The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: philw on October 07, 2010, 07:00:50 AM
-
??? ???
anyone heard of this one ??
Matt Ryan
Infowars.com
October 6, 2010
The Supreme court heard arguments Wednesday concerning the highly-publicized funeral protest case, and they appear to be set to limit free-speech by permitting lawsuits against those that offend others. The Supreme Court, including Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, sound ready to rule in favor of this new limit. The Los Angeles Times reports:
Kennedy said “certain harassing conduct” was not always protected as free speech. “Torts and crimes are committed with words all the time,” he said, referring to legal wrongs that result in lawsuits. “The First Amendment doesn’t stop state tort law in appropriate circumstances,” Breyer commented later.
Though the case is about funeral protests, Breyer said the court’s ruling will have an impact on the Internet, since it tests whether personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.
This mirrors regulations proposed in H.R. 1966 which appears to have stalled in congress. This bill included vague and difficult to define terms allowing citizens to be sued for offending people online. Ars Technica covered the controversy:
HR 1966 was introduced in April by US Representative Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and it’s supported by 14 other members of Congress. According to the text, individuals who bully others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. This, of course, could include those nasty text messages you sent to your ex on Saturday night, the questionable e-mail you sent to your brother, or those forum posts you made in which you called for someone who liked the new Star Trek movie to jump off a building.
This means that if legislation fails in congress, it could be forced through by the Supreme Court. Justice Breyer himself stated that this ruling would have a direct effect on the internet. In a very clear case of “legislating from the bench”, our government is able to push through limits on our freedoms using the very court created to protect them.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
This legislation didn’t stall in the UK where draconian equality and politically correct regulations have been active for several years. These regulations allow citizens to sue others for any and every possible offense even if it was only perceived by the plaintiff. These rules have been particularly difficult on employers, reports Mail Online:
The legislation, championed by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, introduces a bewildering range of rights which allow staff to sue for almost any perceived offence they receive in the workplace.
It creates the controversial legal concept of ‘third party harassment’, under which workers will be able to sue over jokes and banter they find offensive – even if the comments are aimed at someone else and they weren’t there at the time the comments were made.
These regulations, and others like them, have crippled their nation’s ability to prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. Police work in fear of enforcing immigration laws because they don’t want to appear racist. The UK has thousands of unchecked illegal immigrants free of prosecution while their police stand by with their hands tied. Ryan Kisinel of Mail Online wrote, “Police fear asking questions about their nationality because they will be hung out to dry by politically correct regulations.”
http://www.infowars.com/justices-signal-intent-to-dismantle-first-amendment/
-
Yeah. This was brought about by a group of protesters who believe that God is punishing the US for it's acceptance of the Gay Lifestyle by letting US soldiers get killed in action.
The protesters show up near funerals for US service men killed in action carrying signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers"
As you could imagine, this is very disturbing to loved ones who are there for the funeral service.
I'm not sure what wrong it was that God was punishing us for with the war casualties in conflicts that occurred before the attitudes towards Gays became more tolerant. I'm pretty sure we had casualties in all the wars since the Revolution to now?
-
This one sucks, but I think I fall on the side of the westboro. I completely (nearly violently) disagree with their tactics and almost completely disagree with their message, but to shut them up would end free speech.
I actually want them to go to the SCOTUS again for a 1st amend vs. hate crime ruling.
-
Los Angeles Times
October 7, 2010
Pg. 12
Justices Take On Funeral Protesters
The Supreme Court seems inclined to side with the father of a dead Marine in the free-speech case.
By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON -- Despite free-speech concerns, Supreme Court justices sounded sympathetic Wednesday to a lawsuit filed by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by protesters with signs like, "Thank God for IEDs."
The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks. The 1st Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it shields speakers from private lawsuits.
The Phelps family from Topeka, Kan., has picketed at military funerals across the nation and proclaimed that God is punishing America and its troops because of its tolerance of homosexuality.
