'baby killer' have their
> rights, too.
Now to my mind, "there is more than one right in play here"
is a fair paraphrase of "women have a right to privacy and a
right to abortion. but the thugs ... have their rights, too."
So I'm bewildered. How is your explanation different from mine?
> in that case, the court will decide. it certainly looks like another
> explanation to me.
>
Spell out the difference for me, please.
Yet oddly, I don't feel I have conceded your argument; I only
feel that I can't imagine what your argument actually is.
Because I'm sure you must understand that it does make a
difference whether the boundary is 30 feet or 3000 feet.
John
John McKendry
They are able to publish names and addresses of doctors because
those are a matter of public record through the state licensing
boards. Publishing names and addresses of patients would be
different, as that information would not be a matter of public
record. But more important, the web site that was most notorious
for this, the "Nuremberg Files" site, no longer publishes names
and addresses. Its sponsoring organization, the American
Coalition of Life Activists, was sued in Oregon in 1999
by Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette and others
for violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act. ACLA was found liable in the district court
and ordered to pay something over $100 million in damages.
That decision was first overturned by a three-judge panel
of the Court of Appeals, but was then reaffirmed by the
full eleven-member Court. (Damages were reduced to
something like $47 million.) The Supreme Court declined
to hear ACLA's appeal, so the judgment against them stands.
The decision was 6-5, and depended heavily on First
Amendment arguments over the definition of "threat".
You can read the opinion of the full Court of Appeals
at (URL is one line)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/
0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/
9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement
Not that I expect you will; you don't seem to
have the head for that kind of thing. And, of course,
it is evidence against your contention that abortion
protesters can say anything at all and be protected
by the First Amendment.
John
Josh Hayes
news:1194320062.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 5, 1:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 3:56 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > ah. so now we've invented a 'convenience' defense against the 1st.
>>
>> This is largely why SCOTUS decided that requiring a minimum distance
>> between anti-choice protesters and family planning clinic patients
>> was acceptable.
That is, that protesters have only limited rights at abortion clinics.
Gotcha.
But, sadly, wf3h doesn't "got ya":
> FINALLY!! finally you got it!! man, it TOOK you long enough. i just
> had to beat you over the head with it about 50 times...that's all.
> protesters at funerals, like protesters at abortion clinics, have a
> right to free speech. they have a right to be offensive.
Ah, no. In fact, that is exactly, precisely, 100 percent, wrong.
> thank you for FINALLY conceding the point.
Geez, are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending to be?
What SCOTUS said (and Kermit as well) is the exact opposite of what you
are saying. I sure as hell hope you're not a lawyer, because if you are,
every client you have ever had has the right to sue you for being a
complete dumbass. Whether you won their case or not.
SCOTUS asserts that a distance requirement is constitutional. That is,
there are limits to free speech. People can be offensive. People can
wave signs and yell and scream, but they can, LEGALLY, be restrained
from interfering in the lives of other people. You are 180 degrees off.
Sure, the fuckwads from west fuckwad church of "Oh Lord, thanks to you I
am a complete waste of oxygen" can protest, but they can be enjoined
from interfering with the reasonable exercises of life of other people.
And if their protests interfere with those people's reasonable
expectation of free movement, then they can be found liable.
It might be worth your time to research the difference between assault,
and assault and battery. Why, do you suppose, are they different things?
How do you think that difference maps onto civil torts? And if not, why
not?
-JAH
wf3h
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:14:49 -0800, wf3h wrote:
> >
> > i just got out of bed with my lawyer...happens to also be my
> > wife...her opinion is that the phelpses probably will prevail for
> > exactly the same reason abortion protesters do.
>
> "...probably will prevail..."? This is the first appearance of the
> word "probably" in this discussion, I'm pretty sure.
if you can see into the courts with 100% precision, you're a better
man than i, charlie brown
Up until now
> there's been no "probably" about it, has there? "Probably"
> would have to mean that the decision on (so far hypothetical)
> appeal will depend on the facts of the case, such as what the
> Phelpses actually did and said, rather than on some generic
> principal that protesters always have more rights than plain
> old private citizens. And that is my position, not yours.
thanks for making up a position i never held. you could have saved
alot of discussion by just telling me your position was mine in the
beginning.
>
> > i never mentioned 'feelings'....others did. i don't see how that's a
> > defense. and it's not because the courts have already ruled. the
> > intent of the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress, but to
> > convey a political message of bigotry and hatred. and that's permitted
> > under the 1st amendment.
>
> As Chris Thompson pointed out, you did mention feelings:> are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
> > feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
?? i'm not chris thompson. that qualifies him as 'another'. so, yes,
someone else mentioned feelings and i responded.
>
> (Thanks, Chris.) But that aside, when you say "the intent of
> the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress", that's an
> example of what we call "proof by assertion", and it's the
> heart of what's wrong with your argument. You fail to understand
> that there might be a difference between what you assume to be
> the case and what's true.
and you just assume the 1st has an emotional infliction of distress
defense. as i pointed out in the case of abortion protesters, that's
simply not true.
you, of course, completely disregarded that fact.
>
> >
> > ?? and how is THEIR action different that that of abortion protesters
> > screaming at women entering abortion clinics? you have an interesting
> > view of how the law works...especially since the supreme court has
> > already ruled on similar events. subsitute 'abortion' for 'fag' and
> > it's pretty apparent it's a parallel situation.
>
> You didn't answer my questions. You do that a lot, in fact.
> You take the discussion off in the direction you want to go,
> which is usually backwards to a point you've already made.
uh, no. the courts made the point about abortion protesters and nazi
marchers in skokie. all i did was mention what the courts have already
decided.
facts you just ignore.
>
> > yeah. again, abortion rights. women have a right to privacy...and a
> > right to abortion. but the thugs who scream 'baby killer' have their
> > rights, too.
>
> Now to my mind, "there is more than one right in play here"
> is a fair paraphrase of "women have a right to privacy and a
> right to abortion. but the thugs ... have their rights, too."
> So I'm bewildered. How is your explanation different from mine?
is your position that people have a right to be offensive in public
places...sidewalks, for example, at funerals? that's my position. is
it yours?
>
>
> > and you're missing the point entirely. i don't care if the boundary is
> > 30 feet or 3000 feet. it's irrelevant. if you concede that the
> > phelpses have the right to protest, then you've conceded my argument.
> > how far the boundaries are set back is irrelevant to the fact that
> > they have the right to protest in some of the most offensive ways
> > possible.
>
> > period.
>
> Yet oddly, I don't feel I have conceded your argument; I only
> feel that I can't imagine what your argument actually is.
