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

[Cane]

(CNN) -- The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face."

"By the court making this decision, they're not only telling me that they're taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families," said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006.

Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths.

Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration.

"Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement," said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals.

"They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they're going to finance it," she said.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents.

In a motion filed in October, Snyder's lawyer, who is representing him for free, asked the court to dismiss the bill of costs, or, alternatively, reduce the 50-cent fee per page or charge Snyder only for copies that were necessary to make their arguments on appeal.

"We objected based upon ability to pay and the fairness of the situation," Sean Summers said.

The mostly pro-forma ruling is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga that pits privacy rights of grieving families against the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message.
Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to address issues of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services" as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased.
The justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.
Both Phelps and Snyder's attorney said they were surprised that the 4th District chose to weigh in on the issue of legal costs when they could have waited until after the Supreme Court hearing.

Phelps believes the ruling bodes well for her side.

"It is a good harbinger of the fact that the Supreme Court will remind this nation that you don't have mob rule. The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That's supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have," she said.

Phelps anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling in the church's favor would be unpopular, but she said Westboro's members viewed the potential outcome in Biblical terms.

"When the Supreme Court unanimously upholds the 4th Circuit, it's going to put this country in a rage, and we will be expelled," she said. "But whenever it was time for an epic event in the Bible, the thing that happened right before is the prophets were removed from the land, and that's what's going to happen to us. ... We're going to sprint to the end of this race."

Snyder claims he is unable to pay any legal costs in the case and is attempting to raise funds on his son's site, http://www.matthewsnyder.org/ (http://www.matthewsnyder.org/). He is equally optimistic that he will prevail before the Supreme Court.

"The American people keep my spirits lifted a lot and give me hope. I think most of the country is on my side on this issue," he said. "Too many people have died to protect our rights and freedoms to have them degraded and spit upon like this church does."

CNN's Bill Mears contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/westboro.baptist.snyder/index.html?hpt=Sbin


Being a military guy myself it makes me want to rage that such tasteless protests happens at a deceased person's funeral. To exploit these opportunities in order to parade your hatred against homosexuals is about as selfish and un-Christian as it gets too. The protestors also point to how this country is based around free speech which is ironic since service men and women are the ones putting their lives on the line...goes back to that saying: "I may not agree with what you say but I'll die defending the right to say it."

I am pretty ignorant but I thought this kind of stuff was already outlawed but apparently not or maybe not under these circumstances. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule here? I think it should definitely favor Snyder's family.

[EVAY]

I agree with your rage.

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

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

[whottt]

There's gotta be some kind of civil suit based intimidation, cruelty or harrassment.

They aren't going to stop the war by protesting a man giving a funeral for his son.

[Winehole23]

How do you think the Supreme Court should rule here? I think it should definitely favor Snyder's family.Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

[Cane]

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

I mostly agree with that however there are still boundaries and lines that shouldn't be crossed without consequence.

Did a search on this subject and came up with some stuff on Wiki :


The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ228/content-detail.html), 120 Stat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 387, enacted May 29, 2006) is an Act of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress) that prohibits protests within 300 feet (90 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Cemetery) (a division of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs)) from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral). Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_America%27s_Fallen_Heroes_Act



A handful of states passed similar legislation prior to the above. Looking back on the original article, its no wonder too since that disgusting group of "Christians" have been doing this for quite some time and over 150 funerals.

[Drachen]

I mostly agree with that however there are still boundaries and lines that shouldn't be crossed without consequence.

Did a search on this subject and came up with some stuff on Wiki :



A handful of states passed similar legislation prior to the above. Looking back on the original article, its no wonder too since that disgusting group of "Christians" have been doing this for quite some time and over 150 funerals.

No, you misunderstood, that lady had been to 150 funerals, but they have been doing this since the 70's I believe. Their stance is basically that everyone is going to hell and they are trying to spread their message that you need to hate everyone to get into heaven. Do some research on them, it is appalling. There was a good article in the E-N a few months back because they came to san antonio to protest something (I don't know, maybe it was to protest the sun for being lazy when it sets, its going to hell). It gave a pretty good history of the church, and Fred Phelps himself (he was a freakin civil rights lawyer helping black people pro bono for crying out loud. strange mix there). It also talked about this biker gang that rides around following them from protest to protest launching counter-protests and essentially shouting them down and revving their bikes really loud so the Westboro church members cant be heard.

[EVAY]

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

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


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

[Cane]

No, you misunderstood, that lady had been to 150 funerals, but they have been doing this since the 70's I believe. Their stance is basically that everyone is going to hell and they are trying to spread their message that you need to hate everyone to get into heaven. Do some research on them, it is appalling. There was a good article in the E-N a few months back because they came to san antonio to protest something (I don't know, maybe it was to protest the sun for being lazy when it sets, its going to hell). It gave a pretty good history of the church, and Fred Phelps himself (he was a freakin civil rights lawyer helping black people pro bono for crying out loud. strange mix there). It also talked about this biker gang that rides around following them from protest to protest launching counter-protests and essentially shouting them down and revving their bikes really loud so the Westboro church members cant be heard.

God damn how is that shit legal. Good for the counter-protestors fucking their bullshit up. Thanks for this I'm pretty ignorant in this area of life.

[Winehole23]

Good for the counter-protestors fucking their bullshit up.Like you said upstream, there are consequences for crossing lines.

[coyotes_geek]

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

Yep.

[baseline bum]

I hope the fees are collected as pennies, and then dumped on these fucker's front lawn. Phelps has the constitutional right be a jackass, and Snyder has the right to pay him in any type of legal tender.

[1369]

While I feel that the WBC should all eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire, this is the price we pay for the 1st Amendment.

In other news Bill O'Reilly says he will pay the father's judgement costs. (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/oreilly-marine-funeral-protesters/2010/03/30/id/354287)

Like O'Reilly or not (I don't always agree with what he says), he did right by that family.

[Drachen]

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


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


Well, I think that they would be selecting funerals where this law doesn't apply. The cemetaries have to be part of that organization which is controlled by the VA. If they aren't being buried in a military cemetary, they have free reign. This church is disgusting they have the children in the church go and protest other churches in the town every week, also shops, and just on corners EVERY WEEK. With signs and slogans like "you are going to hell" and "God hates fags". This is one of their more recognizable slogans and is usually included in stock footage that news channels and documentaries use when talking about hatred or gay people, etc. You have probably actually seen the clip of this lady holding that sign.

[Wild Cobra]

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.
Except that interrupting others free speech, assemblies, etc. violates the meaning of free speech. Why do their free speech rights trump others? That is why "Free Speech Zones" are legally OK. When you attempt to overpower someone elses freedoms, you are now violating others rights.

[ElNono]

How do you think the Supreme Court should rule here? I think it should definitely favor Snyder's family.

If no law was broken, then they should rule not guilty.

[boutons_deux]

Good for Billo. He's still an asshole bully.

[Drachen]

While I feel that the WBC should all eat a bag of dicks and die in a fire, this is the price we pay for the 1st Amendment.

In other news Bill O'Reilly says he will pay the father's judgement costs. (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/oreilly-marine-funeral-protesters/2010/03/30/id/354287)

Like O'Reilly or not (I don't always agree with what he says), he did right by that family.


Well, I don't like O'Reilly, and I really disagree with him 99.8% of the time, BUT that is all, I disagree and sometimes question his mental capacities because of the conclusions that he comes to. At least his conclusions seem relatively well thought out (albeit wrong in my opinion) I don't however think that he is an intentional hate-monger and I respect him for that (I would put Rush in that category). Every once in a while, he says or does something that I agree with and when these events happen, it is usually a big agreement. This is one of those cases. I may even write him a letter thanking him for doing this.

I know I haven't weighed in on the upcoming case, because I keep forgetting to, but I think that WBC will and should win their case provided that the above-referenced law was not violated. It sucks really really really bad, but I can't justify repealing the 1st amendment because of 155 douchebags.

