RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeSo the westboro whackjobs are getting their day in court today.
Fred and his band of icksters behave in a manner I find totally repellent but I think the alternative to be even more horrible.
Your thoughts?
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat
Snyder v Phelps
[24 posts] [15 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM
For this and the other thread;
Can someone please explain to me why anyone cares what someone does in their own bedroom?
This has totally baffled me throughout my life. It makes more sense to harrass people about their eye color. At least people flaunt their eye color in public.
(Damn green eyed people, always walking around with their green eyes out, just being so 'in your face' with those green eyes....)Posted 1 year ago # -
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
-
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM
My question is this - if he were standing on a corner, protesting that allowing women in the military were causing casualties, would that be acceptable? Or protesting something racially charged? It's curious to me, where that legal line is.
If that were his agenda, I think folks would have written him off as fully crazy a long time ago, and he wouldn't get the media coverage he gets because he's protesting gays - an issue that America, sadly, isn't fully comfortable with yet.
I agree about the 1st Amendment issue... as much as I hate him and his ilk, he has the right to protest.
Posted 1 year ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
The issue that concerns me is SCOTUS limiting Phelps' 1st amendment rights. I find that it's gotten this far to be a bit scary.I agree. Sometimes we just have to face up that legal tolerance of distasteful speech is a price we pay.
A.Unfortunately, this is the real issue. The point of having legal tolerance of hateful speech is to make it absolutely certain that other forms of speech are in-bounds. In other words, it's a conscious policy of overprotecting speech because the alternative is to have widespread uncertainty about whether one's speech is protected, which has a broad and detrimental chilling effect on the exchange of ideas.
Of course, a legal right to speak freely doesn't mean a legal right to have people pay attention to you. I'd actually forgotten about Phelps and his ilk until this thread brought back the memory, and I plan to go right back to forgetting those whackjobs as soon as neurologically possible.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM
-
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Cookie wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
The issue that concerns me is SCOTUS limiting Phelps' 1st amendment rights. I find that it's gotten this far to be a bit scary.Can't he be legally allowed to exercise his free speech but be still civilly liable for harassing people at a funeral?
No, by definition. Legal liability for speech is an abridgement of free speech, whether civil or criminal. As to the thought that maybe it was conduct and not the speech itself, ask this--if it weren't for the content of his message, would his presence at a funeral be harassment?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
As to the thought that maybe it was conduct and not the speech itself, ask this--if it weren't for the content of his message, would his presence at a funeral be harassment?Well that's pretty much the difference between attending a funeral and harassing people at a funeral, isn't it?
Posted 1 year ago # -
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM
Cookie wrote >>
gramarye wrote >>
As to the thought that maybe it was conduct and not the speech itself, ask this--if it weren't for the content of his message, would his presence at a funeral be harassment?Well that's pretty much the difference between attending a funeral and harassing people at a funeral, isn't it?
I suppose someone could sue Phelps for emotional distress or something, but I don't see that getting very far as it would set a pretty fucked up precedent. I would hate like hell for SCOTUS to carve out some sort of exception for military funerals.
Posted 1 year ago # -
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
Twixlen wrote >>
My question is this - if he were standing on a corner, protesting that allowing women in the military were causing casualties, would that be acceptable? Or protesting something racially charged? It's curious to me, where that legal line is.
If that were his agenda, I think folks would have written him off as fully crazy a long time ago, and he wouldn't get the media coverage he gets because he's protesting gays - an issue that America, sadly, isn't fully comfortable with yet.
I agree about the 1st Amendment issue... as much as I hate him and his ilk, he has the right to protest.I might just have more faith in people, but I'm pretty sure he's long been written off as fully crazy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
Andrew Hall wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
The issue that concerns me is SCOTUS limiting Phelps' 1st amendment rights. I find that it's gotten this far to be a bit scary.I agree. Sometimes we just have to face up that legal tolerance of distasteful speech is a price we pay.
A.Unfortunately, this is the real issue. The point of having legal tolerance of hateful speech is to make it absolutely certain that other forms of speech are in-bounds. In other words, it's a conscious policy of overprotecting speech because the alternative is to have widespread uncertainty about whether one's speech is protected, which has a broad and detrimental chilling effect on the exchange of ideas.