> Because I'm sure you must understand that it does make a
> difference whether the boundary is 30 feet or 3000 feet.\\
again you're welcome to try and make my position yours. mine is that
the courts have already decided people have a right to be offensive.
others have argued they don't. whether or not there are set back
requirements, etc., is irrelevant.
>
wf3h
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:19:05 -0800, wf3h wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 10:02 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 5:14 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Had they not used personal information about the dead soldier and his
> >> family, they would not be liable for anything. But they did, so they
> >> are. If abortion protesters revealed the names of the women, the
> >> names of the fathers, their phone numbers, or other private
> >> information, they too would be liable for civil actions.
>
> > ?? they do this routinely. they routinely publish names and addresses
> > of abortion doctors on websites.
>
> They are able to publish names and addresses of doctors because
> those are a matter of public record through the state licensing
> boards.
and funerals are published in the paper.
Publishing names and addresses of patients would be
> different, as that information would not be a matter of public
> record. But more important, the web site that was most notorious
> for this, the "Nuremberg Files" site, no longer publishes names
> and addresses. Its sponsoring organization, the American
> Coalition of Life Activists, was sued in Oregon in 1999
> by Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette and others
> for violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic
> Entrances Act. ACLA was found liable in the district court
> and ordered to pay something over $100 million in damages.
> That decision was first overturned by a three-judge panel
> of the Court of Appeals, but was then reaffirmed by the
> full eleven-member Court. (Damages were reduced to
> something like $47 million.) The Supreme Court declined
> to hear ACLA's appeal, so the judgment against them stands.
well put and that's the law. as i said previously, probably the
phelpses will prevail the fact that courts routinely overturn other
courts is a fact i'm not going to prejudge
>
> Not that I expect you will; you don't seem to
> have the head for that kind of thing. And, of course,
> it is evidence against your contention that abortion
> protesters can say anything at all and be protected
> by the First Amendment.
>
hmmm...you seem to have already prejudged the case yourself. no
'probably' on your side of the issue, is there? and i notice that you
simply haven't dealt with the fact that the phelpses behavior is like
the abortion protesters
and that's evidence against your contention that they can't say
anything at all.
wf3h
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote innews:1194320062.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 5, 1:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 3:56 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >> > ah. so now we've invented a 'convenience' defense against the 1st.
>
> >> This is largely why SCOTUS decided that requiring a minimum distance
> >> between anti-choice protesters and family planning clinic patients
> >> was acceptable.
>
> That is, that protesters have only limited rights at abortion clinics.
> Gotcha.
?? never did i say that they could go anywhere. not once did i say
that. i never said they could invade clinics, for example. i merely
said they could go to an abortion clinic...or to a funeral...and
protest. others said they couldn't
gotcha.
> SCOTUS asserts that a distance requirement is constitutional.
irrelevant. i never said it wasn't. ever. not once. what i said was
they can protest. period.
you're welcome to make up whatever you need about my argument to feel
secure, though. be my guest.
Dustan
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story
>
> A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the
> father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy
> had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs
> at the funeral.
>
> fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested
> military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value
> messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
>
> etc
Wow... Just... Wow.
chris thompson
> On Nov 5, 10:14 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:14:49 -0800, wf3h wrote:
>
> > > i never mentioned 'feelings'....others did. i don't see how that's a
> > > defense. and it's not because the courts have already ruled. the
> > > intent of the phelpses was not to inflict emotional distress, but to
> > > convey a political message of bigotry and hatred. and that's permitted
> > > under the 1st amendment.
>
> > As Chris Thompson pointed out, you did mention feelings:> are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
> > > feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!
>
> ?? i'm not chris thompson. that qualifies him as 'another'. so, yes,
> someone else mentioned feelings and i responded.
What John is pointing out here is the fact that I quoted you when you
mentioned feelings. As a matter of fact, I believe you were the first
to use that word in the current context in this thread. If you like,
you can check it out:
<1194111454....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
So please don't insist you didn't mention feelings. I didn't bring
them up; John didn't; Josh didn't; Kermit didn't.
Chris
chris thompson
It is not irrelevant, by the only standard that matters: the court
used those actions to decide the verdict. The court found their
actions to be "outrageous"; as others have pointed out to you before,
there have always been limits on free speech. One of those limits is
that your freedom of expression does not carry into extremes of
behavior. You can say it's irrelevant all you like; you can say oak
trees are giant candy canes, too, for what it's worth. Apparently most
states have laws that prohibit extremes of expression- full nudity is
a fine example.
> > Had they not used personal information about the dead soldier and his
> > family, they would not be liable for anything. But they did, so they
> > are. If abortion protesters revealed the names of the women, the
> > names of the fathers, their phone numbers, or other private
> > information, they too would be liable for civil actions.
>
> ?? they do this routinely. they routinely publish names and addresses
> of abortion doctors on websites.
Doctors are licensed by the individual states. And, as Josh Hayes
pointed out, those websites have had their activities curtailed.
Chris
>
>
Dustan
> On the other hand, I definitely find suing for money to be distasteful
> in cases that don't include actual financial damages. Jail is
> probably a better deterrent and I don't especially see why a person
> deserves to get rich off their misfortune.
Wow, I didn't see it that way before. I haven't read the rest of this
thread, so that might have been brought up before for all I know, but
that's certainly a good point.
Michael Ejercito
Michael
chris thompson
I stand corrected. You wrote "legal" and for some reason, I read
"criminal".
Chris
wf3h
> On Nov 5, 10:19 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > irelevant. you think abortion protesters don't do similar things? they
> > protest in front of abortion doctors' houses, for example.
>
> It is not irrelevant, by the only standard that matters: the court
> used those actions to decide the verdict.
it's still irrelevant for the same reason abortion protesters offenses
are not outlawed. you have a problem:
you're arguing against settled law from the supreme court
good luck
The court found their
> actions to be "outrageous"; as others have pointed out to you before,
irrelevant.
> there have always been limits on free speech. One of those limits is
> that your freedom of expression does not carry into extremes of
> behavior. You can say it's irrelevant all you like; you can say oak
> trees are giant candy canes, too, for what it's worth. Apparently most
> states have laws that prohibit extremes of expression- full nudity is
> a fine example.
fine. go tell the supreme court they're wrong about abortion
protesters. it's been tried. you can beat your head against the wall
all you want; it won't change the law.
>
> > > Had they not used personal information about the dead soldier and his
> > > family, they would not be liable for anything. But they did, so they
> > > are. If abortion protesters revealed the names of the women, the
> > > names of the fathers, their phone numbers, or other private
> > > information, they too would be liable for civil actions.
>
> > ?? they do this routinely. they routinely publish names and addresses
> > of abortion doctors on websites.