[ElNono]

Except that interrupting others free speech, assemblies, etc. violates the meaning of free speech. Why do their free speech rights trump others? That is why "Free Speech Zones" are legally OK. When you attempt to overpower someone elses freedoms, you are now violating others rights.

I don't like those protesters any more than you do, but how exactly were them interrupting the free speech of others?

[DarrinS]

Terrible story.


Didn't the Patriot Guard biker group put the beat down on some of those douchebags?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't like those protesters any more than you do, but how exactly were them interrupting the free speech of others?
You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?

[Wild Cobra]

Terrible story.


Didn't the Patriot Guard biker group put the beat down on some of those douchebags?
They cannot be everywhere.

[Drachen]

Terrible story.


Didn't the Patriot Guard biker group put the beat down on some of those douchebags?

That is the name of the biker gang! I couldn't remember. They probably didn't show up to this particular protest out of respect for the dead. They probably figured that they would be only adding to the problem if they were revving their bikes during the service.

[ElNono]

You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

Sure. But the protestors didn't prevent them from having their funeral, did they?

I mean, except for the message, they're no different than people that might show up in support of the family and to honor the deceased.

Perhaps it's time to extend the law that was quoted earlier to include all cemeteries. Until then, I don't know there's much you can do if they abide by all rules and regulations.

[Drachen]

You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?

As long as they got their permits and didn't set foot onto the private land. Yes. Otherwise you can make a case that no protests are protected. Think about it, as the protest goes down the street, they are interrupting people trying to work in the buildings which are on that street.

[baseline bum]

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?



"The protest was confined to a public area..."

[coyotes_geek]

You don't consider a funeral with statements made, a form of speech, or the quiet nature people practice at such events?

Come on now. You cant really be missing the point here. Such things are also considered private events, and most cemeteries are not government owned. There is now the right of removing trespassers as well.

Really now. You consider interrupting a private event, free speech?

Wouldn't the counter arguement be that why should someone have keep quiet just because someone else is having a private event nearby?

I'm not sure if there's a point to be made about whether a cemetary could keep protesters out of the cemetary under the premise that the family rented the place and therefore has control over who get in. But I can't see the "interruption" point going anywhere.

[Winehole23]

Except that interrupting others free speech, assemblies, etc. violates the meaning of free speech. Disagree. There's no "one at a time" stipulation, or any rule of priority in the Constitution. People are free to talk over one another if they wish.


Why do their free speech rights trump others? That is why "Free Speech Zones" are legally OK.Disagree strongly. Free speech zones suck. The whole damn country should be a free speech zone IMO.


When you attempt to overpower someone elses freedoms, you are now violating others rights.How has someone's freedom been overpowered here? Did WBC prevent the memorial from taking place?

[1369]

That is the name of the biker gang! I couldn't remember. They probably didn't show up to this particular protest out of respect for the dead. They probably figured that they would be only adding to the problem if they were revving their bikes during the service.

The Patriot Guard Riders were present at Snyder's funeral (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-te.md.marine11mar11,0,1707581.story)

And I don't believe that they "rev their engines" to disrupt protesters, but rather try to act as a physical shield between the families and the protesters.

[DarrinS]

Somebody should get all the homos from San Fran, Austin, and Key West and have a giant flamer parade whereever this weird Baptist group is located.

[Drachen]

The Patriot Guard Riders were present at Snyder's funeral (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-te.md.marine11mar11,0,1707581.story)

And I don't believe that they "rev their engines" to disrupt protesters, but rather try to act as a physical shield between the families and the protesters.


I got the "revving engines" thing out of that article that I referenced. Apparently they didn't do it here.

[whottt]

Freedom of speech isn't free if it excludes speech that is hateful or objectionable, and justice that tailors its judgments to the most popular outcome isn't worth the name. JMO.

You're going to hell, thank god for dead soldiers isn't hate speech and or objectionable? If they are saying it's good these soldiers are dead because there are gays in America, that has got to some kind of hate speech.

[whottt]

Anyway, nice to see someone we can all hate for a change :tu

[Drachen]

Anyway, nice to see someone we can all hate for a change :tu

LOL. Yes I agree.

[Winehole23]

You're going to hell, thank god for dead soldiers isn't hate speech and or objectionable? If they are saying it's good these soldiers are dead because there are gays in America, that has got to some kind of hate speech.Hate speech criminalizes expression. Is freedom of speech is too radical for you, whottt?

[whottt]

Hate speech criminalizes expression. Is freedom of speech is too radical for you, whottt?


Um yeah thank god for dead soldiers to a man burying his son, at the funeral, is too radical for me.

[whottt]

How has someone's freedom been overpowered here? Did WBC prevent the memorial from taking place?

Yes. They disrupted and psychologically tormented the people at the funeral.

[Winehole23]

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

[whottt]

There's gotta be some kind of civil suit based intimidation, cruelty or harrassment.

[Winehole23]

A minute ago you were for Euro-style hate speech prosecution.

[Winehole23]

Did you change your mind about that?

[DarrinS]

It would all be different had the dead Marine's father been a diminutive, black Harvard professor.

[Blake]

A minute ago you were for Euro-style hate speech prosecution.

:lol that's whottt's m.o.

[Blake]

It would all be different had the dead Marine's father been a diminutive, black Harvard professor.

link?

[whottt]

A minute ago you were for Euro-style hate speech prosecution.

Well the basis for their protest is anti-gay sentiment. One would think that by celebrating the deaths of soldiers simply because gays live here, they are encouraging people to persecute them.

I mean you tell me...how is this man supposed to get them to stop protesting so he can bury his son in peace?



Did you change your mind about that?

I am vast, I contain multitudes. I support many things against these guys. And if the law won't provide it, hopefully lawlessness will....because the law is clearly failing in it's purpose here.

[Winehole23]

Walt Whitman, vigilante?

[whottt]

:lol that's whottt's m.o.

www.spursreport.com

[Blake]

www.spursreport.com

:lol this is also whottt's m.o. after he fails.

[whottt]

:lol www.spursreport.com

[coyotes_geek]

Disagree. There's no "one at a time" stipulation, or any rule of priority in the Constitution. People are free to talk over one another if they wish.

Disagree strongly. Free speech zones suck. The whole damn country should be a free speech zone IMO.

Yes, but don't we have to acknowledge that "freedom to speak" does not unequivocably mean "freedom to speak wherever and whenever I want"? For exmaple, I certainly support your right to say whatever you want, but if you decide you want to exercise your right on my private property I don't view it as an infringement on your freedom of speech if I decide I want to have you removed from my property. In that sense I think you have to admit that WC does kinda have a point.

[Blake]

:lol www.spursreport.com

:lol:lol

[coyotes_geek]

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

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

[Blake]

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

In this particular case:


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

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

[whottt]

Walt Whitman, vigilante?

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

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

[Winehole23]

For exmaple, I certainly support your right to say whatever you want, but if you decide you want to exercise your right on my private property I don't view it as an infringement on your freedom of speech if I decide I want to have you removed from my property. In that sense I think you have to admit that WC does kinda have a point.In the abstract, yes; but this appears not to be the case here. WBC holds their rallies in public areas.

[Winehole23]

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

And yes, take a special kind for whatever the hell these guys are.Encouraging vigilantes to mete out violence to WCB isn't too different from what you claim WCB is doing: inciting against gays.

[whottt]

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

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

[coyotes_geek]

In this particular case:



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


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

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

[Winehole23]

Sure, I don't see why not.

[Winehole23]

Except they are encouraging christians to do it, in a majority christian country.How is that different?

[Blake]

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


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

[whottt]

Vigilantes are a minority, and so are gays.

[Blake]

Vigilantes are a minority, and so are gays.

so are picketers at marine funerals.

[Drachen]

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

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

[boutons_deux]

"majority christian country"

bullshit spin

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

[TeyshaBlue]

"majority christian country"

bullshit spin

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

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

fify

[EVAY]

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

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

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

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

[spursncowboys]

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

[EVAY]

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

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

[spursncowboys]

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

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

[Blake]

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?


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

[EVAY]

Is there such thing as a public cemetery?

