Interesting Lawsuit

[vbnautilus 48]

Yes."They are going to have to uproot an entire body of law to stop us" To me, this screams of hate speech and/or threats.I felt that more strongly before I had to explain it. I'm kind of coming up blank. It implies that they know what they are doing is harmful, but are misusing laws and the system to keep doing it.I like Randy's point about being terrorist, especially when the funeral isn't for a gay soldier, but that's a slippery slope I'd rather avoid.If this was about anything other than gays, it would be considered hateful. Women, blacks, you name it. It'd be hateful. But it's about gays, and it'll be 10 years until American society considers them the same as other groups in that respect.

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to say things that some people find "hateful"?

[SweetDee 0]

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to say things that some people find "hateful"?

And if so what is hate?

[speedz99 145]

I like Randy's point about being terrorist, especially when the funeral isn't for a gay soldier, but that's a slippery slope I'd rather avoid.

Actually, I'd argue that it's less of a terrorist act (if we're going to use that phrase, which we shouldn't) when it wasn't a gay soldier. When it's not a gay soldier's funeral it's not nearly as personal, is it? They're just railing against the government and it's position on gays and such in this situation, but if it was a gay soldier they'd be directly spewing hate against the dude in the coffin.

And if so what is hate?

Intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.

[SweetDee 0]

Actually, I'd argue that it's less of a terrorist act (if we're going to use that phrase, which we shouldn't) when it wasn't a gay soldier. When it's not a gay soldier's funeral it's not nearly as personal, is it? They're just railing against the government and it's position on gays and such in this situation, but if it was a gay soldier they'd be directly spewing hate against the dude in the coffin.Intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.

I guess I just don't get what the problem is exactly. By that definition hate speech goes on all day and night at every news outlet in the U.S., it's just the hate is fired in different directions. I mean, would it have been a problem if a pro-gay group showed up and spent 2 hours marching with signs talking about how awesome it was that this straight guy was a soldier and by being a soldier he supported gays, and hot damn he might as well be gay? Would the dad be suing then? If the answer is no then it's hypocritical of him to say the least. I like this thread is called "Interesting lawsuit" because it is but it also isn't. I can walk around all day in a shopping mall wearing a t-shirt that says "I hate whitey" and no one would care, but if I wore one that said "I hate negros" people would be shitting bricks, but the message is the same, and at the end of the day it's just a t-shirt, whether or not it effects anyone is a personal choice made by the reader. I just think this world would be 1000% better if we just learned to ignore ignorance. How cool would this story be if the dad had the courage to say "I don't like your message or the way in which you chose to deliver it but my son died so you can do exactly what it is that you are doing and in a way you honor him all the more. Have a great day fellas." Turn the other cheek if you will.

[speedz99 145]

I guess I just don't get what the problem is exactly. By that definition hate speech goes on all day and night at every news outlet in the U.S., it's just the hate is fired in different directions. I mean, would it have been a problem if a pro-gay group showed up and spent 2 hours marching with signs talking about how awesome it was that this straight guy was a soldier and by being a soldier he supported gays, and hot damn he might as well be gay? Would the dad be suing then? If the answer is no then it's hypocritical of him to say the least. I like this thread is called "Interesting lawsuit" because it is but it also isn't. I can walk around all day in a shopping mall wearing a t-shirt that says "I hate whitey" and no one would care, but if I wore one that said "I hate negros" people would be shitting bricks, but the message is the same, and at the end of the day it's just a t-shirt, whether or not it effects anyone is a personal choice made by the reader.

So, no offense (obviously), but you sound like someone that's never been discriminated against for anything in his life. Just saying. Not that what you're saying isn't completely rational.

I just think this world would be 1000% better if we just learned to ignore ignorance. How cool would this story be if the dad had the courage to say "I don't like your message or the way in which you chose to deliver it but my son died so you can do exactly what it is that you are doing and in a way you honor him all the more. Have a great day fellas." Turn the other cheek if you will.

