Supreme Court Takes Phelps Case

C

Cancel7

Banned
I am interested to know what others thing of this. I have never viewed this a free speech issue. this is clear cut depraved harrassment to me, and I don't see why the law should protect them from paying damages for the trauma they inflict.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/military-funeral-protest-case_n_752310.html


WASHINGTON — The father of a Marine killed in Iraq is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against members of a fundamentalist church who picketed his son's funeral with signs like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates the USA."

The court is hearing arguments Wednesday in the dispute between Albert Snyder of York, Pa., and members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.
 
I agree, Darla. Sometimes there are limitations on speech, free or not. I am pulling for the marine's dad in this one. If these "church members" want to protest they can do it somewhere besides the kids funeral.
 
the phelps team of idiots has no 1st Amendment protection in this issue. They are not protesting against the government of any sort, they are harassing private families in one of the most trying times of their lives. Not only should the 5 million dollar verdict be reinstated, but it should be doubled.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the phelps team of idiots has no 1st Amendment protection in this issue. They are not protesting against the government of any sort, they are harassing private families in one of the most trying times of their lives. Not only should the 5 million dollar verdict be reinstated, but it should be doubled.
Click to expand...


But since when is free speech only protected when you're protesting the government? That sounds made up.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
your free speech is protected from consequences at the governments hands. It says absolutely zero about protection from other private parties. Personally, I'm going to join the Patriot Guard Riders and chase these idiots away from any funeral we're at.
Click to expand...

I think it's implied that the government is to protect those rights from all parties.

Slavery is illegal, not just slavery by the government, but slavery from other parties as well.

You've become skewed in your thinking recently.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
did that stop any of the backlash against the dixie chicks? nope. is it stopping costco from having protesters arrested for their complicity in the Erik Scott execution? Nope.
Click to expand...
But those were just citizens boycotting their product, or making counter criticism.

nobody asked the court to silence them, or punish them legally for their speech.
when did you become full on totalitarian?
Click to expand...

You're the one who wants people legally punished for free speech. Ask yourself.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
your free speech is protected from consequences at the governments hands. It says absolutely zero about protection from other private parties. Personally, I'm going to join the Patriot Guard Riders and chase these idiots away from any funeral we're at.
Click to expand...


The First Amendment protects against state law tort claims that are based on speech, with some notable exception. Once a private party invokes the state to do something based on speech (i.e., files a lawsuit seeking an award of damages), the First Amendment is implicated.

It sucks, but Phelps is right on this one.
 
STY, im waiting for an apology on your wild and misplaced accusation that im a totalitarian for understanding the first amendment. Do it now, and your punishment will be minimal. :^)
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the phelps team of idiots has no 1st Amendment protection in this issue. They are not protesting against the government of any sort, they are harassing private families in one of the most trying times of their lives. Not only should the 5 million dollar verdict be reinstated, but it should be doubled.
Click to expand...

Not only should it be doubled, but Phelps and his crew of neanderthals should be strapped to a medieval racks and kicked repeatedly in the nuts.
 
There's more to understanding the law than just boldly making statements about the law that are uninformed.

They do have protection on this issue.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The First Amendment protects against state law tort claims that are based on speech, with some notable exception. Once a private party invokes the state to do something based on speech (i.e., files a lawsuit seeking an award of damages), the First Amendment is implicated.

It sucks, but Phelps is right on this one.
Click to expand...

then the obvious way to deal with this issue is beat the holy hell out of phelps and his idiots, then claim that they used violence provoking statements. works for me.
 
Superfreak said:
Not only should it be doubled, but Phelps and his crew of neanderthals should be strapped to a medieval racks and kicked repeatedly in the nuts.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised no one has killed him by now. If someone who just lost a loved one puts a bullet into one of these lunatics, who could blame them really? But I don't understand why it has to come to that. They should be jailed when they show up. Creating a disturbence or something.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The First Amendment protects against state law tort claims that are based on speech, with some notable exception. Once a private party invokes the state to do something based on speech (i.e., files a lawsuit seeking an award of damages), the First Amendment is implicated.

It sucks, but Phelps is right on this one.
Click to expand...

Well, I know jack-shit about constitutional law, but if that is the case then maybe someone's father or mother has to kill him. I wouldn't convict.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's pretty sad how you hate free speech, and are a totalitarian.
Click to expand...

freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you wish, where ever you wish without consequences. Unfortunately Phelps has the RIGHT to do what he did. That doesn't change the fact he should be repeatedly kicked in the nuts for using his free speech to attack the families of fallen soldiers who along with their brethren have stood up to provide him with that right.
 
All the New World Order totalitarians agree, people exercizing free speech should be forcibly silenced or murdered. Nice.
 
Superfreak said:
freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you wish, where ever you wish without consequences. Unfortunately Phelps has the RIGHT to do what he did. That doesn't change the fact he should be repeatedly kicked in the nuts for using his free speech to attack the families of fallen soldiers who along with their brethren have stood up to provide him with that right.
Click to expand...

How long have you advocated vigilante totalitarianism against free speech practicioners?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top