Beats me. Isn't there?

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

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

[Drachen]

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

[Blake]

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

I was starting to think I was on ignore

[Stringer_Bell]

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

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

yVb0ifzw4d4

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

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

[Winehole23]

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

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

[LnGrrrR]

I agree with your rage.

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

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

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

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

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe.

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

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

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

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

[Winehole23]

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

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

[Winehole23]

The 1st Amendment was not created so this dirt bag can go and attack private citizens like this.The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.

[Winehole23]

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

[TeyshaBlue]

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

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

[EVAY]

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

Sorry, Drachen,

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

[EVAY]

I was starting to think I was on ignore

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

[Drachen]

Now that is funny. Apology accepted.

[Wild Cobra]

The First Amendment was created for all of us, virtuous or dirt bag, makes no difference. If free speech is limited to only those who are pure of mind, pure of heart (i.e., people we already agree with), it isn't free at all.
It's not a matter of pure mind, or disagree with their message. It's a matter of interfering with other peoples events. That is just wrong, no matter how you see it.

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

[clambake]

were there any disturbances at town hall meetings?

[ElNono]

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

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

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

[ElNono]

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

How about it? :lol

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


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

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

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

[elbamba]

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


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

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

[coyotes_geek]

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

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

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

[elbamba]

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

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

[LnGrrrR]

WC,

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

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

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

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

[elbamba]

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

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

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

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

[TeyshaBlue]

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

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

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

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

The implied 'infringement' is dicey at best.

[coyotes_geek]

ElNono...

Are you purposely missing my point?

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

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

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

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

[ElNono]

ElNono...
Are you purposely missing my point?


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


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

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


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

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

You really that daft?

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

[Winehole23]

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

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

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


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Note the introductory clause, WC. "Congress shall make no law..."

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

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

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

[Blake]

My God.

You really that daft?

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

How much noise did they make?

Who exactly did they slander?

[LnGrrrR]

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

""Solemn events" aren't protected by the Constitution though.

[TeyshaBlue]

My God.

You really that daft?

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

Didn't keep them from assembling, did it?

[coyotes_geek]

My God.

You really that daft?

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

One person's right to assemble does not equate to another person's obligation to preserve the mood.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't keep them from assembling, did it?
It's rather hard to move a funeral when someone unwanted arrives. The protesters do not need to protest at someone elses peaceful assembly. They can protest elsewhere. The fact the target funerals shows intent to violate the rights of others.

[Winehole23]

If the First Amendment creates a state obligation to preserve the mood at solemn gatherings, surely there is case law supporting your reading. Mind posting it, WC?

[LnGrrrR]

It's rather hard to move a funeral when someone unwanted arrives. The protesters do not need to protest at someone elses peaceful assembly. They can protest elsewhere. The fact the target funerals shows intent to violate the rights of others.

People hold a right to freedom of speech; they do not have a right to freedom FROM speech, though.

Using your reading of the First Amendment, nearly all protests would be unsuccessful, as the protest would have to be held far away from whatever they were protesting.

Do you think that Republicans/Democrats shouldn't be allowed to protest at Democratic/Republican conventions?

[TeyshaBlue]

It's rather hard to move a funeral when someone unwanted arrives. The protesters do not need to protest at someone elses peaceful assembly. They can protest elsewhere. The fact the target funerals shows intent to violate the rights of others.

They didn't have to move the funeral because they were not prevented from having it. The notion that someone could capriciously state "They do not need to protest...." is almost polar opposite of the intent of the first amendment.

[DarrinS]

At some point, a person's right to free speech is overridden by the rights of others.


You can't go into a movie theater and shout "Fire!".


You can't walk down the street shouting obsenities. Well, you can, but there are consequences.

[Winehole23]

WC apparently wants the authorities to shut down WBC rallies, because he doesn't like them. Toward that end, any contortion of the law will do.

[TeyshaBlue]

At some point, a person's right to free speech is overridden by the rights of others.


You can't go into a movie theater and shout "Fire!".


You can't walk down the street shouting obsenities. Well, you can, but there are consequences.

Sorry. Apples and Oranges.

Shouting "Fire" is not an application of free speech in this instance. First, the venue is not public. It's private with rules and regulations regarding behavior.
Nobody is arguing that there's freedom from consequences. Consequences are what they are.

[EmptyMan]

These funeral protesters make me rage as well.

[DarrinS]

Sorry. Apples and Oranges.

Shouting "Fire" is not an application of free speech in this instance. First, the venue is not public. It's private with rules and regulations regarding behavior.
Nobody is arguing that there's freedom from consequences. Consequences are what they are.


Well, you can't tell bomb jokes at the airport, can you?


Again, you can, but you will probably be arrested.

[clambake]

"you can't shout "fire" at an airport."

"you can't shout "bomb" at a theater."

forgot the blue text.

[TeyshaBlue]

"you can't shout "fire" at an airport."

"you can't shout "bomb" at a theater."

forgot the blue text.

Ok, baker of clams. 'spain the blue text thing to me. I ain't picked up on it yet.:depressed

[DarrinS]

An interesting document about exceptions to the first amendment.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/95-815.pdf






Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may
be subject to regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. In the case in which this language appears, the Supreme Court allowed a city ordinance that banned picketing before or about any residence to be enforced to prevent picketing outside the residence of a doctor who performed abortions, even though the picketing occurred on a public street. The Court noted that "the First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience
cannot avoid the objectionable speech."

[Winehole23]

Well, you can't tell bomb jokes at the airport, can you?


Again, you can, but you will probably be arrested.Can you relate this to the OP, or does the observation stand all by itself?

[clambake]

Ok, baker of clams. 'spain the blue text thing to me. I ain't picked up on it yet.:depressed

blue noted for sarcasm.

[LnGrrrR]

The Court noted that "the First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech."


I think this was the basis behind the law which forbids protesting within an hour of military funerals.

[Winehole23]

I did not know that, LNGR.

[DarrinS]

I think this was the basis behind the law which forbids protesting within an hour of military funerals.



It seems like it should apply to funerals in general. The people at the funeral are more or less 'captive' and can't really avoid the hate speech of those 'tards.

[Winehole23]

In other words, you want Congress to make a law abridging the freedom of speech.

[whottt]

The hilarious part is that WC and SNC want the homophobic christians punished and it's the libs that are defending them(or their rights anyway).

Instant classic thread.

I'm with SnC and WC on this by the way.


I imagine it would be similar if they'd blown up a building. Torture their terrorist asses.

[clambake]

nobody is defending their actions, whottt.

[LnGrrrR]

I did not know that, LNGR.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_America's_Fallen_Heroes_Act

Ha! Instead of the captive audience, they classified the protests as "fighting words"... interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words



The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_constitutional_law), is a limitation to freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) as protected by the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution). In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire) (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) established the doctrine and held that "insulting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult) or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace)" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."


Here's what's interesting though: the court has narrowed down the scope of the law.



The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_v._New_York) (1969)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#cite_note-1), the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration) and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". Similarly, in Cohen v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California) (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War)" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gooding_v._Wilson&action=edit&redlink=1) (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_v._New_Orleans&action=edit&redlink=1) (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbreadth_doctrine).



In Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) (1969), the Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government, holding that government cannot constitutionally prohibit advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

So Brandenburg v Ohio says that they can't prevent a KKK member from advocating force, except when it is likely to incite violence.

Does this mean that the court is assuming that the funeral protestors are likely to incite violence, as well as saying that their religious beliefs are "personally abusive epithets" to the soldiers?

I'm not sure how that would hold up in court. As Barney Frank pointed out, "I think it’s very likely to be found unconstitutional. It’s true that when you defend civil liberties you are typically defending people who do obnoxious things... You play into their hand when you let them provoke you into overdoing it. I don’t want these thugs to claim America is hypocritical.”[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_America's_Fallen_Heroes_Act#cite_note-1)

[LnGrrrR]

The hilarious part is that WC and SNC want the homophobic christians punished and it's the libs that are defending them(or their rights anyway).