I agree, but it's easier said than done. If the dad ignored them, it wouldn't have even been a national story...the group probably is loving all the attention.

[SBriand 4]

I wish there was a way for me to say what I want to say without pissing a bunch of people off. Those people offend me. Everything they say and stand for is completely opposite of what I believe and stand for. If I was around them I would probably go all Angry Steve on them. But I would not sue them in this instance because they didn't do anything illegal. They didn't do something they were not entitled to do based on laws or the Constitution. My main issue is this is just another story of someone who feels that if they don't like what someone else does they feel they can just sue them willy nilly. If I got to sue people who pissed me off or offended me in someway I would...well be poor because the attorney fees I would have to pay each day would clean me out.Being an American means that you have the right to express your opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are. People forget that if they don't agree with the opinions being expressed. Reminds me of Tuesday when one of my older tenants came down to shoot the shit with me which usually means he wants to fight with me about the car I drive. This is how the conversation goes.Him: You like that car.Me: Yup.Him: Why don't you buy American, your other car was foreign as well. Don't like America?Me: Of course I do. The best part of being an American is I have the freedom to drive any car I want to.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I wish there was a way for me to say what I want to say without pissing a bunch of people off. Those people offend me. Everything they say and stand for is completely opposite of what I believe and stand for. If I was around them I would probably go all Angry Steve on them. But I would not sue them in this instance because they didn't do anything illegal. They didn't do something they were not entitled to do based on laws or the Constitution. My main issue is this is just another story of someone who feels that if they don't like what someone else does they feel they can just sue them willy nilly. If I got to sue people who pissed me off or offended me in someway I would...well be poor because the attorney fees I would have to pay each day would clean me out.Being an American means that you have the right to express your opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are. People forget that if they don't agree with the opinions being expressed. Reminds me of Tuesday when one of my older tenants came down to shoot the shit with me which usually means he wants to fight with me about the car I drive. This is how the conversation goes.Him: You like that car.Me: Yup.Him: Why don't you buy American, your other car was foreign as well. Don't like America?Me: Of course I do. The best part of being an American is I have the freedom to drive any car I want to.

Whoa whoa whoa. You drive a foreign car? You fucking communist. Get out of my sight.

[speedz99 145]

My main issue is this is just another story of someone who feels that if they don't like what someone else does they feel they can just sue them willy nilly. If I got to sue people who pissed me off or offended me in someway I would...well be poor because the attorney fees I would have to pay each day would clean me out.

This wasn't someone coming into a leasing office and being kind of a jerk or a little bit racist. I don't think the guy deserved to win the lawsuit, but I completely understand what he was trying to do.

[SBriand 4]

Whoa whoa whoa. You drive a foreign car? You fucking communist. Get out of my sight.

lolhey now, there is a small town in Ohio full of Americans who are very happy I got a Honda.

This wasn't someone coming into a leasing office and being kind of a jerk or a little bit racist. I don't think the guy deserved to win the lawsuit, but I completely understand what he was trying to do.

True.But it still is a frivolous lawsuit in my opinion.

[vbnautilus 48]

But it still is a frivolous lawsuit in my opinion.

The Supreme Court does not agree with you.If there were no real legal issue here they would not have agreed to hear the case.

[SBriand 4]

The Supreme Court does not agree with you.If there were no real legal issue here they would not have agreed to hear the case.

I believe, in my opinion as stated, that the case had no bunnies. The district court (jury I am assuming) believed it did. The Appeals Court believed it didn't. Clearly there is an issue here that needs to be looked into and that is why we have a the Supreme Court. Just because they decided to hear the case doesn't automatically mean the case had bunnies. The Supreme Court has yet to agree or disagree with me. Hearing the case is different than ruling on the case.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Just because they decided to hear the case doesn't automatically mean the case had merit.

This doesnt make sense to me. The Sup Ct. doesnt hear cases that have no merit. Obviously they feel this issue is an important one that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, why would they hear it?