In 2006, family members traveled to Maryland, where they held antiwar and anti-gay signs at the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, and they also put on their website a message that accused his father, Albert Snyder, of having raised his son "to defy the creator" and "serve the devil."
A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was thrown out on free-speech grounds.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, usual defenders of the 1st Amendment, said they thought people could be sued for outrageous personal attacks.
Kennedy said "certain harassing conduct" was not always protected as free speech. "Torts and crimes are committed with words all the time," he said, referring to legal wrongs that result in lawsuits. "The 1st Amendment doesn't stop state tort law in appropriate circumstances," Breyer added.
Though the case is about funeral protests, Breyer said the court's ruling will have an effect on the Internet, because it tests whether vicious personal attacks -- often made by bloggers -- can lead to lawsuits.
Snyder sued the Phelps family under a common provision of state law that permits claims for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On Wednesday, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when it targeted the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.
Justice Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court, drew the attention of her colleagues with her opening question to Margie J. Phelps. The Kansas lawyer who was defending her family began by saying that their protests were intended to provoke "public discussion" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kagan quickly pressed her. Would it be permissible, she asked, for the protesters to pick out "a wounded soldier and follow him around," holding "offensive and outrageous signs" near his home and calling him a "war criminal?" In such a case, "does he have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?" Kagan said. Have to say she gets a point of respect for that
Phelps hesitated, but then answered. "My answer, Justice Kagan, is no, I don't believe that person should have a cause of action."
That answer appeared to turn the argument against Phelps and the funeral protesters. Later, Justice Samuel A. Alito pressed her with another such example.
Suppose protesters stopped a grandmother whose son had been killed in the war, and they "speak to her in the most vile terms" and say they were happy he was killed. Is this protected free speech? Alito asked.
Phelps responded calmly, but avoided a direct answer. It might be illegal "stalking" or "fighting words," she said.
Alito dismissed the "fighting words" defense. "It's an elderly person. She's really not in a position to punch this person in the nose," he said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the free-speech side during much of the argument. She noted that protesters were kept well away from the funeral in this case, and they were sued only because of their disturbing message. But she too seemed troubled by the protests.
"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," she said. "The question is: Why should the 1st Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"
Breyer and several others said they were searching for a middle ground that would allow the Snyders to win, but not threaten wide-open public debate. "What I'm trying to accomplish is to allow this tort to exist, but not allow it to interfere with an important public message," he said.
It will be several months before the court makes a ruling in the case.
-
I beleive this isn't going to "dismantle" the First Amendment. It will on the other hand give pause to those that deliberately and continuously use the First Amendment to harm an individual.
-
I don't think this should be an exception to the First Amendment.
Rather, this case should be heard by a local court with the protesters sued for whatever damages might apply.
Community standards will then apply as the jury will be from the local populace and the Government won't have any "wedge" into the First.
Signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" at funerals will be disfavored by locals while a "You Mother Wears Combat Boots" outside someone's house might draw a police response but not for the content of the sign.
-
No right is without limits. Figuring out where those limits are is the hard part. The first amendment is pretty sacrosanct but it is still limited. The classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, slander, liable, false reporting of crimes, etc.
Way too many people do things strictly for the shock value (and to get attention) and then try to hide behind the first to dodge responsibility for their actions. Words have meaning, actions have consequences.
Personally, I would like to see someone break out their Barrett and drop a couple of these "Christians." Not that I would advocate such behavior.
-
Personally, I would like to see someone break out their Barrett and drop a couple of these "Christians." Not that I would advocate such behavior.
Can I be the one?? ?? huh?? Can I? Can I?? Let me .. Plleeeeeazzzze let me do it.. Purty Please??
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/4.gif)
-
I'd like to see these protesters bird dogged and make it known if any of them has a funeral to attend or other personal tragedy to get through.
Then have folks show up to wave appropriate signs during their grief and hardship.
-
This is how we have already lost so much of what made America great.