Instant classic thread.


What's hilarious is not understanding the difference between defending someone's actions and defending someone's rights.

[Wild Cobra]

The hilarious part is that WC and SNC want the homophobic christians punished and it's the libs that are defending them(or their rights anyway).

Instant classic thread.

I'm with SnC and WC on this by the way.


I imagine it would be similar if they'd blown up a building. Torture their terrorist asses.
There isn't possible anything Christian about this hate-mongering group. I think they only call themselves a 'church' to get added constitutional protections.

[Drachen]

What's hilarious is not understanding the difference between defending someone's actions and defending someone's rights.

... and honestly, we aren't defending their rights because we want their rights defended. We are defending their rights because we live in a country where the "rule of law" is enforced and so anything infringing on THEIR rights simultaneously infringes on OUR rights (yours too WC, et al.). I am, therefore, quite selfishly defending MY right to free speech, despite how reprehensible I find their actions to be.

[Wild Cobra]

If the First Amendment creates a state obligation to preserve the mood at solemn gatherings, surely there is case law supporting your reading. Mind posting it, WC?
Darrin beat me to it:
The Court noted that "the First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech."

[Drachen]

Darrin beat me to it:

There is a difference between going to a funeral and living at your home which is why this protects Dr's who perform abortions from being picketed at home, and doesn't protect funeral-goers from picketing near to where their loved-one's funeral is being held.

They could avoid it. They can pay their respects on a different day, etc. Yes, Yes, I know this all sucks, but once again, popular and accepted speech would not require its own amendment to the constitution, it is there to protect unpopular speech.

[whottt]

What's hilarious is not understanding the difference between defending someone's actions and defending someone's rights.

What's hilarious is not seeing the part, "or their rights anyway" even thought it's in the quote.

[Winehole23]

Interfering with an individual's enjoyment of their own residence isn't really comparable to picketing a funeral IMO.

[Winehole23]

Oops. :lol

Drachen beat me to it.

[Blake]

I imagine it would be similar if they'd blown up a building. Torture their terrorist asses.

of course you would

[Blake]

There isn't possible anything Christian about this hate-mongering group. I think they only call themselves a 'church' to get added constitutional protections.

I think so too

[DarrinS]

Interfering with an individual's enjoyment of their own residence isn't really comparable to picketing a funeral IMO.


Could it not be considered interfering with another's freedom of religion? Isn't a funeral a religous ceremony?

[whottt]

of course you would

www.spursreport.com

[Blake]

Could it not be considered interfering with another's freedom of religion? Isn't a funeral a religous ceremony?

how does the picketing interfere with one's right to worship whatever religion they wish to?

[Blake]

www.spursreport.com

:lmao

[Winehole23]

Could it not be considered interfering with another's freedom of religion? Isn't a funeral a religous ceremony?Not necessarily, no; but how does picketing in a public area adjacent to a funeral "interfere with" it?

[DarrinS]

Not necessarily, no; but how does picketing in a public area adjacent to a funeral "interfere with" it?


Do you think the father of the dead Marine thought that the protesters interfered with his son's funeral? It seems pretty obvious to me.

If I talk loudly in a movie theater, do I interfere with others' enjoyment of the movie?

[Winehole23]

Bear in mind, in this case the circuit court ruled the WBC did not disrupt the church service.

[Winehole23]

Do you think the father of the dead Marine thought that the protesters interfered with his son's funeral? It seems pretty obvious to me.Parsing. As a factual matter, the opinion of the family about whether the protesters "interfered" (whatever you mean by that) is neither here nor there.


If I talk loudly in a movie theater, do I interfere with others' enjoyment of the movie?Different rules apply to private establishments.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I hate the WBC as much as anyone but there are a lot of jackasses in here who really don't have a clue what freedom of speech is all about. It really doesn't surprise me that Wild Cobra doesn't have any sort of grasp of the American contitution though, he's proved as much before.

The right to peaceably assemble refers to violent behavior, not how loud or obnoxious you're aloud to be. Its exactly the opposite to your interpretation. Its there to protect the loud and obnoxious.

[Winehole23]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rT3IB69iwM0/SSQ1EtxWPII/AAAAAAAAARg/U8Uh62CN0EQ/s400/bigstockphoto_hammer_striking_nail_w_sparks_333329 .jpg

[DarrinS]

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.

[Winehole23]

Was there loud and unreasonable noise?

Was the language so offensive as to immediately incite violence, or threaten the public order?

[Drachen]

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.

Luckily for the WBC, they were given permits by the city that allowed them a certain time and place where they could protest. I say luckily for them because it is exactly this which allows them to invoke the 1st amendment protecting their speech. Oh and in case you are wondering, the city can't refuse the permit on grounds of "these guys are douchebags."

[Blake]

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.

right. Dog barking is just noise for most of us unless you speak dog. Do you speak dog?

freedom of speech is usually seen as freedom of stating your opinion without fear of retribution.

There is most definitely a line that can be crossed when getting to close to someone else's personal space or defaming their character

Was that line crossed in this instance? The court and law enforcement officials are saying no.

[Winehole23]

In this case, the police did not seem to think WCB was disorderly or otherwise a threat to public order.

[coyotes_geek]

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions. This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words or insults likely to incite violence.

Let me guess. You think the funeral go-ers are the ones who get to be the sole arbitrars of what words are "offensive" and what noise level is "unreasonable".

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Just to be perfectly clear, I sincerely hope they find some loophole that allows the authorities to take action against these souless pieces of shit. I truly despise them.

[Winehole23]

I can sympathize, MNMNA, but just to be perfectly clear, that's exactly what you just criticized WC and DarrinS for.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I can sympathize, MNMNA, but just to be perfectly clear, that's exactly what you just criticized WC and DarrinS for.

Perhaps you're right. I guess these people are an evil we're going to have to learn to live with.

Seriously, why doesn't some nut ever choose to off THESE people...

I just wish there was something that could be done, even if I know there isn't.

[Drachen]

Perhaps you're right. I guess these people are an evil we're going to have to learn to live with.

Seriously, why doesn't some nut ever choose to off THESE people...

LOL, I know what you mean, though I can't advocate that because since we are already so dangerously close to a tipping point with right-wing fundamentalists, left-wing fundamentalist, religious fundamentalists, bricks through congressmen's windows, shooting congressmen's windows that I am afraid that even though a bad thing happening to this group seems to be something that we can all agree on, that enacting some type of major violence against them could be the thing that tips the scales and we have a full fleged Right v Left, Religious v. Secular, etc. riot on our hands.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

LOL, I know what you mean, though I can't advocate that because since we are already so dangerously close to a tipping point with right-wing fundamentalists, left-wing fundamentalist, religious fundamentalists, bricks through congressmen's windows, shooting congressmen's windows that I am afraid that even though a bad thing happening to this group seems to be something that we can all agree on, that enacting some type of major violence against them could be the thing that tips the scales and we have a full fleged Right v Left, Religious v. Secular, etc. riot on our hands.

Honestly though, this shouldn't be a right vs left thing. I would think these people are pretty much loathed by both sides. They are despicable human beings.

[Winehole23]

Thing is, WBC seeks to maximize publicity by maximizing their offensiveness. They want to be cracked down on (legally or otherwise) so they can claim status as a persecuted minority.

[Blake]

Perhaps you're right. I guess these people are an evil we're going to have to learn to live with.

Seriously, why doesn't some nut ever choose to off THESE people...

I just wish there was something that could be done, even if I know there isn't.

Ignore them.

It's amazing how indifference can make people go away.

[coyotes_geek]

It's amazing how indifference can make people go away.

I think we've seen that before.

www.spursreport.com :toast

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Ignore them.

It's amazing how indifference can make people go away.

Pretty hard to ignore them when its your dead son they are slandering is all I'm saying. I geniunely feel for this father.

[coyotes_geek]

Pretty hard to ignore them when its your dead son they are slandering is all I'm saying. I geniunely feel for this father.

We all do.