>
> Doctors are licensed by the individual states. And, as Josh Hayes
> pointed out, those websites have had their activities curtailed.
irrelevant. the westboro baptist church didn't do this.
wf3h
> On Nov 6, 5:19 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> What John is pointing out here is the fact that I quoted you when you
> mentioned feelings. As a matter of fact, I believe you were the first
> to use that word in the current context in this thread. If you like,
> you can check it out:
i didn't bring it up. feelings are irrelevant.
>
> <1194111454.059920.64...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
>
> So please don't insist you didn't mention feelings. I didn't bring
> them up; John didn't; Josh didn't; Kermit didn't.
>
and i didn't either. sorry.
catshark
>On Nov 6, 1:23 am, Josh Hayes <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote:
>> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote innews:1194320062.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 5, 1:02 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 4, 3:56 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > ah. so now we've invented a 'convenience' defense against the 1st.
>>
>> >> This is largely why SCOTUS decided that requiring a minimum distance
>> >> between anti-choice protesters and family planning clinic patients
>> >> was acceptable.
>>
>> That is, that protesters have only limited rights at abortion clinics.
>> Gotcha.
>
>?? never did i say that they could go anywhere. not once did i say
>that. i never said they could invade clinics, for example. i merely
>said they could go to an abortion clinic...or to a funeral...and
>protest. others said they couldn't
I'm sorry but you're like the woman who said she'd sleep with a man for $1
million but not for $2.
You've agreed that there are limitations on freedom of speech (which, of
course< there are). Now you're just haggling over the price.
>
>gotcha.
>
>
>> SCOTUS asserts that a distance requirement is constitutional.
>
>irrelevant. i never said it wasn't. ever. not once. what i said was
>they can protest. period.
No one I've seen (I've not been following it closely) has said that the
Phelps couldn't protest, even in an offesive way. It's the time, place and
manner that is at issue. I, too, tend to doubt the case will stand up on
appeal but Federal judges are not afraid to toss plaintiffs out of court
and, while they are not all the quality of Learned Hand, as a group they
are pretty good. If a Federal judge let this go to a jury, it is a pretty
good first approximation to assume that the plaintiffs had a colorable
claim on both the law and the facts.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
A concise definition of legal ethics:
" . . . having been bought a lawyer is supposed to stay bought."
-- Louann Miller --
wf3h
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> >?? never did i say that they could go anywhere. not once did i say
> >that. i never said they could invade clinics, for example. i merely
> >said they could go to an abortion clinic...or to a funeral...and
> >protest. others said they couldn't
>
> I'm sorry but you're like the woman who said she'd sleep with a man for $1
> million but not for $2.
>
> You've agreed that there are limitations on freedom of speech (which, of
> course< there are). Now you're just haggling over the price.
hmmm....seems you've forgotten about an organization known as the
'supreme court' which made the decision. no surprise there... you
don't seem to be particularly interested in the law.
of course, you've ignored the fact that abortion protesters aren't
sued. jack nicholson had it right: you can't handle the truth.
>
>
>
> >gotcha.
>
> >> SCOTUS asserts that a distance requirement is constitutional.
>
> >irrelevant. i never said it wasn't. ever. not once. what i said was
> >they can protest. period.
>
> No one I've seen (I've not been following it closely) has said that the
> Phelps couldn't protest, even in an offesive way.
really? seems that the court verdict of several million dollars
refutes your position, because that's an indication that someone
thinks the protest was actionable.
It's the time, place and
> manner that is at issue.
and you, again...and again....and again...ignore the law. the fact
that the courts have ruled abortion protesters, like homophobes, have
rights.
chris thompson
Have you developed significant cognitive problems? You DID bring up
feelings, and you were the first person to do so. I even provided the
message-ID for the post in which you did so. How impaired are you?
Chris
chris thompson
> On Nov 6, 7:39 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 10:19 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > irelevant. you think abortion protesters don't do similar things? they
> > > protest in front of abortion doctors' houses, for example.
>
> > It is not irrelevant, by the only standard that matters: the court
> > used those actions to decide the verdict.
>
> it's still irrelevant for the same reason abortion protesters offenses
> are not outlawed. you have a problem:
>
> you're arguing against settled law from the supreme court
>
> good luck
Wrong.
Unless and until the Supremes rule on this case, the verdict stands.
Do you think that because the Supreme Court ruled on something similar
sometime in the past that their ruling automagically applies in this
case? If so you are mistaken. Obviously the SC has to agree to hear
this case, and then they have to rule the way you think they ought.
Until and unless that happens, the current verdict stands.
>
> The court found their
>
> > actions to be "outrageous"; as others have pointed out to you before,
>
> irrelevant.
Nice. Can you assert anything else? Please make sure it's as baseless
as this. It is not irrelevant because the law defines it and the court
upheld it. No offense, please, but pull your head out of that nether
orifice.
>
> > there have always been limits on free speech. One of those limits is
> > that your freedom of expression does not carry into extremes of
> > behavior. You can say it's irrelevant all you like; you can say oak
> > trees are giant candy canes, too, for what it's worth. Apparently most
> > states have laws that prohibit extremes of expression- full nudity is
> > a fine example.
>
> fine. go tell the supreme court they're wrong about abortion
> protesters. it's been tried. you can beat your head against the wall
> all you want; it won't change the law.
Obviously the courts found reason enough to rule against the Phelpses.
Do you think they might, just might, have found reason enough in
established law to do so? Do you think the state courts are SO
IGNORANT of SC rulings that they just decide whatever they want? Do
you think that the state courts ignore SC precedent?
>
>
>
> > > > Had they not used personal information about the dead soldier and his
> > > > family, they would not be liable for anything. But they did, so they
> > > > are. If abortion protesters revealed the names of the women, the
> > > > names of the fathers, their phone numbers, or other private
> > > > information, they too would be liable for civil actions.
>
> > > ?? they do this routinely. they routinely publish names and addresses
> > > of abortion doctors on websites.
>
> > Doctors are licensed by the individual states. And, as Josh Hayes
> > pointed out, those websites have had their activities curtailed.
>
> irrelevant. the westboro baptist church didn't do this.
Then why did you bring it up?
Chris
John McKendry
"are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!"
"wrong. there is no provision in law for one person suing another for
exercising a constitutional right. if i write a letter to the editor,
am i liable if i hurt another person's feelings?"
"boy you guys are rackin' 'em up. so far it seems that, if you hurt
someone's feelings. or if there's a more 'convenient' way of doing
something, then, by all means, the constitution can be gutted"
"you saying that abortion protesters DONT hurt someone's feelings?"
Those are all cut-and-paste quotes from your posts in this
thread.
It's clearly not useful to continue to argue with you. You
are demonstrably not rational.