[SBriand 4]

This doesnt make sense to me. The Sup Ct. doesnt hear cases that have no merit. Obviously they feel this issue is an important one that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, why would they hear it?

I am the one who thinks it has no merit. Not the SC. Well and the appeals court. You don't take away a guys $5mill and then ask him to pay the wackjobs attorney fees if you think the case wasn't something that should have been tried. Maybe I am using merit wrong. Sudafed makes me loopy. Plus I drive a honda.Edit: Yeah I am going to replace merit with bunnies. I like that word better.

[mrdannyg 274]

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to say things that some people find "hateful"?

Is that not part of the Free Speech act? That it discludes 'hate' speech, or something like that?Anyhow, I think there should be (is?) restrictions on speech that is hateful and provoking. Not that it should be disallowed, just restricted.I realize some Americans are probably losing their shit right now, that I'm suggesting to abolish free speech. That's a load. Free speech is a misused and pointless aspect of 'freedom.' The government enacts laws that allows them to monitor anyone without a public record of why, and arrest people without giving a reason...free speech is a long way off.

[mrdannyg 274]

I believe, in my opinion as stated, that the case had no bunnies. The district court (jury I am assuming) believed it did. The Appeals Court believed it didn't. Clearly there is an issue here that needs to be looked into and that is why we have a the Supreme Court. Just because they decided to hear the case doesn't automatically mean the case had bunnies. The Supreme Court has yet to agree or disagree with me. Hearing the case is different than ruling on the case.

That's not accurate. The appeal court wouldn't have heard the case if it didn't feel it had bunnies. Similarly, the Supreme Court hears a tiny percentage of cases that get appealed to it. The fact that it has been accepted by them is big news in itself, and confirms they think at least some aspect of the case is bunny....as far as I understand.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Is that not part of the Free Speech act? That it discludes 'hate' speech, or something like that?

Time to sound ignorant in 3, 2, 1...What's the Free Speech Act?And the only speech that isn't allowed (that I'm aware of) is the type that incites violence, but even that is set at a very high level so it's tough to prove.Personally, I think it would suck if I couldn't express just how much I hate you.

[vbnautilus 48]

Is that not part of the Free Speech act? That it discludes 'hate' speech, or something like that?

No, not in the United States.

Anyhow, I think there should be (is?) restrictions on speech that is hateful and provoking. Not that it should be disallowed, just restricted.I realize some Americans are probably losing their shit right now, that I'm suggesting to abolish free speech. That's a load. Free speech is a misused and pointless aspect of 'freedom.' The government enacts laws that allows them to monitor anyone without a public record of why, and arrest people without giving a reason...free speech is a long way off.

I think you're way off on this one. If we leave it up to someone to decide what speech can be restricted under the distinction "hateful", then all kinds of speech can effectively be restricted. "Hateful" is not an objective category and therefore can be used to stifle all kinds of speech that some group does not want to hear. This is precisely the reason the constitution restricts congress from making laws that restrict speech.

[vbnautilus 48]

Time to sound ignorant in 3, 2, 1...What's the Free Speech Act?And the only speech that isn't allowed (that I'm aware of) is the type that incites violence, but even that is set at a very high level so it's tough to prove.Personally, I think it would suck if I couldn't express just how much I hate you.

You were not the ignorant one in this exchange.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Phew.

[SBriand 4]

Damn bunnies.OK well maybe I will actually try and learn more about this case.I reallllly wish I could get a hold of the Appeals case. Love to see what they said.Have a nice Easter.

[SweetDee 0]

So, no offense (obviously), but you sound like someone that's never been discriminated against for anything in his life. Just saying. Not that what you're saying isn't completely rational.I agree, but it's easier said than done. If the dad ignored them, it wouldn't have even been a national story...the group probably is loving all the attention.