[Blake]

I think we've seen that before.

www.spursreport.com :toast

:lol

[Blake]

Pretty hard to ignore them when its your dead son they are slandering is all I'm saying. I geniunely feel for this father.

I'm not saying it's easy to ignore what they are saying during a funeral.

What I'm saying is if they were ignored at every single funeral they were to attend, they would most likely go away. What they are wanting is attention.

.....and suing them for $5 million for what they feel is mental anguish is giving them a great deal of attention......and on top of that, now that the father has to pay for their court costs, they just dropped a big fat mav fan troll:

lol funeral
lol grieving father
lol has to pay court costs
lol gay

on them.

[MiamiHeat]

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/70/fuckthis.jpg

[Blake]

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/70/fuckthis.jpg

were you ever in this thread to begin with?

[ElNono]

It seems like it should apply to funerals in general. The people at the funeral are more or less 'captive' and can't really avoid the hate speech of those 'tards.

I agree it should apply to all funerals. But it currently does not, and that was the entire point here.

[ElNono]

Do you think the father of the dead Marine thought that the protesters interfered with his son's funeral? It seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm sure he did, considering he sued them. Unfortunately for him, he was wrong.


If I talk loudly in a movie theater, do I interfere with others' enjoyment of the movie?

A movie theater is private property.

[ElNono]

Honestly though, this shouldn't be a right vs left thing. I would think these people are pretty much loathed by both sides. They are despicable human beings.

Indeed.

[ElNono]

It's rather hard to move a funeral when someone unwanted arrives. The protesters do not need to protest at someone elses peaceful assembly. They can protest elsewhere. The fact the target funerals shows intent to violate the rights of others.

They protested on an public area where protests are allowed, under the supervision of local law enforcement. I'm not sure what makes you think the protesters where not assembled peacefully themselves. Don't forget, the protester's first amendment rights are just as important as the first amendment rights of those attending the funeral.

[spursncowboys]

I agree it should apply to all funerals. But it currently does not, and that was the entire point here.

word.

[Wild Cobra]

I hate the WBC as much as anyone but there are a lot of jackasses in here who really don't have a clue what freedom of speech is all about. Freedom does not mean anarchy.
It really doesn't surprise me that Wild Cobra doesn't have any sort of grasp of the American contitution though, he's proved as much before.
You have not proved me wrong. What if you are wrong?

The right to peaceably assemble refers to violent behavior, not how loud or obnoxious you're aloud to be. Its exactly the opposite to your interpretation. Its there to protect the loud and obnoxious.

Can you back that up?

What if people decided to protest at 4 AM? Waking everyone up?

You can call "peace" what you want, but that is not the only meaning it has in the 18th century.

1) People have the right to peaceable assemble.

2) Some places have enacted laws to protect their funeral. I believe they were in one of those states.

3) In the case where two constitutional rights are in conflict, seems to me the enacted law now becomes the deciding factor. It cannot trump the constitution, but it can be the decided factor.

Here is a 19th century definition. Sorry, I don't have an 18th century dictionary:


Peace:

1. In a general sense, a state of quiet or tranquility; freedom from disturbance or agitation.

2. Freedom from war; cessation of hostilities; public quiet.

3. Public tranquility; quiet, order and security, such as guaranteed by law; as, to keep the peace.

4. Freedom from mental agitation or disturbance, as from fear, terror, anger, anxiety, or the like; quietness of mind; tranquility; calmness; quiet of conscience.
Please notice what the first definition is.

[whottt]

Was the language so offensive as to immediately incite violence, or threaten the public order?

Yes. The language on the signs was anyway.

[whottt]

Laws are rules for organizing and shaping society, they are not automatically good, just, perfect, unchallengable and IMO absolute. Nor are the people that make them and enforce them beyond question.

Any time a law is actually working against organized society and actually serving just the opposite cause, it is time that to question the applicability of the law.

I mean slavery was encoded to law, that didn't make it indefensible.


Here we have a case of some people unqestionably guilty of being dickheads, and that law is not only protecting them of their dickheadery against a non-dickhead citizen, in application it's actually wound up punishing the non-dickhead.



Yes I understand the need for freedom of speech, the seminal role in plays in a free society, yes I understand that if laws are not respected than they serve no purpose, yes I understand that bending them or ignoring them for what is deemed a good purpose can be turned around to ignoring them or bending them for a bad one...


But what I also understand is that there is no such as a perfect law or perfect law passers, there is no such thing as an inherently smart or just law...mistakes can be made and when that is exposed to sit back and do nothing, simply because it is law, works against the very goal of laws in the first place.

So ok fine...court won't give this man justice due to the law being stupid in this situation, so be it. That's when people are supposed to take over...people are smarter than laws. There is no excuse for not being so.

[whottt]

I think we've seen that before.

www.spursreport.com :toast

I'm not trying to ignore Blake, only convey the sense of pointlessness in arguing with me for him, the same way he conveyed it to me...at least he's not on ignore, which is usually where most posters of his ilk find themselves with me...at least temporarily. He's convinced me that what he does is not something he is in control of or aware of, and so I won't accuse of being deliberately deceitful...nontheless, it's pointless to argue with him so for him, it's going to be pointless to argue with me. He can expect that same response every time he makes a post to me until I see he has overcome his disability.

[Winehole23]

@WC: By my casual count you've already been spanked by three separate posters in this thread, including MaNuMaNiAc.

[LnGrrrR]

As I noted earlier, there's some credence to the idea that the WBC protestors are using "offensive speech", or at least, that was the reason behind the Fallen Heroes act ("fighting words").

Given that they received a permit from the city, that would seem to counter the idea that they are creating a disruption, since they were allowed to be there in the first place.

The difference in venue between the doctor's house and the funeral area is an interesting issue. Technically, the doctor shouldn't have to move from his house. But then again, what use moving the funeral date/time, when the protestors will then reschedule their protest to coincide? I think it's very likely that the funeral-goers could be considered a 'captive audience', as it were.

WH, to answer your question about inciting violence, I would say that the bill signed by Congress in fact DOES state/reason that disturbing a funeral, which is a heavy emotional event, IS likely to cause violence.

I agree that the First Amendment is there to protect idiots who want to shout the most annoying things possible. However, in a real world sense, there are certainly limits to freedom of speech on public areas, as pointed out before.

So, even though I think these hate-mongers SHOULD be allowed to spew thier intolerance, I think it's not as cut-and-dry that they ARE allowed to. Getting a permit, I think, is the only thing saving them.

[Winehole23]

WH, to answer your question about inciting violence, I would say that the bill signed by Congress in fact DOES state/reason that disturbing a funeral, which is a heavy emotional event, IS likely to cause violence.The law may say so, but what did the police supervising the protest think?

[LnGrrrR]

The law may say so, but what did the police supervising the protest think?

Oh, I get your point. I'm just going by what the "Fallen Heroes" act says. Let's hypothetically say the protest occurred before a funeral at a military cemetary; it would then seem to be illegal. (Now, whether the fault would be on the WBC or the permit-issuers, I can't say.)

Anyways, even though the police may not think it was likely to incite violence, the law would seemingly state that their presence ipso facto is likely to cause violence.

Again, I'm not sure if that law would hold up under court. But I think there's a possibility it could. Look at stalking laws, for instance. Taken by itself, I don't think there's a law outlawing 'following' someone. Nor is there a law against calling someone. But when combined, and repeated, it can be considered illegal. Sort of an "emergent properties" theory. (It's the same way I feel about enhanced interrogation... tactics that may be alright on their own multiply their effectiveness greatly when used together.)

So, given the subject matter of the protests, along with the timing, I wouldn't necessarily state that what they're doing is legal without a doubt. I believe it is, but I think the possibility of their actions being illegal can't be discounted out of hand.

[spursncowboys]

The law may say so, but what did the police supervising the protest think?
What does that matter? The police are not responsible with knowing every law. Also they might not interpret the language as excessive. Or maybe they didn't want to write paperwork for something like that. Maybe they have the insane notion that that kind of thing is what our first amendment guarantees.