John
catshark
> On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > >?? never did i say that they could go anywhere. not once did i say
> > >that. i never said they could invade clinics, for example. i merely
> > >said they could go to an abortion clinic...or to a funeral...and
> > >protest. others said they couldn't
>
> > I'm sorry but you're like the woman who said she'd sleep with a man for $1
> > million but not for $2.
>
> > You've agreed that there are limitations on freedom of speech (which, of
> > course< there are). Now you're just haggling over the price.
>
> hmmm....seems you've forgotten about an organization known as the
> 'supreme court' which made the decision. no surprise there... you
> don't seem to be particularly interested in the law.
No more so than any other lawyer.
>
> of course, you've ignored the fact that abortion protesters aren't
> sued.
You do know that "prior restraint," as in the abortion protests, is
considered *more* invasive of the 1st Amendment than subsequent
lawsuits, don't you?
> jack nicholson had it right: you can't handle the truth.
Ah, yes. The ever cogent comment.
>
>
>
> > >gotcha.
>
> > >> SCOTUS asserts that a distance requirement is constitutional.
>
> > >irrelevant. i never said it wasn't. ever. not once. what i said was
> > >they can protest. period.
>
> > No one I've seen (I've not been following it closely) has said that the
> > Phelps couldn't protest, even in an offesive way.
>
> really? seems that the court verdict of several million dollars
> refutes your position, because that's an indication that someone
> thinks the protest was actionable.
I know you're not listening but anyway ... it is the time and place
and manner of their speech that drew the millions of dollars. Just
like it is the time and place and manner of speech that can get you in
serious trouble for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. And
emotional harm is considered every bit as much a legal harm as a
physical injury in a panic-induced stampede. Whether the verdict will
hold up or not is another matter but the Phelps should hope for a
better lawyer than you.
>
> It's the time, place and
>
> > manner that is at issue.
>
> and you, again...and again....and again...ignore the law. the fact
> that the courts have ruled abortion protesters, like homophobes, have
> rights.
Make up your mind. If those abortion protesters had an absolute right
to protest as they see fit, no court, even SCOTUS, could threaten them
with sanctions for protesting anywhere and any place they liked,
incluiding right next to the women. If their "rights" are not
absolute, then protesting in an improper manner can result in
sanctions that *may* be as high as a million dollars or more.
But Josh is right. Please resume your activities and excuse me for
trying to interupt your stupidity.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
wf3h
> >
>
> >
> Unless and until the Supremes rule on this case, the verdict stands.
> Do you think that because the Supreme Court ruled on something similar
> sometime in the past that their ruling automagically applies in this
> case? If so you are mistaken. Obviously the SC has to agree to hear
> this case, and then they have to rule the way you think they ought.
> Until and unless that happens, the current verdict stands.
does the phrase 'overturned on appeal' have any meaning? if the court
agreed to hear the case, they probably have a question about the
decision. and, yes, i think EXACTLY the fact that there's a previous
ruling may apply. ever hear of the term 'stare decisis'?
>
> > > actions to be "outrageous"; as others have pointed out to you before,
>
> > irrelevant.
>
> Nice. Can you assert anything else? Please make sure it's as baseless
> as this. It is not irrelevant because the law defines it and the court
> upheld it. No offense, please, but pull your head out of that nether
> orifice.
well it seems i'm in the same place as thomas jefferson and james
madison. not bad company. you're the one who's chosen to ignore case
law.
> >
> > fine. go tell the supreme court they're wrong about abortion
> > protesters. it's been tried. you can beat your head against the wall
> > all you want; it won't change the law.
>
> Obviously the courts found reason enough to rule against the Phelpses.
?? really. what a surprise. i guess cases never get overturned on
appeal. i guess the fact that the abortion idiots had to go to the
SCOTUS means zip....
> Do you think they might, just might, have found reason enough in
> established law to do so? Do you think the state courts are SO
> IGNORANT of SC rulings that they just decide whatever they want? Do
> you think that the state courts ignore SC precedent?
DUH! yes, that's exactly what i think. state courts often don't have a
clue about constitutional issues.
>
>
> >
> > > Doctors are licensed by the individual states. And, as Josh Hayes
> > > pointed out, those websites have had their activities curtailed.
>
> > irrelevant. the westboro baptist church didn't do this.
>
> Then why did you bring it up?
there you go again. i didn't bring it up.
>
wf3h
> On Nov 6, 9:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > really? seems that the court verdict of several million dollars
> > refutes your position, because that's an indication that someone
> > thinks the protest was actionable.
>
> I know you're not listening but anyway ... it is the time and place
> and manner of their speech that drew the millions of dollars
and the emotionalism of the time and place had a role, wouldn't you
say?
. Just
> like it is the time and place and manner of speech that can get you in
> serious trouble for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
uh...did the phelpses create a danger of a stampede? an imminent
threat to life? is that your argument?
And
> emotional harm is considered every bit as much a legal harm as a
> physical injury in a panic-induced stampede. Whether the verdict will
> hold up or not is another matter but the Phelps should hope for a
> better lawyer than you.
ah. more emotional appeal.
ok, tell me where in the constitution it says the 1st applies, EXCEPT
if it hurts someone's feelings
dont recall reading that. and you keep ignoring the abortion
protesters...
strange...
> >
> > and you, again...and again....and again...ignore the law. the fact
> > that the courts have ruled abortion protesters, like homophobes, have
> > rights.
>
> Make up your mind. If those abortion protesters had an absolute right
> to protest as they see fit, no court, even SCOTUS, could threaten them
WHOA sports fans. i am the one who brought them up, so obviously i
know they don't have 'absolute' rights. you keep asserting that, even
though you get sued for millions of bux, that's no issue with
protesting...people are free to protest and huge fines have no effect
on that right
would you write a letter to the editor if you knew you'd be sued for a
million? would you practice your religion under the same conditions?
> with sanctions for protesting anywhere and any place they liked,
> incluiding right next to the women. If their "rights" are not
> absolute, then protesting in an improper manner can result in
> sanctions that *may* be as high as a million dollars or more.
>
i see that you never let the facts deter a dead argument.
catshark
>On Nov 6, 10:33 pm, catshark <catshark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 9:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > really? seems that the court verdict of several million dollars
>> > refutes your position, because that's an indication that someone
>> > thinks the protest was actionable.
>>
>> I know you're not listening but anyway ... it is the time and place
>> and manner of their speech that drew the millions of dollars
>
>and the emotionalism of the time and place had a role, wouldn't you
>say?
Now, that's the *beginnings* of an argument on appeal ... if only you knew
how to carry through.
