AP urges Supreme Court to side with ‘God hates fag’ church

Cosmo

blueandwhite wrote:

I've always been a bit confused when people advocate absolute freedom of speech considering such a right should certainly include slander, inciting violence against others and harassment. If we're going to include freedom of expression under that umbrella shouldn't I have the right to arbitraily injure or outright kill whoever I want? Limiting any of these actions is certianly a restriction on my right to express myself freely.

Honestly, I would like to know why I shouldn't be able to cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Surely any civil or criminal prosucution against me would be in direct violation of my right to speak freely. In a society with absolute freedom of speech why would I be punished for saying anything?

...
Freedom of Speech does not include freedom from prosecution. There are statutes that prevent you from legally commiting slander, inciting riots or harrassment. Judgements have already been rendered and you are provided the protection from these crimes by others, according to these laws.
Free Speech does come with responsibility and accountability for their consequences. If the Phelps group did, in fact, inflict emotional distress upon this father by use of their tactics... they can and should be held responsible for their action and accountable for the liabilities.

blueandwhite

Cosmo wrote:

Freedom of Speech does not include freedom from prosecution. There are statutes that prevent you from legally commiting slander, inciting riots or harrassment. Judgements have already been rendered and you are provided the protection from these crimes by others, according to these laws.
Free Speech does come with responsibility and accountability for their consequences. If the Phelps group did, in fact, inflict emotional distress upon this father by use of their tactics... they can and should be held responsible for their action and accountable for the liabilities.

That's an odd distinction to make if you're arguing that freedom of speech is an absolute right. I mean, isn't every legislative and judicial action actually a limitation on free speech? So if these limitations are already in place, how would a ruling against the WBC be that earth shattering? Isn't this just another case where one party is being accused by another of harassment? I'm just having a lot of trouble seeing where you and others draw the line between true freedom of speech and government oppression.

Perhaps it's because I'm something of a moderate but I've never bought into the idea of absolute freedom of speech to begin with. I just don't see how you can take a hard line on something and have it both ways; either you have the right to say anything or you don't. I mean, is there anything in the US Constitution that says that gives the legislature or judiciary the authority to impose these restrictions without actually condradicting the wording of your 1st amendment (it's an honest question)? Again, please pardon the naiveté of a relatively apolitical individual.

Cosmo

blueandwhite wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Freedom of Speech does not include freedom from prosecution. There are statutes that prevent you from legally commiting slander, inciting riots or harrassment. Judgements have already been rendered and you are provided the protection from these crimes by others, according to these laws.
Free Speech does come with responsibility and accountability for their consequences. If the Phelps group did, in fact, inflict emotional distress upon this father by use of their tactics... they can and should be held responsible for their action and accountable for the liabilities.

That's an odd distinction to make if you're arguing that freedom of speech is an absolute right. I mean, isn't every legislative and judicial action actually a limitation on free speech? So if these limitations are already in place, how would a ruling against the WBC be that earth shattering? Isn't this just another case where one party is being accused by another of harassment? I'm just having a lot of trouble seeing where you and others draw the line between true freedom of speech and government oppression.

Perhaps it's because I'm something of a moderate but I've never bought into the idea of absolute freedom of speech to begin with. I just don't see how you can take a hard line on something and have it both ways; either you have the right to say anything or you don't. I mean, is there anything in the US Constitution that says that gives the legislature or judiciary the authority to impose these restrictions without actually condradicting the wording of your 1st amendment (it's an honest question)? Again, please pardon the naiveté of a relatively apolitical individual.

...
Amendment I of the Bill of Rights:
"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."

This states that Congress shall not be able to:
1. Establish a national religion nor restrict the free exercise of religion.
2. Abridge the free speech
3. Restrict the free press
4. Prohibit the right to peaceful assembly
5. Forbid petitioning the grievences against our Government
...
It is the second clause, abridging free speech that we are discussing. Phelps is allowed to speak freely about his opinions, but is not allowed to break the established laws. The laws in place are harrassment or inciting riots. The yelling, 'FIRE' in a crowded theater when there is no fire may lead to physical harm to those exiting in a panic. That fall under inciting a riot.
The lower courts ruled in favor of Snyder (father of the soldier) in a Civil suit against Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church members that was later overturned by the appelate court. And has reached the Supreme Court for a final decision.
If the civil damages are upheld, then it opens the door to people filing lawsuits against all kinds of speech and protests. For example, the protestors outside abortion clinics, anti-war protests, etc... can be sued by people claiming harrassment and that emotional distress was caused by the protestors words.
...
It is as not cut and dry as media outlets and public opinions perceive... it is rather, a very difficult case with First Amendment implications tied to it. This case must be decided upon the Constitutional rights, not the parties in the case... regardless of the heinous nature of the Defendent.
...
Again, my opinion of the Phelps clan is as despicable as the words of the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi groups. The common descency of most people is to respect the solitude of a funeral, regardless of the person being honored.

