Jump to content

Interesting Lawsuit


Recommended Posts

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 the 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.
No offense, but you are looking at this too narrowly. These people put no one in physical danger. You just dont like it. And neither do I. But that doesnt mean we can ban it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No offense, but you are looking at this too narrowly. These people put no one in physical danger. You just dont like it. And neither do I. But that doesnt mean we can ban it.
So if God spoke to me and told me to follow your mother around screaming at her that God hates whores you'd be okay with that? I wouldn't be putting anyone in physical danger? And you know, it is God speaking to me, wouldn't want anyone to think "narrowly".This of course is ridiculous, but you get the point. The line has to be drawn somewhere for what religous fanatics can get away with.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So if God spoke to me and told me to follow your mother around screaming at her that God hates whores you'd be okay with that? I wouldn't be putting anyone in physical danger? And you know, it is God speaking to me, wouldn't want anyone to think "narrowly".This of course is ridiculous, but you get the point. The line has to be drawn somewhere for what religous fanatics can get away with.
Well, in your example, a restraining order would eliminate such nonsense. So that analogy doesnt fit.As much as we dislike it, people must be free to spout their idiocy. Someday you may want to spout some of your own.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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[/quoteI dont think this is even REMOTELY true. It also sounds like something Rush "I only see reverse racism" Limbaugh would say.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No offense, but you are looking at this too narrowly. These people put no one in physical danger. You just dont like it. And neither do I. But that doesnt mean we can ban it.
The question is what constitutes harrassment to the point where it becomes illegal. I don't think it's too narrow to think that a funeral demonstration might fit that bill, which is why I don't consider the lawsuit to be frivolous...just doomed to fail.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is what constitutes harrassment to the point where it becomes illegal. I don't think it's too narrow to think that a funeral demonstration might fit that bill, which is why I don't consider the lawsuit to be frivolous...just doomed to fail.
I dont think this type of protesting crosses the line of legality. People protest outside the white house all the time. They protest schools, and companies and people. These people are protesting in a way we find ridiculous, and offensive. But their protest, to me, doesnt differ enough from other protests to make it illegal. Thinking its bad taste doesnt make it illegal. Now, if they'd used names, and tried to get into the church, and or even done it repeatedly (to the same person), then that would be different.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Being an American means that you have the right to express your opinionsThe best part of being an American is I have the freedom to drive any car I want to.
lol,
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, the right handles the problem while the left just whinesThanks Bill O'Rielly
That was nice of him, not that he really "handled the problem". But, once again, the right shows that it will yell and scream about constitutional rights when it comes to having fun guns to play with, but will totally ignore basic constitutional rights when it comes to wanting to ban free speech that they disagree with (e.g. flag burning).
I dont think this type of protesting crosses the line of legality. People protest outside the white house all the time. They protest schools, and companies and people. These people are protesting in a way we find ridiculous, and offensive. But their protest, to me, doesnt differ enough from other protests to make it illegal. Thinking its bad taste doesnt make it illegal. Now, if they'd used names, and tried to get into the church, and or even done it repeatedly (to the same person), then that would be different.
This is beyond bad taste, which is why I don't consider the lawsuit to be frivolous, but, as I've said, I agree that it wasn't illegal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is beyond bad taste, which is why I don't consider the lawsuit to be frivolous, but, as I've said, I agree that it wasn't illegal.
What do you call something beyond bad taste, but not illegal? I'm not sure.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's back up. These people are allegedly protesting gays in the military and saying that God was killing our soldiers because of it. How can anyone in their right mind make this leap of intelligent reason? They purposely chose this funeral with reckless disregard for the mental well-being of the father. This wasn't a public venue such as a court or abortion clinic, it was a funeral whose sole purpose of pageantry is to allow the family and friends to grieve. With willful disregard to this the protesters planned and carried out their publicity campaign. They were obviously compliant in their attempt to cause emotional distress and harrass the father, let alone the absolute ridiculousness of their argument. God is killing our soldiers? Really?Athiests are constantly pointing to the idiocy of the bible and the millions of obscure variations people take from it leading to complete non-rational thought. This is a prime example. If they are allowed to get away with it, then we should make a law banning religious protests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, let's back up. These people are allegedly protesting gays in the military and saying that God was killing our soldiers because of it. How can anyone in their right mind make this leap of intelligent reason? They purposely chose this funeral with reckless disregard for the mental well-being of the father. This wasn't a public venue such as a court or abortion clinic, it was a funeral whose sole purpose of pageantry is to allow the family and friends to grieve. With willful disregard to this the protesters planned and carried out their publicity campaign. They were obviously compliant in their attempt to cause emotional distress and harrass the father, let alone the absolute ridiculousness of their argument. God is killing our soldiers? Really?
Yeah, but that's beside the point...anyone with anything even resembling a brain can see that these people are morons. The only remotely interesting question is the legality of their actions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
No, not in the United States. 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.
Free Speech Act/First Amendment. I'm Canadian, sorry.The point is, there is already a ton of censorship. "Free Speech" implies there is none. I think a protest at a funeral, suggesting someone 'deserved' to die, for something that was not their fault, is inciteful. I may have spelled that word wrong.JJJ has every right to say how much he hates me, even without saying anything reasonable. Now, if I was to die saving children from a burning building, and he went to my funeral and screamed that I deserved to die, because God sent the flames to kill all the homos...that seems 'wrong' to me. If I had a family that tended towards that kind of thing, it might even incite violence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I had a family that tended towards that kind of thing, it might even incite violence.