>
>. Just
>> like it is the time and place and manner of speech that can get you in
>> serious trouble for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
>
>uh...did the phelpses create a danger of a stampede? an imminent
>threat to life? is that your argument?
Well, to descend to your level ... where in the 1st Amendment does it say
it only applies except in the case of an imminent threat to life?
>
> And
>> emotional harm is considered every bit as much a legal harm as a
>> physical injury in a panic-induced stampede. Whether the verdict will
>> hold up or not is another matter but the Phelps should hope for a
>> better lawyer than you.
>
>ah. more emotional appeal.
Why, do you think you are a good enough lawyer for them? That's cruel,
that is!
>
>ok, tell me where in the constitution it says the 1st applies, EXCEPT
>if it hurts someone's feelings
Where in the 1st Amendment does it say it only applies except in the case
of abortion protestors?
>
>dont recall reading that. and you keep ignoring the abortion
>protesters...
No, *you* are ... explain to us how again how their right to protest can be
curtailed under your absolutist interpretation of the Constitution and the
Phelps' can't be.
>
>strange...
>
>> >
>> > and you, again...and again....and again...ignore the law. the fact
>> > that the courts have ruled abortion protesters, like homophobes, have
>> > rights.
>>
>> Make up your mind. If those abortion protesters had an absolute right
>> to protest as they see fit, no court, even SCOTUS, could threaten them
>
>WHOA sports fans. i am the one who brought them up, so obviously i
>know they don't have 'absolute' rights.
Then explain the *legal* difference between them and the Phelps.
>you keep asserting that, even
>though you get sued for millions of bux, that's no issue with
>protesting...people are free to protest and huge fines have no effect
>on that right
Court orders denying people the "right" to protest in the way they want or,
if they do, risk the huge fines, arrest and imprisonment for contempt of
court that those abortion protestors faced also has an effect. The question
you can't seem to wrap your head around is the legal and logical
relationship between those cases.
>
>would you write a letter to the editor if you knew you'd be sued for a
>million? would you practice your religion under the same conditions?
Just as much as I continue to drive a car knowing that, if I intentionally
or negligently violate the rights of others and cause them injury, I can be
sued for a million. You keep (emotionally?) confusing the amount of the
award in this case with the question of the *relative* rights of the
parties.
>
>> with sanctions for protesting anywhere and any place they liked,
>> incluiding right next to the women. If their "rights" are not
>> absolute, then protesting in an improper manner can result in
>> sanctions that *may* be as high as a million dollars or more.
>>
>
>i see that you never let the facts deter a dead argument.
I'm glad to see you realize your argument is dead ... actually, it was
never born.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Most lawyers will prefer to leave no stone unturned,
provided, of course, they can charge by the stone.
- Deborah Rhode -
chris thompson
> On Nov 6, 9:46 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Unless and until the Supremes rule on this case, the verdict stands.
> > Do you think that because the Supreme Court ruled on something similar
> > sometime in the past that their ruling automagically applies in this
> > case? If so you are mistaken. Obviously the SC has to agree to hear
> > this case, and then they have to rule the way you think they ought.
> > Until and unless that happens, the current verdict stands.
>
> does the phrase 'overturned on appeal' have any meaning? if the court
> agreed to hear the case, they probably have a question about the
> decision. and, yes, i think EXACTLY the fact that there's a previous
> ruling may apply. ever hear of the term 'stare decisis'?
Yes, as a matter of fact I have. And I know it applies to the rulings
of the lower courts when they are examined by appeals courts.
> > > > actions to be "outrageous"; as others have pointed out to you before,
>
> > > irrelevant.
>
> > Nice. Can you assert anything else? Please make sure it's as baseless
> > as this. It is not irrelevant because the law defines it and the court
> > upheld it. No offense, please, but pull your head out of that nether
> > orifice.
>
> well it seems i'm in the same place as thomas jefferson and james
> madison. not bad company. you're the one who's chosen to ignore case
> law.
Um, ISTM you're the one ignoring both the state law- whose
constitutionality has not been challenged- and the ruling of the state
court. You're apparently confused- your company up there is James
Jefferson and Thomas Madison.
> > > fine. go tell the supreme court they're wrong about abortion
> > > protesters. it's been tried. you can beat your head against the wall
> > > all you want; it won't change the law.
>
> > Obviously the courts found reason enough to rule against the Phelpses.
>
> ?? really. what a surprise. i guess cases never get overturned on
> appeal. i guess the fact that the abortion idiots had to go to the
> SCOTUS means zip....
Ah. So you're counting on the fact that the Supremes review and accept
such a huge percentage of appeals sent to them. Why, they hear and
overturn...what? A tenth of one percent of the cases sent to
Washington?
> > Do you think they might, just might, have found reason enough in
> > established law to do so? Do you think the state courts are SO
> > IGNORANT of SC rulings that they just decide whatever they want? Do
> > you think that the state courts ignore SC precedent?
>
> DUH! yes, that's exactly what i think. state courts often don't have a
> clue about constitutional issues.
Then you're clueless. The vast majority of state court decisions that
are appealed are affirmed or sent back without being heard by any
appeals court. Remember that phrase you tried to throw in my face a
little bit ago- stare decisis? It applies just as much to appeals as
it does in the rest of the judicial system.
> > > > Doctors are licensed by the individual states. And, as Josh Hayes
> > > > pointed out, those websites have had their activities curtailed.
>
> > > irrelevant. the westboro baptist church didn't do this.
>
> > Then why did you bring it up?
>
> there you go again. i didn't bring it up.
Again? Ah, much the same way you never brought up "feelings". I got
it.
Chris
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 6-Nov-2007, wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >?? never did i say that they could go anywhere. not once did i say
> > >that. i never said they could invade clinics, for example. i merely
> > >said they could go to an abortion clinic...or to a funeral...and
> > >protest. others said they couldn't
> >
> > I'm sorry but you're like the woman who said she'd sleep with a man for
> > $1
> > million but not for $2.
> >
> > You've agreed that there are limitations on freedom of speech (which, of
> > course< there are). Now you're just haggling over the price.
>
> hmmm....seems you've forgotten about an organization known as the
> 'supreme court' which made the decision. no surprise there... you
> don't seem to be particularly interested in the law.
No substantial contribution to the thread-the rest of you are done just fine
without me-so far! But I just had to jump in here and point out that last
bit, was, well...just ignorant. Catshark, not particularly interested in
the law?! Right........
<snip>
Skitter the Cat
Lynx sapiens Cincinnatus
catshark
Does it show?
Hi Skitter!
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Lawyers are like other people -- fools on the average;
but it is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other.