[spursncowboys]

@WC: By my casual count you've already been spanked by three separate posters in this thread, including MaNuMaNiAc.
:cheer

[spursncowboys]

Freedom does not mean anarchy.
You have not proved me wrong. What if you are wrong?

Can you back that up?

What if people decided to protest at 4 AM? Waking everyone up?

You can call "peace" what you want, but that is not the only meaning it has in the 18th century.

1) People have the right to peaceable assemble.

2) Some places have enacted laws to protect their funeral. I believe they were in one of those states.

3) In the case where two constitutional rights are in conflict, seems to me the enacted law now becomes the deciding factor. It cannot trump the constitution, but it can be the decided factor.

Here is a 19th century definition. Sorry, I don't have an 18th century dictionary:


Please notice what the first definition is.

100 percent agreed. It's a shame people watch a few idiot tv shows and think the bill of rights were written by the ACLU.
Also this is a form of harassment, which is not guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

[Blake]

Please notice what the first definition is.

duly noted.

The court ruled that the people at the funeral were not disturbed.

The failure to comprehend this part by some posters at this point in the thread is starting to reach moderate to high entertainment levels.


"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."

[Blake]

100 percent agreed. It's a shame people watch a few idiot tv shows and think the bill of rights were written by the ACLU.
Also this is a form of harassment, which is not guaranteed by the 1st amendment.


"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."



The failure to comprehend this part by some posters at this point in the thread is starting to reach moderate to high entertainment levels.

[Blake]

Yes. The language on the signs was anyway.

what did the language on the signs say?

[Blake]

Here we have a case of some people unqestionably guilty of being dickheads, and that law is not only protecting them of their dickheadery against a non-dickhead citizen, in application it's actually wound up punishing the non-dickhead.


how was the non-dickhead punished here?

[Blake]

I'm not trying to ignore Blake, only convey the sense of pointlessness in arguing with me for him, the same way he conveyed it to me...at least he's not on ignore, which is usually where most posters of his ilk find themselves with me...at least temporarily. He's convinced me that what he does is not something he is in control of or aware of, and so I won't accuse of being deliberately deceitful...nontheless, it's pointless to argue with him so for him, it's going to be pointless to argue with me. He can expect that same response every time he makes a post to me until I see he has overcome his disability.

www.spursreport.com

[Blake]

What does that matter? The police are not responsible with knowing every law. Also they might not interpret the language as excessive. Or maybe they didn't want to write paperwork for something like that. Maybe they have the insane notion that that kind of thing is what our first amendment guarantees.

I guess the court had the same kind of insane notion.

[Wild Cobra]

@WC: By my casual count you've already been spanked by three separate posters in this thread, including MaNuMaNiAc.
That's an optical dulusion.

[J.T.]

I think they need to make a law that says if faggots like these picket a soldier's funeral, the family has a God given right to shoot them in the face. :td

[Wild Cobra]

I think they need to make a law that says if faggots like these picket a soldier's funeral, the family has a God given right to shoot them in the face. :td
A bit harsh, but it wouldn't bother me.

[LnGrrrR]

Blake, I think this is the interesting part.


"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."

But again, if this were hypothetically at a military cemetery, it would seem that their presence would automatically satisfy the burden required for the Fallen Heroes Act. Do you agree?

[Winehole23]

http://www.patriotguard.org/

[spursncowboys]

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law." I think what you fail to realize is I disagree with this ruling. Thank you for reposting it over and over assuming I cannot comprehend this sentence and the reasoning of the "judge"

[spursncowboys]

I think they need to make a law that says if faggots like these picket a soldier's funeral, the family has a God given right to shoot them in the face. :td
Or they have to serve 3 years.

[ElNono]

A bit harsh, but it wouldn't bother me.

I find it funny how you have no problem in applying a rather novel interpretation of the first amendment in order to basically restrict it, but you won't accept any interpretation of the second amendment that would restrict it in any way, shape or form. To each his own, I guess. :lol

But yeah, I think this is something that Congress should get their hands on. With the SC precedent in place, there's no reason they could not expand the other law.

[Blake]

Blake, I think this is the interesting part.



But again, if this were hypothetically at a military cemetery, it would seem that their presence would automatically satisfy the burden required for the Fallen Heroes Act. Do you agree?

how far away were these picketers from the entrance of this cemetery?

[Blake]

I think what you fail to realize is I disagree with this ruling. Thank you for reposting it over and over assuming I cannot comprehend this sentence and the reasoning of the "judge"

you also disagree with the law enforcement officials that were there on the scene.

You are assuming that you are smarter than the "judge" and the law enforcement officials. What is your background or field of expertise that makes you smarter than them?

[whottt]

what did the language on the signs say?

www.spursreport.com

[Blake]

www.spursreport.com

:lol

this butthurt is at a severe red level.

[sabar]

Those WBC idiots are going to get themselves killed by vigilantes one day. When the law fails to protect society, people take it into their own hands. It doesn't matter what the law says or should be or is interpreted. Fact is, people only get pushed so far before they enact their own justice.

I have no simple solution outside censorship. Basically:

1. Criminalize them as obscene (censorship)
2. Criminalize them as hate speech (censorship)
3. Prohibit protests within x feet of any cemetery (restriction)

The last solution is the best. It does not deny the right to assemble (issue a permit somewhere else) and the actual act being considered offensive is universal.

Regardless of what the law says, the law is failing society in this case and these guys are going to get gunned down in a drive-by one day. I won't blink an eye if it happened and I wouldn't care if a jury found the hit-man innocent. I wouldn't be the first time that both of those things happened (vigilante found innocent on principal) when society failed

[Blake]

3. Prohibit protests within x feet of any cemetery (restriction)

The last solution is the best. It does not deny the right to assemble (issue a permit somewhere else) and the actual act being considered offensive is universal.




how far away were these picketers from the entrance of this cemetery?

[spursncowboys]

you also disagree with the law enforcement officials that were there on the scene.

You are assuming that you are smarter than the "judge" and the law enforcement officials. What is your background or field of expertise that makes you smarter than them?
I have as degree in criminal science. although it doesnt make me an expert, we did deal with that situation.

[LnGrrrR]

how far away were these picketers from the entrance of this cemetery?

Obviously, far enough away for it to be considered legal. :)

I'm just saying, say the protest was held within 300 feet and 60 minutes of a funeral at a military cemetery, then their actions would automatically be considered to be "fighting words".

The government applied the law to all cemeteries in their control. Whether or not they should expand the law to private cemeteries is debatable.

[Blake]

I have as degree in criminal science. although it doesnt make me an expert, we did deal with that situation.

what exactly is it about this ruling that you disagree with?

[Blake]

Obviously, far enough away for it to be considered legal. :)

I'm just saying, say the protest was held within 300 feet and 60 minutes of a funeral at a military cemetery, then their actions would automatically be considered to be "fighting words".

The government applied the law to all cemeteries in their control. Whether or not they should expand the law to private cemeteries is debatable.

yeah, well, had the protest occurred within the 300 feet and had there been no law enforcement officials around, I'm guessing they would have had a better shot at winning the $5 million lawsuit.

[Winehole23]

I suspect SnC argues backward from the result. He doesn't like the result, therefore the ruling was bad.

[Blake]

I suspect SnC argues backward from the result. He doesn't like the result, therefore the ruling was bad.

I suspect so too.

It's fun to watch.

[spursncowboys]

I suspect SnC argues backward from the result. He doesn't like the result, therefore the ruling was bad.

I thought we had moved into the hypothetical dream world by this point. I had moved past the actual ruling.

I disagree with protesters being able to follow people around and harrass them and hide behind the 1st amendment. I don't believe the first amendment was about speech other than political. I think states and municipalities have a state right and interest to make this a law if they see fit.

About the 2nd amendment, i don't think it protects an individual to get a rocket launcher or surface to air missile.

I do disagree with the ruling though.

[spursncowboys]

knew this couldn't last with respect and class.:toast
Well done kids.
WH: your assumptions are wrong.

[Winehole23]

Well then, prove me wrong.

What's wrong with the ruling?