Commy

this is one of the cases that is absolutely black and white....



either you support free speech, and the most despicable among us to say what they will, or you don't.

mickeyrat

Commy wrote:

this is one of the cases that is absolutely black and white....



either you support free speech, and the most despicable among us to say what they will, or you don't.

harrassment. believe the part where the website targeting the parents by NAME is the crux of this particular case.

taken from the OP article.
"Several weeks later, as Snyder surfed the Internet for tributes to Matthew from other soldiers and strangers, he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.

That's when he decided to take action and soon filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million."

Commy

mickeyrat wrote:

Commy wrote:

this is one of the cases that is absolutely black and white....



either you support free speech, and the most despicable among us to say what they will, or you don't.

harrassment. believe the part where the website targeting the parents by NAME is the crux of this particular case.

taken from the OP article.
"Several weeks later, as Snyder surfed the Internet for tributes to Matthew from other soldiers and strangers, he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.

That's when he decided to take action and soon filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million."

to continue, from the op article,

" Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability."




they are trying to decide what is acceptable to say or not.


this right is guaranteed as the 1st amendment for a reason. we MUST be able to hold our government in check, to say what we will. it is to prevent things like the patriot act, to prevent unnecessary war, to prevent things like the holocaust. if speech in the meantime hurts someones feelings...too bad. that is no reason to take this right away.


you either support free speech or you don't.

mikepegg44

Commy wrote:

to continue, from the op article,

" Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability."

they are trying to decide what is acceptable to say or not.

this right is guaranteed as the 1st amendment for a reason. we MUST be able to hold our government in check, to say what we will. it is to prevent things like the patriot act, to prevent unnecessary war, to prevent things like the holocaust. if speech in the meantime hurts someones feelings...too bad. that is no reason to take this right away.

you either support free speech or you don't.

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

Commy

mikepegg44 wrote:

Commy wrote:

to continue, from the op article,

" Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability."

they are trying to decide what is acceptable to say or not.

this right is guaranteed as the 1st amendment for a reason. we MUST be able to hold our government in check, to say what we will. it is to prevent things like the patriot act, to prevent unnecessary war, to prevent things like the holocaust. if speech in the meantime hurts someones feelings...too bad. that is no reason to take this right away.

you either support free speech or you don't.

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

ok, you don't support freedom of speech. noted.

keeponrockin

mikepegg44 wrote:

Commy wrote:

to continue, from the op article,

" Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability."

they are trying to decide what is acceptable to say or not.

this right is guaranteed as the 1st amendment for a reason. we MUST be able to hold our government in check, to say what we will. it is to prevent things like the patriot act, to prevent unnecessary war, to prevent things like the holocaust. if speech in the meantime hurts someones feelings...too bad. that is no reason to take this right away.

you either support free speech or you don't.

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

I don't believe we have the right NOT to be offended.

TriumphantAngel

mikepegg44 wrote:

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

how far do you take that pain and suffering though? who gets to choose whats harmful or not? something one person considers harmful might be a big fat laugh to someone else. what about the idiots around here that scream anti semitism and enflict emotional pain and suffering on others with their ridiculous accusations?

they should be held accountable?

Commy

TriumphantAngel wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

how far do you take that pain and suffering though? who gets to choose whats harmful or not? something one person considers harmful might be a big fat laugh to someone else. what about the idiots around here that scream anti semitism and enflict emotional pain and suffering on others with their ridiculous accusations?

they should be held accountable?

excellent point. if the court doesn't rule in favor of free speech, will i be allowed to sue someone if they call me "stupid"?

mikepegg44

Commy wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

how far do you take that pain and suffering though? who gets to choose whats harmful or not? something one person considers harmful might be a big fat laugh to someone else. what about the idiots around here that scream anti semitism and enflict emotional pain and suffering on others with their ridiculous accusations?

they should be held accountable?

excellent point. if the court doesn't rule in favor of free speech, will i be allowed to sue someone if they call me "stupid"?

no, it isn't about being offended it is about being HARASSED how can you not see that?

there is a HUGE difference between saying "fags are the reason America is going to crumble" and saying "Your son"enter name here" the fag who died defending fags is the reason America is doomed." I might even be allowed to give a speech on how I wish there were no more Gays in America and that we should get rid of them through extermination, but I wouldn't be able to say, there, that is Joe Blow, he is gay and needs to be dealt with. How is it not different?