-- Mark Twain --
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <wXxYi.243$e_3...@fe099.usenetserver.com>):
I knew that wf3h was dead meat when:
1 he started arguing with a lawyer about the law
2 he started his usual dances-with-words with a lawyer
If a lawyer speaks on the law, unless I have really good reason to go another
way (such as other lawyers saying different) I'd go with what he says.
I wonder how long it will be before he bails?
>
> <snip>
>
> Skitter the Cat
> Lynx sapiens Cincinnatus
>
Hmm... a really smart cat would not be in Cincinnati. What this says about
the Bengals is left as an exercise for the student. <yes, that coat's mine.
Toodles...>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <lks5j3holorslkhvf...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:23:25 GMT, Skitter...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6-Nov-2007, wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?? never did i say that they could go anywhere. not once did i say
>>>>> that. i never said they could invade clinics, for example. i merely
>>>>> said they could go to an abortion clinic...or to a funeral...and
>>>>> protest. others said they couldn't
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry but you're like the woman who said she'd sleep with a man for
>>>> $1
>>>> million but not for $2.
>>>>
>>>> You've agreed that there are limitations on freedom of speech (which, of
>>>> course< there are). Now you're just haggling over the price.
>>>
>>> hmmm....seems you've forgotten about an organization known as the
>>> 'supreme court' which made the decision. no surprise there... you
>>> don't seem to be particularly interested in the law.
>>
>> No substantial contribution to the thread-the rest of you are done just fine
>> without me-so far! But I just had to jump in here and point out that last
>> bit, was, well...just ignorant. Catshark, not particularly interested in
>> the law?! Right........
>
> Does it show?
Just a little. It's not like you're a lawyer or something. Hmm. Wait a
minute...
>
> Hi Skitter!
Kermit
> On Nov 6, 10:33 pm, catshark <catshark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 8:12 pm, catshark <catsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:26:11 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > really? seems that the court verdict of several million dollars
> > > refutes your position, because that's an indication that someone
> > > thinks the protest was actionable.
>
> > I know you're not listening but anyway ... it is the time and place
> > and manner of their speech that drew the millions of dollars
>
> and the emotionalism of the time and place had a role, wouldn't you
> say?
That is rather the point. Anyone with a family is likely to agree that
there is no more painful act than burying one's child. We should not
have to outlive our children.
The suit was exactly about the pain inflicted by demonstration. What
do you think we've been saying all along?
>
> . Just
>
> > like it is the time and place and manner of speech that can get you in
> > serious trouble for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
>
> uh...did the phelpses create a danger of a stampede? an imminent
> threat to life? is that your argument?
No. As in maintaining a minimal distance at an abortion clinic, it
saves much distress with a minimum inconvenience to the protestors.
I'm dismayed that you do not see this as a similar situation. If you
think there is a significant difference, you have yet to make it.
Please do not compare this to a crowded theater and yelling fire.
Instead, explain why you believe the curtailment of speech at an
abortion clinic (by maintaining minimum distance is acceptable, and
this is not.
>
> And
>
> > emotional harm is considered every bit as much a legal harm as a
> > physical injury in a panic-induced stampede. Whether the verdict will
> > hold up or not is another matter but the Phelps should hope for a
> > better lawyer than you.
>
> ah. more emotional appeal.
Since the suit was over the emotional pain caused, yes. What did you
think it was over? Has anyone suggested otherwise?
>
> ok, tell me where in the constitution it says the 1st applies, EXCEPT
> if it hurts someone's feelings
The ninth amendment, for one. And prior SCOTUS decisions, for another.
>
> dont recall reading that. and you keep ignoring the abortion
> protesters...
How so?
>
> strange...
>
>
>
> > > and you, again...and again....and again...ignore the law. the fact
> > > that the courts have ruled abortion protesters, like homophobes, have
> > > rights.
>
> > Make up your mind. If those abortion protesters had an absolute right
> > to protest as they see fit, no court, even SCOTUS, could threaten them
>
> WHOA sports fans. i am the one who brought them up, so obviously i
> know they don't have 'absolute' rights. you keep asserting that, even
> though you get sued for millions of bux, that's no issue with
> protesting...people are free to protest and huge fines have no effect
> on that right
Ah. That must have been when I said
"This is largely why SCOTUS decided that requiring a minimum distance
between anti-choice protesters and family planning clinic patients was
acceptable. What must be weighted is the cost to others [...] and
your ability to get your message out."
...above.
>
> would you write a letter to the editor if you knew you'd be sued for a
> million? would you practice your religion under the same conditions?
It's unlikely that writing a letter would cause that much anguish, or
be widely considered to. Family and friends at a funeral are at their
most vulnerable, and are a captive audience.
I don't know what you mean by practicing my religion "under the same
conditions".
Do you mean would I practice my religion if I had a chance of being
sued for a million dollars? Practice of religion is limited, also.
Preachers and parents have been charged with abuse for beating
children for misbehavior, for beating or otherwise torturing them to
exorcise demons. They have been charged with child rape. They have
been charged with abuse and lost custody for denying them mainstream
medical treatments for serious diseases.
Everybody's rights infringe on another's, and at times it is not clear
where the line should be drawn. It is not true that your right to
swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It ends far sooner. If I am
paying attention, and an adult swings with the *intent of stopping
right at my nose, I'd probably break his arm. And if it were on video,
nobody would convict me of a crime.
So, how far *can you swing your fist? It's not all that clear. Some
cases require higher courts to ultimately decide.
>
> > with sanctions for protesting anywhere and any place they liked,
> > incluiding right next to the women. If their "rights" are not
> > absolute, then protesting in an improper manner can result in
> > sanctions that *may* be as high as a million dollars or more.
>
> i see that you never let the facts deter a dead argument.
Which facts are those? I haven't really seen you offer any that
support... I was going to say support your claims, but I'm not sure
what you claims are. Are they "The emotional distress of burying a
child is not as great as having an abortion?"
Seriously: if a minimum distance between anti-choice protesters and
staff or patients at a family planning clinic are acceptable, then
what, in your opinion, is the essential difference for the funeral &
Phelps case? I know that Phelps was sued, but his defense was a 1st
amendment defense, and the judge and jury decided that it didn't apply
in those particular circumstances. Why do you think they were wrong?
Kermit
Bill Hudson
[snip]
> So, how far *can you swing your fist? It's not all that clear. Some
> cases require higher courts to ultimately decide.
>
Just to be picky, I'll note that in some cases (depending on the
circumstances) the act of drawing back your hand with a clenched fist
*as if* to swing it, is enough to get you charged with assault. You
don't even have to swing it, just make the other person think that you
are likely to do so.
wf3h
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:50:00 -0800, wf3h wrote:
> >>
> >> What John is pointing out here is the fact that I quoted you when you
> >> mentioned feelings. As a matter of fact, I believe you were the first
> >> to use that word in the current context in this thread. If you like,
> >> you can check it out:
> >
> feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!"
