Supreme Court Takes Phelps Case

[Timshel]

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.

The lower court was right. We can't allow juries to award damages in such a case because the awards would be biased by the nature of the speech act.

There is no reason state and municipalities cannot pass content neutral prohibitions on picketing in front of a funeral homes, though.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The lower court was right. We can't allow juries to award damages in such a case because the awards would be biased by the nature of the speech act.

There is no reason state and municipalities cannot pass content neutral prohibitions on picketing in front of a funeral homes, though.

do you realize you are positing a very slippery slope? ooops..here come the logical fallacy arguments....however, in this case....it is applicable and not a fallacy

juries are of OUR peers....of course they are biased.....that is whole point of juries....now....they must not be biased in any outcome....but...our judicial system is deeply founded in a biased, if you will, jury system, because the kings law or noble judicial system failed

 

[Timshel]

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.

The court has held that civil liability for a speech act can violate the first amendment since New York Times vs Sullivan. Further, if Larry Flynt can say Falwell slept with his mother in an outhouse and be protected from suit due to the first amendment then why wouldn't Phelps be protected?

Civil liability is not the way to handle this because any jury award is almost certain to be based on the content of the speech. They should simply pass laws that allow police to remove such protesters. The court has argued that picketers may be removed from private residences and I see no reason they should not be barred from funerals.

Just because someone is engaged in a speech act should not allow them to intrude upon the privacy or property of others. One has every right to speak but no right to an audience.

 

[Timshel]

do you realize you are positing a very slippery slope? ooops..here come the logical fallacy arguments....however, in this case....it is applicable and not a fallacy

juries are of OUR peers....of course they are biased.....that is whole point of juries....now....they must not be biased in any outcome....but...our judicial system is deeply founded in a biased, if you will, jury system, because the kings law or noble judicial system failed

Do you imagine this counters something I said?

I am not making an argument against juries. They simply should not be allowed to limit speech in such a way. A jury award is going to be biased based on the content of the speech and therefore would violate the first amendment. Any limit on speech must be content neutral.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Do you imagine this counters something I said?

I am not making an argument against juries. They simply should not be allowed to limit speech in such a way. A jury award is going to be biased based on the content of the speech and therefore would violate the first amendment. Any limit on speech must be content neutral.

I don't think you are 'absolutely' right about that. I think the speech has to be shown to infringe upon another right, in this case, the right to privacy, and it has to be shown to be more egregious to the right of privacy than the allowance of the speech in question, and 'content' is notwithstanding. It could play a factor, or it couldn't.. it depends.

 

[Timshel]

I don't think you are 'absolutely' right about that. I think the speech has to be shown to infringe upon another right, in this case, the right to privacy, and it has to be shown to be more egregious to the right of privacy than the allowance of the speech in question, and 'content' is notwithstanding. It could play a factor, or it couldn't.. it depends.

And you are wrong. Any limit on speech must be content neutral, narrowly tailored, serve a significant state interest and leave open other opportunities for communication.

I would argue that a local or state ordinance against picketing outside of a funeral serves a state interest in protecting privacy rights of individuals just as a law against picketing in front of someones home does. It could be narrowly tailored, content neutral and certainly would leave open other opportunities for communication.

Jury awards against speech that hurts someones feelings would lead to restrictions that are not content neutral. It would limit speech.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And you are wrong. Any limit on speech must be content neutral, narrowly tailored, serve a significant state interest and leave open other opportunities for communication.

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about "content neutral" ...NO SPEECH IS EVER "CONTENT NEUTRAL!" And what does "narrowly tailored?" We aren't talking about clothing for gay people here! If the issues of this case did not serve a significant state interest, they wouldn't be hearing the case, you moron. Why don't you grow the fuck up and get a clue, and stop repeating some intellectualist line of crap out of an editorial in playboy, that you stole from under daddy's bed!