[Blake]

I thought we had moved into the hypothetical dream world by this point. I had moved past the actual ruling.

I disagree with protesters being able to follow people around and harrass them and hide behind the 1st amendment. I don't believe the first amendment was about speech other than political. I think states and municipalities have a state right and interest to make this a law if they see fit.

According to your professor, how exactly was the family harassed in this case?


I do disagree with the ruling though.

You think the family deserved to get $5 million?

[Blake]

knew this couldn't last with respect and class.:toast
Well done kids.
WH: your assumptions are wrong.

I knew you couldn't last long in this thread without getting butthurt.

How exactly was this family harassed?

[spursncowboys]

"where the speech is directed at private ppl, and matters of private concern, the SC has held that the 1st Amendment interest in protecting particular types of speech must be balanced against a state's interest in protecting it's residence from wrongful injury."
p.11 http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WBC%20-%204th%20Circuit%20Opinion,%20Doc.%2082,%209_24_09 %20(4).PDF

[Winehole23]

What was the wrongful injury here?

[spursncowboys]

being a captive audience and having to deal emotional distress .

[spursncowboys]

petition for the writ of cert(something or other) to the sc.http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WBC%20-%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari,%2012_2 3_09%20(3).PDF

[Winehole23]

being a captive audience and having to deal emotional distress .There's no such thing as a captive audience at a funeral. Funeral attendance isn't mandatory. And I doubt every opinion that causes someone else emotional distress rises to the level of a tort. The court seems to have found it didn't in this case.

Try again.

[Winehole23]

petition for the writ of cert(something or other) to the sc.http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WBC%20-%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari,%2012_2 3_09%20(3).PDF (http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WBC%20-%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari,%2012_2 3_09%20%283%29.PDF)
Care to point out any relevant language?

[spursncowboys]

There's no such thing as a captive audience at a funeral. Funeral attendance isn't mandatory. And I doubt every opinion that causes someone else emotional distress rises to the level of a tort. The court seems to have found it didn't in this case.

Try again.
One of their reasons for the petition is that exact reason. captive audience has to be interpreted. It is wrong for you to think you hold the only definition of when and how it can be used.

[spursncowboys]

Maybe you should try again.

[Winehole23]

One of their reasons for the petition is that exact reason. captive audience has to be interpreted. It is wrong for you to think you hold the only definition of when and how it can be used.If the statutory language is undefined or insufficiently defined, that actually reinforces the propriety of the ruling.

If the court had filled in the meaning of "captive audience" where it is presently not well-defined, that would be judicial activism, would it not?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Gotta love how the Church works.

[Blake]

being a captive audience and having to deal emotional distress .


"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."


Thank you for reposting it over and over assuming I cannot comprehend this sentence

you're welcome

[Blake]

One of their reasons for the petition is that exact reason. captive audience has to be interpreted. It is wrong for you to think you hold the only definition of when and how it can be used.

What is your interpretation of captive audience?

[spursncowboys]

If the statutory language is undefined or insufficiently defined, that actually reinforces the propriety of the ruling.

If the court had filled in the meaning of "captive audience" where it is presently not well-defined, that would be judicial activism, would it not?
A captive audience is a person or a group of people who have gathered in a certain place for a purpose and are provided or exposed to information that are unrelated to their actual purpose of being there.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_captive_audience

No it would not be judicial activism because they are deciding the constitutionality of something and not trying to create laws, protruding into the legislative branch.

[spursncowboys]

Gotta love how the Church works.

the church?

[spursncowboys]

If the statutory language is undefined or insufficiently defined, that actually reinforces the propriety of the ruling.

If the court had filled in the meaning of "captive audience" where it is presently not well-defined, that would be judicial activism, would it not?
So is there such thing as a captive audience at a funeral?

[Winehole23]

By that definition I suppose so, but that is hardly conclusive here. Apparently it didn't outweigh the First Amendment issue.

[spursncowboys]

so if the sc, who I think already said they would hear the case, overturns - you would consider that judicial activism?

[Blake]

A captive audience is a person or a group of people who have gathered in a certain place for a purpose and are provided or exposed to information that are unrelated to their actual purpose of being there.


Based on the facts we have here, and based on this definition, these Westboro freaks did not capture the audience with their information.

[LnGrrrR]

I disagree with protesters being able to follow people around and harrass them and hide behind the 1st amendment. I don't believe the first amendment was about speech other than political. I think states and municipalities have a state right and interest to make this a law if they see fit.

If anything, the First Amendment was created to protect freedom of religion, which is CERTAINLY covered by what these people are doing.


About the 2nd amendment, i don't think it protects an individual to get a rocket launcher or surface to air missile.

Personally, I'm the opposite. I think if you have the money to buy a tank, and wish to, go ahead. I'd limit nukes, big bombs, fighter planes, and anything that can cause massive destruction in a short amount of time. Other than that, regulation for "big-ticket" items would work for me. Yes, I know I'm in the extreme in this view. :)

[LnGrrrR]

Based on the facts we have here, and based on this definition, these Westboro freaks did not capture the audience with their information.

I think you're misreading the phrase. According to the definition posted (and I don't know whether that's the "legal" definition), a captive audience is one that is gathered for a purpose and then introduced to other information, ostensibly against their will, I'm assuming.

Given that the protestors could theoretically protest at the funeral no matter when the funeral was, I would say that there's a good possibility they could be considered a "captive audience", but as WH said, the First Amendment rights trumped that in this case.

[TeyshaBlue]

Personally, I'm the opposite. I think if you have the money to buy a tank, and wish to, go ahead. I'd limit nukes, big bombs, fighter planes, and anything that can cause massive destruction in a short amount of time. Other than that, regulation for "big-ticket" items would work for me. Yes, I know I'm in the extreme in this view. :)

There goes the neigborhood. :depressed


:lol:lol

[Wild Cobra]

fx_RIWBefgM

[TeyshaBlue]

fx_RIWBefgM

Heh...that's what I was thinking of. :toast

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm having a difficult time fighting past the bra-less Jenilee Harrison.:wow

[Blake]

I think you're misreading the phrase. According to the definition posted (and I don't know whether that's the "legal" definition), a captive audience is one that is gathered for a purpose and then introduced to other information, ostensibly against their will, I'm assuming.

Given that the protestors could theoretically protest at the funeral no matter when the funeral was, I would say that there's a good possibility they could be considered a "captive audience", but as WH said, the First Amendment rights trumped that in this case.

I'd like to know how snc made the determination that this was a captive audience according to his definition.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm having a difficult time fighting past the bra-less Jenilee Harrison.:wow

LOL...

A little uncommon for a 1984 movie, isn't it?

[elbamba]

Well then, prove me wrong.

What's wrong with the ruling?

I don't think that the Court improperly ruled with respect to the First Amendment, though I expect the SC to overturn the ruling. However, I do think that the Court erred in granting attorney's fees as this is discretionary. Having tried to scan through the opinion, I do not see where the Court actually awards the fees. Usually it would be in the decision. Can anyone point me to where the Court awards the fees?

[elbamba]

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/09-00751qp.pdf

This gives us a few of the issues that the Supreme Court will review and answer.

[Blake]

I don't think that the Court improperly ruled with respect to the First Amendment, though I expect the SC to overturn the ruling.

I would be mildly surprised if the SC overturns this ruling.


However, I do think that the Court erred in granting attorney's fees as this is discretionary. Having tried to scan through the opinion, I do not see where the Court actually awards the fees. Usually it would be in the decision. Can anyone point me to where the Court awards the fees?

Usually the defendant has to make the counter claim for damages, in this case it was for attorney's fees.

What exactly are you asking to be pointed to.....court awarded fees in general or what the court awarded the defendant in this case?

[elbamba]

I would be mildly surprised if the SC overturns this ruling.


Its still a conservative court, and the Petitioner met his burden of proof at trial. I could very easily see this overturned.



Usually the defendant has to make the counter claim for damages, in this case it was for attorney's fees.

What exactly are you asking to be pointed to.....court awarded fees in general or what the court awarded the defendant in this case?