>
> "wrong. there is no provision in law for one person suing another for
> exercising a constitutional right. if i write a letter to the editor,
> am i liable if i hurt another person's feelings?"
>
> "boy you guys are rackin' 'em up. so far it seems that, if you hurt
> someone's feelings. or if there's a more 'convenient' way of doing
> something, then, by all means, the constitution can be gutted"
>
> "you saying that abortion protesters DONT hurt someone's feelings?"
>
> Those are all cut-and-paste quotes from your posts in this
> thread.
says the guy who was the first to bring up 'emotional distress'
then deny he did.
alzheimer's john? or just stupidity?
>
wf3h
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:27:59 -0800, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>
> >and the emotionalism of the time and place had a role, wouldn't you
> >say?
>
> Now, that's the *beginnings* of an argument on appeal ... if only you knew
> how to carry through.
meaningless...
>
>
>
> >. Just
> >> like it is the time and place and manner of speech that can get you in
> >> serious trouble for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
>
> >uh...did the phelpses create a danger of a stampede? an imminent
> >threat to life? is that your argument?
>
> Well, to descend to your level ... where in the 1st Amendment does it say
> it only applies except in the case of an imminent threat to life?
it doesn't. that's the point. you folks who believe the bill of rights
are just suggestions are amazing.
>
> >
>
> >ok, tell me where in the constitution it says the 1st applies, EXCEPT
> >if it hurts someone's feelings
>
> Where in the 1st Amendment does it say it only applies except in the case
> of abortion protestors?
seems that's your argument.
>
>
>
> >dont recall reading that. and you keep ignoring the abortion
> >protesters...
>
> No, *you* are ... explain to us how again how their right to protest can be
> curtailed under your absolutist interpretation of the Constitution and the
> Phelps' can't be.
?? never said it was absolute. since i was the one who brought up the
abortion protesters, it's quite plain there are restrictions on
methods of protest.
>
>
> >
> >WHOA sports fans. i am the one who brought them up, so obviously i
> >know they don't have 'absolute' rights.
>
> Then explain the *legal* difference between them and the Phelps.
>
> >you keep asserting that, even
> >though you get sued for millions of bux, that's no issue with
> >protesting...people are free to protest and huge fines have no effect
> >on that right
>
> Court orders denying people the "right" to protest in the way they want or,
> if they do, risk the huge fines, arrest and imprisonment for contempt of
> court that those abortion protestors faced also has an effect. The question
> you can't seem to wrap your head around is the legal and logical
> relationship between those cases.
meaningless. pablum. unflavored oatmeal....
>
>
>
> >would you write a letter to the editor if you knew you'd be sued for a
> >million? would you practice your religion under the same conditions?
>
> Just as much as I continue to drive a car knowing that, if I intentionally
> or negligently violate the rights of others and cause them injury,
did the phelpses cause physical injury? if so, then, by all means,
prove it.
wf3h
> On Nov 7, 5:20 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Nice. Can you assert anything else? Please make sure it's as baseless
> > > as this. It is not irrelevant because the law defines it and the court
> > > upheld it. No offense, please, but pull your head out of that nether
> > > orifice.
>
> > well it seems i'm in the same place as thomas jefferson and james
> > madison. not bad company. you're the one who's chosen to ignore case
> > law.
>
> Um, ISTM you're the one ignoring both the state law- whose
> constitutionality has not been challenged- and the ruling of the state
> court. You're apparently confused- your company up there is James
> Jefferson and Thomas Madison.
state law, believe it or not, does not trump the bill of rights. south
carolina still has on its books laws prohibiting atheists from holding
public office
you wanna try and enforce 'em?
> >
> > > Do you think they might, just might, have found reason enough in
> > > established law to do so? Do you think the state courts are SO
> > > IGNORANT of SC rulings that they just decide whatever they want? Do
> > > you think that the state courts ignore SC precedent?
>
> > DUH! yes, that's exactly what i think. state courts often don't have a
> > clue about constitutional issues.
>
> Then you're clueless. The vast majority of state court decisions that
> are appealed are affirmed or sent back without being heard by any
> appeals court. Remember that phrase you tried to throw in my face a
> little bit ago- stare decisis? It applies just as much to appeals as
> it does in the rest of the judicial system.
see the point about south carolina above. or the antimiscegenation
laws that are still on the books in some states. or check the
mississipi sovereignty commission. THAT'LL scare you if you believe in
'states rights'.
>
> > > > > Doctors are licensed by the individual states. And, as Josh Hayes
> > > > > pointed out, those websites have had their activities curtailed.
>
> > > > irrelevant. the westboro baptist church didn't do this.
>
> > > Then why did you bring it up?
>
> > there you go again. i didn't bring it up.
>
> Again? Ah, much the same way you never brought up "feelings". I got
> it.
>
uh huh. seems you think 'emotional distess' has zip to do with
feelings.
not big on language arts, are you?
wf3h
> On 6-Nov-2007, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > hmmm....seems you've forgotten about an organization known as the
> > 'supreme court' which made the decision. no surprise there... you
> > don't seem to be particularly interested in the law.
>
> No substantial contribution to the thread-the rest of you are done just fine
> without me-so far! But I just had to jump in here and point out that last
> bit, was, well...just ignorant. Catshark, not particularly interested in
> the law?! Right........
>
ever hear of mike nifong?
wf3h
> > the law?! Right........
>
> I knew that wf3h was dead meat when:
>
> 1 he started arguing with a lawyer about the law
happened to be married to a lawyer...
>
> 2 he started his usual dances-with-words with a lawyer
ever hear of mike nifong?
>
> If a lawyer speaks on the law, unless I have really good reason to go another
> way (such as other lawyers saying different) I'd go with what he says.
and, of course, there's ALWAYS phillip johnson
ever hear of him?
wf3h
> On Nov 7, 2:27 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > and the emotionalism of the time and place had a role, wouldn't you
> > say?
>
> That is rather the point. Anyone with a family is likely to agree that
> there is no more painful act than burying one's child. We should not
> have to outlive our children.
>
> The suit was exactly about the pain inflicted by demonstration. What
> do you think we've been saying all along?
?? who cares about the pain? pain is not a defense against the
constitution. what about nazi demonstraters in skokie? abortion
protesters at abortion clinics?
> >
> > uh...did the phelpses create a danger of a stampede? an imminent
> > threat to life? is that your argument?
>
> No. As in maintaining a minimal distance at an abortion clinic, it
> saves much distress with a minimum inconvenience to the protestors.