There is no good choice here, the SCOTUS and I have to side with the scum bags who should be tarred and feathered.
The Amendments were not put in to protect popular opinions, and activities, they don't need.
The alternative is to open the door to censorship even further than has been done by "Hate crime" legislation.
On the other hand, while I support their right to voice their opinion, I would not have a problem with any one who kicked the crap out of one of these low lifes.
That may sound contradictory, but the Constitution only protects their LEGAL rights, it does not prevent the community from voicing it's disapproval of that opinion.
-
Its exhibit 42,006 as to why hard cases make bad law. Every time we react to some outrage or another we draft a law or opinion that doesn't fit the other 99% of the cases. People say "That will fix the sobs", and feel righteous. That lasts about a year. Then we see all the collateral damage. Child porn! Evil, kill them! Then we have cases where teenage girls are prosecuted for sending topless shots of themselves to a lowlife boyfriend who then posts it???? Mandatory minimum drug sentences, three strikes laws etc. They all lead to badness. This is one more example. Its like the Koran guy. One crazy storefront preacher who wants attention is in a position to do real harm, and doesn't care as long as he gets his 15 minutes. One hopes the Court realizes that there is not a nationwide epidemic of hateful protests at military funerals and lets this slide. We don't need to give the state more power over our lives due to one group of whackjobs. And here I agree with Tom. If just one honor guard at one of these funerals had slipped in a few live rounds (or for that matter bayonets) this would no longer be a problem.
FQ13
-
Can I be the one?? ?? huh?? Can I? Can I?? Let me .. Plleeeeeazzzze let me do it.. Purty Please??
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/4.gif)
You could just about do it from your own backyard if the wind is right.
-
On Wednesday, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when it targeted the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.
Justice Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court, drew the attention of her colleagues with her opening question to Margie J. Phelps. The Kansas lawyer who was defending her family began by saying that their protests were intended to provoke "public discussion" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kagan quickly pressed her. Would it be permissible, she asked, for the protesters to pick out "a wounded soldier and follow him around," holding "offensive and outrageous signs" near his home and calling him a "war criminal?" In such a case, "does he have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?" Kagan said. Have to say she gets a point of respect for that
Pathfinder: No, she doesn't. 40 years ago she would have been one of the ones yelling and screaming "baby killer" at returning Viet Nam vets. It was free speech then, even though highly directed at each returning soldier.
Phelps hesitated, but then answered. "My answer, Justice Kagan, is no, I don't believe that person should have a cause of action."
That answer appeared to turn the argument against Phelps and the funeral protesters. Later, Justice Samuel A. Alito pressed her with another such example.
Suppose protesters stopped a grandmother whose son had been killed in the war, and they "speak to her in the most vile terms" and say they were happy he was killed. Is this protected free speech? Alito asked.
Phelps responded calmly, but avoided a direct answer. It might be illegal "stalking" or "fighting words," she said.
Alito dismissed the "fighting words" defense. "It's an elderly person. She's really not in a position to punch this person in the nose," he said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the free-speech side during much of the argument. Pathfinder: OK, this scares the crap out of me - that shriveled one-worlder supporting the US Constitution? WTF? Is this one of the signs of the impending apocalypse? ? ? ?
-
I wonder if it had been an Illegal Alien who was being harassed if Kagan and Ginsburg would have been supporting the 1st.
Seems more likely they would use it to further their agenda than worry about it's true meaning.
-
I wonder if it had been an Illegal Alien who was being harassed if Kagan and Ginsburg would have been supporting the 1st.
Seems more likely they would use it to further their agenda than worry about it's true meaning.
And if hadn't been soldier's funerals these guys were desecrating would anyone have even cared? Hell they did it to gays who'd died of AIDS for years and no one noticed till the Matthew Shepard thing. :-\
Rule #1 of criminal law: Don't go after a sympathic victim. Rob all the drug dealers you want. Break into a church or a nursing home? You've got a problem. We'll hope the Court can see past that, and I don't care why, just as long as they do it.