Usually, part of the opinion will address the grounds for granting anything. i.e. attorney fees. I want to see specifically why they granted attorney's fees...an explaination. What was their basis and under what authority they reached the determination to do so. I understand that attorney fees are discretionary. In most jursidictions you cant just be awarded attorneys fees in the average suit. Usually a statute has to provide for attorneys fees or a contract can provide for it.

Lets say I sue you for negligence because you hit me with your car. Lets presume that the car you drive is your own car and that you were not using it for work purposes. If I prevail, in most jurisductions I cannot ask for attorney fees based on this alone.

Now, lets say you appeal because of juror misconduct. A member of the jury went to your house and said, damn, Blake is rich as hell, he can afford to pay this, besides, its his insurance paying the bill. You appeal and win...most courts would not grant attorney fees under this scenario.

Skip the juror misconduct, you appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and win, most courts will not grant attorneys fees based on this alone.

This is what I am asking, under what authority (case law, statute, contract) did they decide to award attorneys fees. Was something filed out-of-time, was there some form of contempt, etc...?

[LnGrrrR]

There goes the neigborhood. :depressed
:lol:lol

I figure mild registration and background checks could be required for bigger items. Let's face it, if you want to purchase a tank, then you're probably not Mr. Smith from down the block. And in order to sell the tank, you would probably need to only be able to sell it to people who have passed a background check themselves.

(Before everyone starts complaining about additional taxes, I envision said background check as one paid for by the individual in order to acquire such an object. This would be performed by a reputable source, as determined by the government. Would that introduce corruption? Possibly. But at least people would be able to get their tanks! :) )

[Blake]

Its still a conservative court, and the Petitioner met his burden of proof at trial. I could very easily see this overturned.

If the burden of proof was sufficiently met, then why was this overturned in appellate court?


Usually, part of the opinion will address the grounds for granting anything. i.e. attorney fees. I want to see specifically why they granted attorney's fees...an explaination. What was their basis and under what authority they reached the determination to do so. I understand that attorney fees are discretionary. In most jursidictions you cant just be awarded attorneys fees in the average suit. Usually a statute has to provide for attorneys fees or a contract can provide for it.

Lets say I sue you for negligence because you hit me with your car. Lets presume that the car you drive is your own car and that you were not using it for work purposes. If I prevail, in most jurisductions I cannot ask for attorney fees based on this alone.

Now, lets say you appeal because of juror misconduct. A member of the jury went to your house and said, damn, Blake is rich as hell, he can afford to pay this, besides, its his insurance paying the bill. You appeal and win...most courts would not grant attorney fees under this scenario.

Skip the juror misconduct, you appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and win, most courts will not grant attorneys fees based on this alone.

This is what I am asking, under what authority (case law, statute, contract) did they decide to award attorneys fees. Was something filed out-of-time, was there some form of contempt, etc...?

I understand all that. Just didn't know exactly what you were asking.

I can't seem to find it myself.....this is the closest I have found:



......Church members are seeking to recoup costs from federal appeals court, which dismissed Snyder's lawsuit against them. Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, said the court declared last week that Snyder was responsible for the costs.

Efforts to reach an official from Westboro Baptist Church were unsuccessful Monday.

Such mandated reimbursements are common after appellate court cases, Summers said......

....Philadelphia lawyer Howard Bashman, an expert in appellate law, said that the loser in appellate court cases typically compensate the winner for court costs. Those costs tend to be higher when the plaintiffs win, because they must supply a complete copy of the original court case.

The winners may decide not to go after that compensation, frequently because the legal costs involved in pursuing the funds would be more than the money they could recoup, Bashman said.

Summers said the federal appellate court rejected arguments that Snyder should not be assessed $16,500 in legal fees because he doesn't have the means to pay them.



http://www.military.com/news/article/marine-dad-must-pay-westboro-court-fees.html

[elbamba]

If the burden of proof was sufficiently met, then why was this overturned in appellate court?



I understand all that. Just didn't know exactly what you were asking.

I can't seem to find it myself.....this is the closest I have found:

The Court overturned the case essentially based on a review that the TC allowed the finder of fact (Jury) to decide questions of law that the TC should have reviewed. In other words, the defense of the First Amendment rights to free speech should have been ruled on by the TC and not gone to the jury. That is sort of a simple explaination, it is a little more complicated.


I have seen plenty of news articles, but I disagree with the one that you cited where they said appellate costs are common. I have handled probably 250 cases in federal courts, only about 20 have gone to trial and of all the cases only 8 have been appealed. I have won 7 and lost 1 and never once was I awarded attorneys fees or had the opposing party awarded attorneys fees without a contract mandating attoreys fees.

I can tell you at the state level, where I have handled about 100 appeals, never once have i seen attorneys fees handed out without a contract or a specific state SC rule or statute.

Granted, there might be other attorneys who have had the complete opposite experience. I can only speak for my limited experience. I have always considered myself an ok lawyer.

[Blake]

The Court overturned the case essentially based on a review that the TC allowed the finder of fact (Jury) to decide questions of law that the TC should have reviewed. In other words, the defense of the First Amendment rights to free speech should have been ruled on by the TC and not gone to the jury. That is sort of a simple explaination, it is a little more complicated.

eh, it could be a close call..

I'll go with the ruling getting upheld 6-3.



I have seen plenty of news articles, but I disagree with the one that you cited where they said appellate costs are common. I have handled probably 250 cases in federal courts, only about 20 have gone to trial and of all the cases only 8 have been appealed. I have won 7 and lost 1 and never once was I awarded attorneys fees or had the opposing party awarded attorneys fees without a contract mandating attoreys fees.

I can tell you at the state level, where I have handled about 100 appeals, never once have i seen attorneys fees handed out without a contract or a specific state SC rule or statute.

Granted, there might be other attorneys who have had the complete opposite experience. I can only speak for my limited experience. I have always considered myself an ok lawyer.

I'm curious myself......Sounds like it could depend on the state. Apparently it's common in Maryland and Pennsylvania. I may make a phone call or two and see what I can find.

this is random.....I don't watch a lot of Peoples court, but for some reason, this one stuck with me where the guy sued for damages and court costs, and the judge awarded him both.......she even commented.."I wonder why more people haven't added court costs in with their complaints"

[TeyshaBlue]

I figure mild registration and background checks could be required for bigger items. Let's face it, if you want to purchase a tank, then you're probably not Mr. Smith from down the block. And in order to sell the tank, you would probably need to only be able to sell it to people who have passed a background check themselves.

(Before everyone starts complaining about additional taxes, I envision said background check as one paid for by the individual in order to acquire such an object. This would be performed by a reputable source, as determined by the government. Would that introduce corruption? Possibly. But at least people would be able to get their tanks! :) )

ROFL...is that a M-46 Patton in your driveway or are you just happy to see me? :lol :lol :lobt2:

[elbamba]

eh, it could be a close call..

I'll go with the ruling getting upheld 6-3.




I'm curious myself......Sounds like it could depend on the state. Apparently it's common in Maryland and Pennsylvania. I may make a phone call or two and see what I can find.

this is random.....I don't watch a lot of Peoples court, but for some reason, this one stuck with me where the guy sued for damages and court costs, and the judge awarded him both.......she even commented.."I wonder why more people haven't added court costs in with their complaints"

If the plaintiff wins, they usually always get court costs. But that is a few hundred dollars, court filing fee + service fees.

People's court don't use attorneys.

[Blake]

If the plaintiff wins, they usually always get court costs. But that is a few hundred dollars, court filing fee + service fees.

People's court don't use attorneys.

:lol

I know....but it's the priniciple. From what I can tell, in many cases the money in legal fees is not worth the effort at times to try to collect.

I called a clerk over at the 4th CoA. She basically said what you said. It still just appears to be a regional thing.

[elbamba]

eh, it could be a close call..

I'll go with the ruling getting upheld 6-3.




I'll put up my Spurstalk cash that it gets overturned. Not that I have ever seen any of the cash nor would I actually know how to transfer it to you.