TRIUMPHANT---

The jury would decide as they do now.

I cannot sit on the corner, pick someone and start following them and make comments about them, I shouldn't be able to do it at their funeral either.

mikepegg44

keeponrockin wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Commy wrote:

to continue, from the op article,

" Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability."

they are trying to decide what is acceptable to say or not.

this right is guaranteed as the 1st amendment for a reason. we MUST be able to hold our government in check, to say what we will. it is to prevent things like the patriot act, to prevent unnecessary war, to prevent things like the holocaust. if speech in the meantime hurts someones feelings...too bad. that is no reason to take this right away.

you either support free speech or you don't.

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

I don't believe we have the right NOT to be offended.

it isn't about offending, it is about harassing. I see the difference...am I the only one?

keeponrockin

I see it too, but it's a VERY fine line.

Jason P

Commy wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

this isn't about holding the government accountable. this is about whether people whose conduct borders on harassment can be held liable for the damages their actions cause. We already know the fire in a crowded place argument is not protected speech because of the danger of physical harm, this takes that one step further and says that if your actions cause provable emotional harm to others are you liable for it?
This isn't about being help criminally liable. It is about being able to target private citizens in any form of speech that causes them harm. To me it is no different than yelling fire in a theater, if what you do causes provable harm you should be held liable. The thing the court needs to set up is very clear guidelines for what that entails.
I totally support free speech, but I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility, and if something I have chosen to do harms others, well then shouldn't I be held accountable for that?
Emotional pain and suffering is as real as bodily harm, and if you cause it you should be held liable.

how far do you take that pain and suffering though? who gets to choose whats harmful or not? something one person considers harmful might be a big fat laugh to someone else. what about the idiots around here that scream anti semitism and enflict emotional pain and suffering on others with their ridiculous accusations?

they should be held accountable?

excellent point. if the court doesn't rule in favor of free speech, will i be allowed to sue someone if they call me "stupid"?

Perhaps the Supreme Court could decide, just as they will in this one isolated case.

Eilian

I'm more or less utterly ignorant of the ins and outs of the American Constitution, but I'm guessing vigilante justice is somewhat frowned upon?

Either way if someone targeted by those unfathomable bastards went on a knee-capping spree I couldn't blame them.

Has everybody seen the Louis Theroux documentary with the Phelps'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I found this very interesting and well thought-out explanation of where free speech ends and where slander or defamation begins:

Defamation, which is the catch-all for slander and libel, is the saying (or writing) of something that has a harmful affect on one's business, trade or profession. Saying an attorney is a crook, a baker is a poisoner, a doctor is a butcher...and so forth. Those are defamatory statements if directed at a specific idividual. Then we start getting vague. Saying a person is a lousy parent is not slander. Commenting on a public figure, even attacking the public figure in their profession, is "protected". I can say Bush is a terrible president, incapable of making a rational decision and has led this country into one disaster after another. I am protected by the privilege to comment on public figures. I can say Harrison Ford is a terrible actor...again commenting negatively on his profession. Protected. The guidelines seem reasonable.

As much as it sucks, Mike, I think I'm going to have to side with Commy on this one. Freedom of speech ain't all rainbows and lollipops.

Godfather.

this is a total lack or respect for the Family's and their feelings not to mention the deceased solders that died in service to our country, I wonder how they would feel if a bunch of solders attended a funeral of one their group
picketing with signs like the ones they use.

Godfather.

Jason P

Everyone here is aware that this group is targeting the homosexual community, right? The funerals are just an effective method for them to use media outlets to spew their hate. I somehow suspect that if US soldiers were taken out of this equation, opinions across this board would flip.

Eilian

Jason P wrote:

Everyone here is aware that this group is targeting the homosexual community, right? The funerals are just an effective method for them to use media outlets to spew their hate. I somehow suspect that if US soldiers were taken out of this equation, opinions across this board would flip.

Elaborate.

Do you think that people would become more sympathetic to the homophobic agenda?