FQ13
-
Here is how they should rule.
Yes you can protest, but if some one comes by and kicks your ass, the police will not respond.
prob solved.
-
Rule #1 of criminal law: Don't go after a sympathic victim. Rob all the drug dealers you want.
FQ13
But be careful if you're in Philly. :)
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/breaking/Two-Cops-Accused-of-Robbing-an-Undercover-Officer.html?dr (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/breaking/Two-Cops-Accused-of-Robbing-an-Undercover-Officer.html?dr)
-
Here is how they should rule.
Yes you can protest, but if some one comes by and kicks your ass, the police will not respond.
prob solved.
I like that.
-
Here is how they should rule.
Yes you can protest, but if some one comes by and kicks your ass, the police will not respond.
prob solved.
I like this one, too.
I don't want to see the right to peacefully protest diminished at all. However, I have to question to things:
1. Is this truly peaceful? This seems to be done to provoke a response that might be less than peaceful.
2. Who exactly are they protesting? There are not doing this in the public square but rather a private, emotional, and intimate setting of a funeral.
Could these protest seem to be threats? After all there are most likely other soldiers there at the funeral.
Let's examine a different point of view. What if these protester had sign that read "Thank God for Dead Congressman" outside the steps of the capitol building? Or, "Thank God for Dead Presidents" outside the White House? Or, "Thank God for Dead Justices" outside the Supreme Court? Or, how about "Thank God for Dead African Americans" in an African American neighborhood?
For some reason I don't think those would fall under protected speech quite as easily. And, if not, then there is not equal justice under the law.
I would rather see no ruling at all, and turn this into a matter of a civil suit rather than a constitutional one.
-
I like this one, too.
I don't want to see the right to peacefully protest diminished at all. However, I have to question to things:
1. Is this truly peaceful? This seems to be done to provoke a response that might be less than peaceful.
2. Who exactly are they protesting? There are not doing this in the public square but rather a private, emotional, and intimate setting of a funeral.
Could these protest seem to be threats? After all there are most likely other soldiers there at the funeral.
Let's examine a different point of view. What if these protester had sign that read "Thank God for Dead Congressman" outside the steps of the capitol building? Or, "Thank God for Dead Presidents" outside the White House? Or, "Thank God for Dead Justices" outside the Supreme Court? Or, how about "Thank God for Dead African Americans" in an African American neighborhood?
For some reason I don't think those would fall under protected speech quite as easily. And, if not, then there is not equal justice under the law.
I would rather see no ruling at all, and turn this into a matter of a civil suit rather than a constitutional one.
Couple of quick points. This is a civil suit. A soldier's dad sued for infliction of emotional distress. This is over whether he can collect. Second, the provocation point is actually (semi) good law. Its called the "fighting words" doctrine. The Court held in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that calling someone an SOB was not protected because a reasonable person could be provoked to violence. That has never been used or enforced since. Still, it hasn't been overturned either. I'm not a fan, beause it basically gives a heckler's veto to whomever gets sufficiently offended, but this case would certainly seem to be just what the Court was talking about in Chaplinsky.
FQ13
-
I don't see how this limits free speech. The crack pot protesters aren't being forbidden from saying anything. They are just being sued for causing emotional distress.
Isn't a defamation of character lawsuit basically the same thing? If SCOTUS rules against the church, the ruling can be narrowed down to apply just to funerals.
-
Problem is, if it's "narrowed down to apply just to funerals. " eventually it will be held to apply at other functions.
Laws never decrease in applicability.
Isn't there a freedom of religion issue here ? Those people are trying to conduct a religious ceremony, (Funeral for a fallen warrior ) but the westboro azzholes are interfering with the conduct of that ritual.
-
Problem is, if it's "narrowed down to apply just to funerals. " eventually it will be held to apply at other functions.
Laws never decrease in applicability.