Limit on speech is dependent upon the 'damage' that speech inflicts on the rights of others. If the content is neutral, it does not sufficiently damage the rights of others to even bring a case against it, therefore it is academic to this discussion. Also, the interest of the state is only in play if the state is somehow a party to the case, and in this case, they are not. There is no provision whatsoever in our Constitution to only allow speech that can be open to opportunity for rebuttal... sorry, not in the goddamn Constitution, asswipe!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Why don't you grow the fuck up and get a clue, and stop repeating some intellectualist line of crap out of an editorial in playboy, that you stole from under daddy's bed!

RS is like 40. His dad might be dead, Dixie...

 

[Socrtease]

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about "content neutral" ...NO SPEECH IS EVER "CONTENT NEUTRAL!" And what does "narrowly tailored?" We aren't talking about clothing for gay people here! If the issues of this case did not serve a significant state interest, they wouldn't be hearing the case, you moron. Why don't you grow the fuck up and get a clue, and stop repeating some intellectualist line of crap out of an editorial in playboy, that you stole from under daddy's bed!

Limit on speech is dependent upon the 'damage' that speech inflicts on the rights of others. If the content is neutral, it does not sufficiently damage the rights of others to even bring a case against it, therefore it is academic to this discussion. Also, the interest of the state is only in play if the state is somehow a party to the case, and in this case, they are not. There is no provision whatsoever in our Constitution to only allow speech that can be open to opportunity for rebuttal... sorry, not in the goddamn Constitution, asswipe!

I love this because it shows what a legally challenged moron you are. Content Neutral means that the restriction on protesting can't have ANYTHING to do with what the protest is about. The state can limit a protest within x feet of a funeral home so long as it affects EVERY type of protest, So whether one is holding signs that say "god hates fags" or "embalming fluid is unnatural" neither protest can be within x feet of the funeral home. That is content neutrality. Speech can be restricted according to time place and manner. Governments may place restrictions on what time you protest, how close or far you have to be from certain buildings or persons and they can limit how you speak, for instance not using bullhorns. The reasons for the restrictions must be narrowly tailored to suit the government interest. If you want to put restrictions on protesting funerals, you could require that all protestors stay 100 yards from the funeral home or cemetary to give the grieving their privacy but you could not make the entire procession route off limits, that is what is meant by narrowly tailored.

 

[Cancel7]

The lower court was right. We can't allow juries to award damages in such a case because the awards would be biased by the nature of the speech act.

There is no reason state and municipalities cannot pass content neutral prohibitions on picketing in front of a funeral homes, though.

I really think this is the best solution. I wish they would do it. It would save people such pain, but also, it would avoid violence. Because I think that sooner or later, this ends in violence.

 

[Lowaicue]

RS is like 40. His dad might be dead, Dixie...

Just for fun, what is like 40? Surely 40 is unique. I mean you cant say 39 is like 40 or 41.5 is like 40. Perhaps he is 25 but behaves as if he is 40 or is he 60 and looking remarkably young?

Sorry just having a dig at this Valley Talk stuff.

 

[leaningright]

everyone that has access to guns are mostly conservative and agree with him

I absolutely take offense to that remark....as if I think Grind would care.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The court has held that civil liability for a speech act can violate the first amendment since New York Times vs Sullivan. Further, if Larry Flynt can say Falwell slept with his mother in an outhouse and be protected from suit due to the first amendment then why wouldn't Phelps be protected?

Civil liability is not the way to handle this because any jury award is almost certain to be based on the content of the speech. They should simply pass laws that allow police to remove such protesters. The court has argued that picketers may be removed from private residences and I see no reason they should not be barred from funerals.

Just because someone is engaged in a speech act should not allow them to intrude upon the privacy or property of others. One has every right to speak but no right to an audience.

I don't have a problem with the courts protecting Phelp's free speech rights. I find it reassuring that if they will protect the free speech rights of a nutso scumbag like Phelps or Flynt that they will protect mine. I think this issue was presented very well in the Movie "The People vs Larry Flynt.