Well, stupid posts incite me to violence, so I suggest you be a little more careful if you don't want to be guilty of a crime.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is, there is already a ton of censorship. "Free Speech" implies there is none.
Content or viewpoint based censorship is very rare.
I think a protest at a funeral, suggesting someone 'deserved' to die, for something that was not their fault, is inciteful. I may have spelled that word wrong.
Lots of very smart people have carefully considered issues relating to the application of the first amendment. Thankfully, these efforts have resulted in guidelines that are formulated on the basis of relatively well defined tests as opposed emotional reactions.
I may have spelled that word wrong.
If only there was a way to know for sure.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree partially with DannyG's last post, but I think I have some better examples. The point is, the act of speaking can, in innumerable ways, itself be a crime. Examples:If I walk into a bank and approach a teller and say 'I've got a gun and I swear I will use it, empty the register now' or hand him/her a note saying the same, I'm robbing a bank. I'm not exercising free speech. If I stand outside an abortion clinic saying that God hates abortionists, I am exercising legal free speech. But if, every time Dr. Killbaby leaves at the end of the day I say to him, 'I swear on my children that I will fucking murder you tomorrow morning if you come here again,' I am committing a crime. I'm not allowed to say that to somebody in a threatening (non-joking) manner. And so on. But the real kicker here, as I see it, is that those examples involve criminal acts. This lawsuit is obviously a civil case, where the plaintiff does not need to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. The plaintiff just needs to prove that they have been wronged to an extent that they should be compensated for it. As I understand it, this puts more weight on the defendant to prove his innocence than he would be under during a criminal trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think measures can be taken to counteract the Westboro Baptist Church's effort within the law. We could avoid an issue being taken to the Supreme Court that might make a ruling that would affect us all.There is plenty of coverage on these nutjobs and the large majority of Americans despise what these assholes are doing. Could we not work to counter-protest? When the WBC is going to disrupt a military funeral, have a gathering with the intention of putting as much space as possible between the WBC and the funeral so it couldn't possibly be interrupted. I would guess that there is a limited amount of space to accommodate protesters and that the local police force would probably be inclined to assist the quiet/mourning anti-WBC gathering more than the WBC itself.If Americans can gather into Tea Parties over taxes, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take much effort to eliminate the ability of the WBC to disrupt anything. We, as citizens, take action and prove that the current law works and that we don't need the courts to start getting involved in possibly restricting our first amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think measures can be taken to counteract the Westboro Baptist Church's effort within the law. We could avoid an issue being taken to the Supreme Court that might make a ruling that would affect us all.There is plenty of coverage on these nutjobs and the large majority of Americans despise what these assholes are doing. Could we not work to counter-protest? When the WBC is going to disrupt a military funeral, have a gathering with the intention of putting as much space as possible between the WBC and the funeral so it couldn't possibly be interrupted. I would guess that there is a limited amount of space to accommodate protesters and that the local police force would probably be inclined to assist the quiet/mourning anti-WBC gathering more than the WBC itself.If Americans can gather into Tea Parties over taxes, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take much effort to eliminate the ability of the WBC to disrupt anything. We, as citizens, take action and prove that the current law works and that we don't need the courts to start getting involved in possibly restricting our first amendment rights.
But the point is that we may not have the right to stop them from protesting. And I kind of doubt arranging for a larger crowd to do an anti-protest is going to give people the peace they want at their funeral.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But the point is that we may not have the right to stop them from protesting. And I kind of doubt arranging for a larger crowd to do an anti-protest is going to give people the peace they want at their funeral.
It wouldn't be an anti-protest as much as a show of support. The group against WBC would be quiet and respectful. I believe this would mean a lot to any grieving military family.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think measures can be taken to counteract the Westboro Baptist Church's effort within the law. We could avoid an issue being taken to the Supreme Court that might make a ruling that would affect us all.There is plenty of coverage on these nutjobs and the large majority of Americans despise what these assholes are doing. Could we not work to counter-protest? When the WBC is going to disrupt a military funeral, have a gathering with the intention of putting as much space as possible between the WBC and the funeral so it couldn't possibly be interrupted. I would guess that there is a limited amount of space to accommodate protesters and that the local police force would probably be inclined to assist the quiet/mourning anti-WBC gathering more than the WBC itself.If Americans can gather into Tea Parties over taxes, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take much effort to eliminate the ability of the WBC to disrupt anything. We, as citizens, take action and prove that the current law works and that we don't need the courts to start getting involved in possibly restricting our first amendment rights.
I saw a thing on the news a while back about a bunch of bikers who did just that, using large banners to cover the Westboro people's signs and forming a human chain of awesomeness to prevent them from disrupting the funerals.I've also seen bikers form up at the airport in Anchorage to welcome home returning soldiers with flags and signs and stuff.I generally like bikers, except for the Mongrols and HAs who give bikers a bad name.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the Internet should turn its forces against Westboro Baptist, much like they have against Scientology. This guy has the right idea:4313477038_079b6b8216.jpgEdit: Moar:chris_pesto.jpga17.jpgAnd the all-time classic:591blog_homosex.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...