Of course, a legal right to speak freely doesn't mean a legal right to have people pay attention to you. I'd actually forgotten about Phelps and his ilk until this thread brought back the memory, and I plan to go right back to forgetting those whackjobs as soon as neurologically possible.I agree. Also, from SCOTUSblog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snyder-v-phelps/
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter; (2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and (3) whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience†who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
An "emotional distress" exception to free speech would do far more harm than good.
Posted 1 year ago # -
MichaelC
Short North
Login to Send PM
There is already an "emotional distress" exception to free speech. The question is whether the current case fits within that legal mold.
Free speech rights have not been absolute in the United States for a very long time.
It will be very interesting to see how the Court handles this particular case, seeing as how the father of the fallen soldier did not become aware of the speech he's seeking to quell until hours after the speech was spoken. Or rather, Snyder didn't learn of the protestors' presence until he got home from the funeral. That makes Snyder's case all the more difficult to prove.
Posted 1 year ago # -
hugh59
Aboard the ultimate power in Olde Towne East
Login to Send PM
Cookie wrote >>
berdawn wrote >>
The issue that concerns me is SCOTUS limiting Phelps' 1st amendment rights. I find that it's gotten this far to be a bit scary.Can't he be legally allowed to exercise his free speech but be still civilly liable for harassing people at a funeral?
I agree with you Cookie. There should be a potential for civil liability. It could be based on intentional (or negligent) infliction of emotional distress. I tend to be a hard liner on freedom of speech, but there are extreme situtations where we need to make some allowances for common sense. At some point. the purpose of the law is to keep us from taking the law into our own hands. If some fool wants to stage an horrendously offensive protest on the other side of town, away from a funeral, that is his or her right. If that fool wants to do it close to the funeral, they should run the risk of being liable.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, but any limitations should be very narrow. I have read a lot of debate by attorneys about whether the Phelps protests should be grounds for civil liability; there is a good faith dispute over this issue. We don't want a situtation where controversial speech can be easily censored. Limitations on free speech should be content neutral. The best antidote for bad speech is more speech. But, it can be reasonable to put time/space/area requirements on speech.
The government can require you to get a permit to hold a rally. The government can prohibit rallies in certain areas at certain times (say, in residential neighborhoods after 7pm). There are a lot of elements that the courts can look to in determining whether a restriction is reasonable or not.
One thing to keep in mind about this case (if I am remembering the facts correctly) is that the Phelps protests took place over 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral and the family members did not realize that the protests had taken place until they saw a news story about them later in the day. That might be reason enough for the courts to say that there can be no liability under the theories I mentioned above.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM
hugh59 wrote
One thing to keep in mind about this case (if I am remembering the facts correctly) is that the Phelps protests took place over 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral and the family members did not realize that the protests had taken place until they saw a news story about them later in the day. That might be reason enough for the courts to say that there can be no liability under the theories I mentioned above.
The story that was on Morning Edition this morning mentioned some good facts --- the processional was rerouted to avoid potential conflict, as they were aware of the protest. They were apparently 30 feet (basically across the street) from the entrance to the church where the service was held, and were in the location provided for them by local law enforcement and someone from the P.D. was present during the entire thing.
It was something in the media that caused father to go to Phelps website, where Phelps was apparently saying some things about their particular funeral that the father felt had crossed the line; hence the liability lawsuit.
Morning Edition link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130357711
Also - I find it interesting that Phelps managed to raise children as totally fuckwitted as himself.
Posted 1 year ago # -
columbusfoodie
West Side
Login to Send PM
Without getting into the legal or philosophical arguments (I happen to agree completely with you all on all points), growing up in New Jersey we knew damn well we had the right to say anything we wanted, but that sometimes there were consequences to it. In NJ, pulling that kind of stunt at a funeral would have earned Phelps and his ilk a good old fashioned ass kicking, charges for assault and battery be damned.
There's something to be said for vigilantism. Not knowing if the person you're targeting is as much of a nutcase as you is a rather powerful deterrent.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cobra McJingleballs
Login to Send PM
alexs wrote >>
I don't understand how he ever dreamed up any connection between homosexuality and war casualties. That idea doesn't seem to be catching fire though, I don't hear much about anyone else taking up this cause.their thinking in this is that "these soldiers are americans, america loves fags, god hates fags, so god hates america." ii have yet to find a group of people or even a single person that they dont believe will burn in hell. except for themselves of course.
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.