There are other ways of dealing with assholes like Phelps that are prefectly legal and don't require the intervention of any government agency at any level. The Folks from ComicCom showed the way.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/

 

[Timshel]

I don't even know what the fuck you are talking about "content neutral" ...NO SPEECH IS EVER "CONTENT NEUTRAL!"

Ditzy, I said the limit has to be content neutral, not the speech.

And what does "narrowly tailored?" We aren't talking about clothing for gay people here! If the issues of this case did not serve a significant state interest, they wouldn't be hearing the case, you moron. Why don't you grow the fuck up and get a clue, and stop repeating some intellectualist line of crap out of an editorial in playboy, that you stole from under daddy's bed!

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself. I did not make these terms up and they did not come from some reference to a playboy article. They are taken from court cases. You are a typical Republican who complains about activist judges and does not have the first fucking clue how the courts operate.

Narrowly tailored, means the limit cannot be a blunt instrument. It must be the least restrictive means of achieving the state interest.

This information is available to you. Google the terms. Maybe you need help.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds...oq=narrowl&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5a996d56de453056
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds...ntent+neut&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5a996d56de453056

Limit on speech is dependent upon the 'damage' that speech inflicts on the rights of others. If the content is neutral, it does not sufficiently damage the rights of others to even bring a case against it, therefore it is academic to this discussion. Also, the interest of the state is only in play if the state is somehow a party to the case, and in this case, they are not. There is no provision whatsoever in our Constitution to only allow speech that can be open to opportunity for rebuttal... sorry, not in the goddamn Constitution, asswipe!

WTF are you talking about? You are the one that making shit up. You actually want the court to be activist and decide cases on mere whim.

 

[Jarod]

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.

Its the government they are asking to enforce the 5 million dollar verdict. Its government laws and government courts that allowed such a verdict.

Now, I am all for limiting this type of "free speech" much like you can and should limit the freedom to yell "fire" in a movie theater, or "bomb" in an airport...

Also much like you can limit the ownership and use of an AK-47.

 

[Timshel]

I don't have a problem with the courts protecting Phelp's free speech rights. I find it reassuring that if they will protect the free speech rights of a nutso scumbag like Phelps or Flynt that they will protect mine. I think this issue was presented very well in the Movie "The People vs Larry Flynt.

From the perspective of dealing with this through civil liability it is analogous to Flynt. Snyder is arguing the speech is outrageous and that he is due damages for hurt feelings. I see no reason why such reasoning would not have allowed Falwell to prevail.

The difference though is that Flynt did not invade the privacy of Falwell. I see no reason why the state should not be able to restrict this through other avenues because of the privacy invasion.

There are other ways of dealing with assholes like Phelps that are prefectly legal and don't require the intervention of any government agency at any level. The Folks from ComicCom showed the way.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/

Not if he invades your privacy. The court has okay'd the limits on picketing in front of private residences based on the idea that in your home you are a captive audience. That is, you have no other place to retreat and you should not be expected to retreat further. I don't think individuals should be expected to retreat from a funeral either. They should not have to deal with Phelps at all in that arena.

I mean, you don't actually expect people mourning to go out and have a counter-protest where they mock Phelps? That's kind of absurd.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I think, if Flynt is the precedent which would be used, then they should totally take Phelps to court so that they can be embarrassed in front of his flock. If they start losing, then just bust out porn and be like, "this does not equal this!!!"

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Now, I am all for limiting this type of "free speech" much like you can and should limit the freedom to yell "fire" in a movie theater, or "bomb" in an airport...

Also much like you can limit the ownership and use of an AK-47.

This is what I call an argument from WTF. Fire in a crowded theater, therefore we can regulate speech however we want.

Nevermind that the standard established when when Justice Holmes declared that phrase is half a century out of date, and has since been replaced by a much more liberal standard.

 

[Cancel7]

Well, surprisingly, I like Stringfield's argument the best on this thread. Many of you are engaging in complete absolutism. He has solved the problem.

Many of the others on this thread are over-emotional and some are stupid. But thanks for your input!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Many of you are engaging in complete absolutism.