> I'm dismayed that you do not see this as a similar situation. If you
> think there is a significant difference, you have yet to make it.
since i was the one who brought up the abortion protesters, it seems
you're unable to comprehend that i do, indeed, understand limits.
and, no, you haven't demonstrated why the phelpses are
different...unless, of course, you think women don't deserve
constitutional protection.
>
> Please do not compare this to a crowded theater and yelling fire.
sigh...i never did this. everyone who doesn't accept the 1st has done
so. but i haven't.
> Instead, explain why you believe the curtailment of speech at an
> abortion clinic (by maintaining minimum distance is acceptable, and
> this is not.
did i ever say the phelpses couldn't be held at a distance?
>
>
>
> > And
>
> > > emotional harm is considered every bit as much a legal harm as a
> > > physical injury in a panic-induced stampede. Whether the verdict will
> > > hold up or not is another matter but the Phelps should hope for a
> > > better lawyer than you.
>
> > ah. more emotional appeal.
>
> Since the suit was over the emotional pain caused, yes. What did you
> think it was over? Has anyone suggested otherwise?
you think jews don't have emotions when they see nazis?
you think those of us who volunteer at abortion clinics don't have
emotions when we're called 'baby killers'?
>
> > >
> > would you write a letter to the editor if you knew you'd be sued for a
> > million? would you practice your religion under the same conditions?
>
> It's unlikely that writing a letter would cause that much anguish, or
> be widely considered to. Family and friends at a funeral are at their
> most vulnerable, and are a captive audience.
'
who says? proof?
>
> I don't know what you mean by practicing my religion "under the same
> conditions".
> Do you mean would I practice my religion if I had a chance of being
> sued for a million dollars? Practice of religion is limited, also.
> Preachers and parents have been charged with abuse for beating
> children for misbehavior, for beating or otherwise torturing them to
> exorcise demons. They have been charged with child rape.
is this your argument? really? that the mass is the same as child
abuse?
>
> Seriously: if a minimum distance between anti-choice protesters and
> staff or patients at a family planning clinic are acceptable, then
> what, in your opinion, is the essential difference for the funeral &
> Phelps case? I know that Phelps was sued, but his defense was a 1st
> amendment defense, and the judge and jury decided that it didn't apply
> in those particular circumstances. Why do you think they were wrong?
if they obeyed the same restrictions that abortion thugs have to
obey...or nazis have to obey...then the 'emotional distress' argument
is not valid.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1194569313.0...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 8, 5:58 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>> the law?! Right........
>>
>> I knew that wf3h was dead meat when:
>>
>> 1 he started arguing with a lawyer about the law
>
>
> happened to be married to a lawyer...
>
>>
>> 2 he started his usual dances-with-words with a lawyer
>
> ever hear of mike nifong?
Is there truly no depth to which you will not sink?
wf3h
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:48:33 -0500, wf3h wrote
>
> > On Nov 8, 5:58 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>> the law?! Right........
>
> >> I knew that wf3h was dead meat when:
>
> >> 1 he started arguing with a lawyer about the law
>
> > happened to be married to a lawyer...
>
> >> 2 he started his usual dances-with-words with a lawyer
>
> > ever hear of mike nifong?
>
> Is there truly no depth to which you will not sink?
>
res ipsa loquitur.
chris thompson
> On Nov 7, 7:19 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 5:20 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Nice. Can you assert anything else? Please make sure it's as baseless
> > > > as this. It is not irrelevant because the law defines it and the court
> > > > upheld it. No offense, please, but pull your head out of that nether
> > > > orifice.
>
> > > well it seems i'm in the same place as thomas jefferson and james
> > > madison. not bad company. you're the one who's chosen to ignore case
> > > law.
>
> > Um, ISTM you're the one ignoring both the state law- whose
> > constitutionality has not been challenged- and the ruling of the state
> > court. You're apparently confused- your company up there is James
> > Jefferson and Thomas Madison.
>
> state law, believe it or not, does not trump the bill of rights. south
> carolina still has on its books laws prohibiting atheists from holding
> public office
>
> you wanna try and enforce 'em?
So, let's see the nature of your argument here. You're saying decision
in state courts are...what? irrelevant? pointless?
unenforceable?...and your reason for saying this about a law whose
constitutionality was not questioned in the current case, and if it
has ever been challenged it has withstood it...is because some _other_
states have completely unrelated archaic laws on the books that
everyone ignores. I think that about sums up your position. I'm just
a little surprised that anyone not a creationist would have the
chutzpah to do it, I guess.
>
>
>
> > > > Do you think they might, just might, have found reason enough in
> > > > established law to do so? Do you think the state courts are SO
> > > > IGNORANT of SC rulings that they just decide whatever they want? Do
> > > > you think that the state courts ignore SC precedent?
>
> > > DUH! yes, that's exactly what i think. state courts often don't have a
> > > clue about constitutional issues.
>
> > Then you're clueless. The vast majority of state court decisions that
> > are appealed are affirmed or sent back without being heard by any
> > appeals court. Remember that phrase you tried to throw in my face a
> > little bit ago- stare decisis? It applies just as much to appeals as
> > it does in the rest of the judicial system.
>
> see the point about south carolina above. or the antimiscegenation
> laws that are still on the books in some states. or check the
> mississipi sovereignty commission. THAT'LL scare you if you believe in
> 'states rights'.
I do believe in states' rights. If you don't, you're totally
disconnected from reality. States don't have the right to institute
slavery or segregation or a host of other things, but the constitution
grants rights (powers, really) to the states.
But your mention of the above laws is a red herring. They have nothing
to do with the statute under discussion. That constitutionality of
that statute was never questioned or challenged.
>
>
>
> > > > > > Doctors are licensed by the individual states. And, as Josh Hayes
> > > > > > pointed out, those websites have had their activities curtailed.
>
> > > > > irrelevant. the westboro baptist church didn't do this.
>
> > > > Then why did you bring it up?
>
> > > there you go again. i didn't bring it up.
>
> > Again? Ah, much the same way you never brought up "feelings". I got
> > it.
>
> uh huh. seems you think 'emotional distess' has zip to do with
> feelings.
>
> not big on language arts, are you?
*****
Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Man wins case against funeral protesters (ie Phelps)
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:37:34 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 125
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1194111454....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
*****'
The above post contains the following:
"are you saying the first amendment is rendered void if someone's
feelings are hurt? that's the very raison d'etre FOR the 1st!"
Note time and date stamp.
*****
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Man wins case against funeral protesters (ie Phelps)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:14:49 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 99
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1194257689....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
*****
That second post contains the following:
"i never mentioned 'feelings'....others did."
Note time and date stamp.
I don't think you want to bring up "language arts", to be honest.
Chris