1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

[nich018]

There there is that small segment of the population who just talks out their ass just to keep the pot stirred ..

Well said! Thumbs up!!

 

[donner]

When their website comes back up, I'll try to find something but I know I heard Shirley Phelps Roper on TV describe Snyder and his wife as bad parents and failing in raising their now deceased son properly, etc...

Perhaps the actual physical protest didn't harm them, but I believe that WBC's published literature on the internet and spoken rants on national TV and talk shows which specifically name Snyder and defame him deserve a legal remedy.

That is my point. I'm looking for a solution to put these bozos in their place using the same legal system that they are manipulating.

The problem with a defamation argument is much like the rest of this mess with the WBC, it's in defining which aspect of the event you are talking about.

Defamation laws require different things based on what category the 'wronged' individual falls into. Public figures enjoy far less protection than individuals.

The third category is where this case gets complicated. Is Snyder an 'involuntary public figure'? If so, then he enjoys less protection from defamation than another private citizen.

So the question now becomes, what was said and when. Were most of the WBC statements released prior to or after Snyder's lawsuit/comments about the church? If he injected himself into the situation by commenting on what WBC was doing then he may have become a limited purpose public figure, thus removing some of the protections he and his wife would get as private citizens.

Oh, and don't forget, you also have to show that what was said was said with malice. Right or wrong, you have to show that the actions were meant to intentionally hurt the targeted individual. Merely saying something that causes another person pain isn't intent.

I agree that these people should be fought at every turn, i (and i think you would agree) just think the government is not the ones we want championing this issue. I don't like the idea of any junior congressman drafting legislation saying what i can and can't say as a form of protest. If for no other reason then i don't think they'd stop with just one law.

 

[HMFIC]

I think maybe "if" would be a more accurate term ... seems Shirley really stepped off in it when she goaded ANON the other day ...

I must say ... I am quite amused by this little turn of events ... smug b**** ...

LOL.. yes very true, "IF".

I wouldn't be suprised if the hackers decided to just keep their website(s) down from now on? That would seriously put a dent in their ability to garner attention.

 

[BadgeBunny]

LOL.. yes very true, "IF".

I wouldn't be suprised if the hackers decided to just keep their website(s) down from now on? That would seriously put a dent in their ability to garner attention.

One can only pray ...

Although I understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did (and quite frankly am not surprised) it does wear me a little thin that these folks always manage to come out "right side up". Those WB folks just don't have a single decent bone in their collective bodies it seems.

 

[HMFIC]

The problem with a defamation argument is much like the rest of this mess with the WBC, it's in defining which aspect of the event you are talking about.

Defamation laws require different things based on what category the 'wronged' individual falls into. Public figures enjoy far less protection than individuals.

The third category is where this case gets complicated. Is Snyder an 'involuntary public figure'? If so, then he enjoys less protection from defamation than another private citizen.

So the question now becomes, what was said and when. Were most of the WBC statements released prior to or after Snyder's lawsuit/comments about the church? If he injected himself into the situation by commenting on what WBC was doing then he may have become a limited purpose public figure, thus removing some of the protections he and his wife would get as private citizens.

Oh, and don't forget, you also have to show that what was said was said with malice. Right or wrong, you have to show that the actions were meant to intentionally hurt the targeted individual. Merely saying something that causes another person pain isn't intent.

I agree that these people should be fought at every turn, i (and i think you would agree) just think the government is not the ones we want championing this issue. I don't like the idea of any junior congressman drafting legislation saying what i can and can't say as a form of protest. If for no other reason then i don't think they'd stop with just one law.

Very well said.

I would like to see someone mount a serious campaign against the WBC in this context. I have seen plenty of their literature that absolutely calls out the individuals that they choose for their protest sites ahead of time and rants and raves about them. I think that a motivated person who was in this position could really take them to task. I still think there might have been enough for Synder to do it but he evidently approached it wrong.

At THE LEAST... I will hope that more people start taking them to court and challenging them.

 

[reddog1]

Why dosnt the SCOTUS just rule that organizations like these freaks cant sue if they get their asses kicked by the ppl they piss off. Then it would all stop. Quickly.

 

[Tully]

One can only pray ...

Although I understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did (and quite frankly am not surprised) it does wear me a little thin that these folks always manage to come out "right side up". Those WB folks just don't have a single decent bone in their collective bodies it seems.

Yeah, that's what gets to me too. It doesn't surprise me either but it goes against everything I think is right. My first run-in with WBC was during a Patriot Guard mission for a soldier's funeral in Pryor. Seeing the signs they had and the laughter that was going on while a family was inside saying goodbye to a young man killed in the line of duty made me want to throw up. And thinking they were doing it under the idea of it being in God's name just added fuel to the fire.

I don't know how but so far there has not been any major acts of violence against them. I fear it is only a matter of time before someone loses control and takes matters into their own hands.

 

[Poke78]

I've only read the first page so what I'm about to write may have already been noted by others.

First, I believe it is a basically good ruling because the true test of freedom of speech as a human right is if you support it regardless of the message.

Second, rights come with responsibilities. WBC fails this test, IMO. When your alligator mouth overloads your mockingbird @$$, you might suffer some consequences, i.e. WBC, meet Louisville Slugger...

Third, WBC is not a "church" IMO - the membership is mostly made up of Phelps' extended family. "Cult" would be the more correct word. This has no bearing on the case at hand but I think context requires full disclosure.

 

[donner]

For those that feel there should be laws limiting hate speech, i respectfully draw your attention to a story i heard on NPR tonight.

Below is the summary.

Comparing hate laws around the country

We've reported this week on the anti-Semitic outburst by designer John Galliano in Paris. That outburst could cost him up to six months in prison and some $31,000 in fines if he's convicted. French law allows for the prosecution of "public insults" based on religion, race, ethnicity or national origin. Charles Asher Small - who founded the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism - joins host Melissa Block to talk about the many countries that have similar prohibitions on hate speech.