I had bouts with epilepsy out of the blue from like 14 to 17, and was/am rather good looking, so I know what it's like to go from the cute kid to the kid who might choke on his omelet in front of you, pretty much overnight. I never shook that stigma until I pretty much ditched everyone I ever knew. So, yeah, I know a bit about a form of discrimination. That being said, I was acutely aware of it but was also pretty driven to be what I wanted when I wanted, so I never let it get me down. I am a textbook example of the guy who never took no for an answer, just kept grinding it out. I learned pretty quick that fat chicks gave the best head anyway.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I had bouts with epilepsy out of the blue from like 14 to 17, and was/am rather good looking, so I know what it's like to go from the cute kid to the kid who might choke on his omelet in front of you, pretty much overnight. I never shook that stigma until I pretty much ditched everyone I ever knew. So, yeah, I know a bit about a form of discrimination. That being said, I was acutely aware of it but was also pretty driven to be what I wanted when I wanted, so I never let it get me down. I am a textbook example of the guy who never took no for an answer, just kept grinding it out. I learned pretty quick that fat chicks gave the best head anyway.

i laughed at this for all the wrong reasons.

[SweetDee 0]

i laughed at this for all the wrong reasons.

Meanie.

[speedz99 145]

Anyhow, I think there should be (is?) restrictions on speech that is hateful and provoking. Not that it should be disallowed, just restricted.I realize some Americans are probably losing their shit right now, that I'm suggesting to abolish free speech. That's a load. Free speech is a misused and pointless aspect of 'freedom.'

That's how governments are able to get away with arresting citizens who vocally disagree with them. Slippery slope.

I had bouts with epilepsy out of the blue from like 14 to 17, and was/am rather good looking, so I know what it's like to go from the cute kid to the kid who might choke on his omelet in front of you, pretty much overnight. I never shook that stigma until I pretty much ditched everyone I ever knew. So, yeah, I know a bit about a form of discrimination. That being said, I was acutely aware of it but was also pretty driven to be what I wanted when I wanted, so I never let it get me down. I am a textbook example of the guy who never took no for an answer, just kept grinding it out. I learned pretty quick that fat chicks gave the best head anyway.

That's...not really discrimination, but I suppose I'll allow it.

[Randy Reed 0]

I guess I just don't get what the problem is exactly. By that definition hate speech goes on all day and night at every news outlet in the U.S., it's just the hate is fired in different directions. I mean, would it have been a problem if a pro-gay group showed up and spent 2 hours marching with signs talking about how awesome it was that this straight guy was a soldier and by being a soldier he supported gays, and hot damn he might as well be gay? Would the dad be suing then? If the answer is no then it's hypocritical of him to say the least. I like this thread is called "Interesting lawsuit" because it is but it also isn't. I can walk around all day in a shopping mall wearing a t-shirt that says "I hate whitey" and no one would care, but if I wore one that said "I hate negros" people would be shitting bricks, but the message is the same, and at the end of the day it's just a t-shirt, whether or not it effects anyone is a personal choice made by the reader. I just think this world would be 1000% better if we just learned to ignore ignorance. How cool would this story be if the dad had the courage to say "I don't like your message or the way in which you chose to deliver it but my son died so you can do exactly what it is that you are doing and in a way you honor him all the more. Have a great day fellas." Turn the other cheek if you will.

The problem is that a man was trying to bury his son and is in a terrible state of mind, grieving in what most people would consider the worst possible hand life can deal to you and you have these idiots with no remorse or feeling with every intention in the world to make that time even more unbearable for you. Anyone with any spec of decency agrees with this. If it had been my son I would have drove my car through the lot of them without a second thought. Bottom line is they shouldn't be allowed to do it at a funeral. Britain maybe went to far prosecuting under terrorist laws but the muslims opened up their prosecution with other actions and what they said. As far as current law that remains to be seen and is very interesting. Kudos to the dad for trying to do something about it withing the law and I'd be damned if I would pay for their attorney fees either. That's sticking a knife in the wound. Somehow, common sense has to prevail. There is no way Patrick Henry would defend the right of these people's free speech. It isn't free when it is bringing that high a cost to people.