Isn't there a freedom of religion issue here ? Those people are trying to conduct a religious ceremony, (Funeral for a fallen warrior ) but the westboro azzholes are interfering with the conduct of that ritual.
They'd argue its their freedom of religion that's at stake. They are a church group (though a small one).
FQ13
-
They'd argue its their freedom of religion that's at stake. They are a church group (though a small one).
FQ13
At least a church in name. We've been kicking this around here a lot lately. Between Patriot Guard Riders and a HIGH percentage of veterans you can imagine the comments. It looks as if the "church" is made up of alomst 80%+ of the Phelps family, with most of them being laywers. We think that besides the shock value, they are just looking for a way to get someone to kick their a$$ so they can sue. Better than inflicting violence on them, although it would be VERY satisfying, take them apart with in the law and expose them as con artists and frauds. Then they go away and look stupid and no one will listen to them.
-
Couple of quick points. This is a civil suit. A soldier's dad sued for infliction of emotional distress. This is over whether he can collect.
I guess that's why I am not a lawyer:(
I didn't know all the details. Still with the Supreme Court most frequently legislating from the bench (unconstitutionally by the way) the rulings are more far-reaching than a civil or criminal cases. The truth is most will see the ruling as either for or against the 1st Ammendment, when it should simply be a matter of ruling for or against these wackos.
I know this cuts both ways, but that is the way it was set up to work.
-
"Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it." I don't know who said it (or something like it) but it applies to this situation.
If the court rules against the protesters, then we should be very careful about holding up pictures of guns at 2A rallies because this might be considered offensive, even threatening!
-
Problem is, if it's "narrowed down to apply just to funerals. " eventually it will be held to apply at other functions.
Laws never decrease in applicability.
Isn't there a freedom of religion issue here ? Those people are trying to conduct a religious ceremony, (Funeral for a fallen warrior ) but the westboro azzholes are interfering with the conduct of that ritual.
A funeral is a private affair, even though it's held out in the open. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. The original law suit did not restrict the church's freedoms in any way. It just punished them for being assholes. Being forced to make restitution for your abusive actions is perfectly acceptable and makes no limitation on Constitutional protections. If these people are allowed to continue their disruption without legal limits, then the only way to stop them would be to kill them. Something I would cheerfully do, if after being KIA, they showed up at one of my son's funerals.
You have to remember, that the fasted way to loose a right is to abuse it, and they have gone beyond that.
-
I'm actually shocked no one has killed them yet. Or beat the crap out of them for that matter.
I lost control of the car, honest, I didn't mean to run over that group of protestors.
-
I'm actually shocked no one has killed them yet. Or beat the crap out of them for that matter.
I lost control of the car, honest, I didn't mean to run over that group of protestors.
You and me both TAB. They hae been doing this for years. It isn't just military either. They started by protesting the funerals of gays who died of AIDs. How would you like it if your kid came out of the closet, reconciled with you, lost his fight with a wasting disease, and at his funeral you were greated with "God Hates Fags" and "Your Son Is Burning in Hell" signs? Me, I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. Its just a matter of time, regardless of what the Court rules. These idiots are just too stupid to get that. I love the 1A, but it doesn't override common sense either. Gays or soldiers, if you poke a sleeping bear in the ass with a sharp stick (whether it be the grieving parent of a gay or a Marine), sooner or later, you'll wish you hadn't.
FQ13
-
A funeral is a private affair, even though it's held out in the open. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. The original law suit did not restrict the church's freedoms in any way. It just punished them for being assholes. Being forced to make restitution for your abusive actions is perfectly acceptable and makes no limitation on Constitutional protections. If these people are allowed to continue their disruption without legal limits, then the only way to stop them would be to kill them. Something I would cheerfully do, if after being KIA, they showed up at one of my son's funerals.
You have to remember, that the fasted way to loose a right is to abuse it, and they have gone beyond that.
You have misunderstood me, The right to practice their religious beliefs is being denied to the soldiers family by these so called "Christians".