i don't think anyone is arguing that such an amounted is proportional to the distress they caused the plaintiff. That's not the point in this case.

8/7/2008 9:41:25 AM

OFF TOPIC

Quote :

"Now you will receive us, receive the arsonist."

I see what you did there Jamie

8/7/2008 9:43:18 AM

Quote :

"no one doubts that they should get fined"

actually, I certainly doubt it. They did nothing illegal and were, in fact, exercising the Constitutionally protected right to free speech, and they were fucking fined for it. Are they foul, detestable human beings? Absolutely. So are most hard-core Scientologists. Why isn't Scientology being sued for its ills? Oh, right, it can afford a shit-ton of lawyers.

This is religious persecution, plain and simple. I hope this case makes it to the SC, because this is something that absolutely must be overturned. The right to protest, even if your message is ludicrous, exists for ALL Americans, not just the ones with whom we agree.

Moreover, I wanted this bumped because the church has recently had its request for tax-exempt purchases denied, and I was curious what others would have to say about this. Are we OK with attacking a clearly religious organization based solely on the fact that we don't like them? Is that acceptable in America today? (not that it hasn't been acceptable in the past, of course)


Oh, and btw, where is the ACLU in this clear case of a violation of Free Speech? Oh, that's right, they don't give a fuck about Christians, even the crazy ones. But, heaven forbid someone say "God" in any public place. burn that fucker at the stake!

[Edited on August 9, 2008 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2008 8:57:59 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: [violating their] Constitutionally protected right to free speech"

burro you dont understand the Constitution, or Free Speech.

free speech is not guaranteed for just anything you want it to be

you cant incite riots, you cant instill panic, you cant slander your enemies, you can't cause public disturbances, or engage in certain types of hate speech, or be obscene or a nuisance.

Free speech is in the context of expressing political positions and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

where the WBC stands with protesting funerals is a VERY gray area.

that you can't comprehend this, is just one of many indications as to why people like you will never ever be in a position to judge anyone.

Quote :

"theDuke866 : i don't think anyone is arguing that such an amounted is proportional to the distress they caused the plaintiff. That's not the point in this case."

the compensation is largely "punitive". it's pretty standard stuff.

Question, though: why was this BTTT'd ? was there some new development?







[Edited on August 9, 2008 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2008 9:35:06 PM

haha. nice. disagree with someone and say that that makes them unfit to "judge others." I wonder what it is like up on that ivory tower. the fact is, obscene speech is protected. the other things you mentioned are crimes in their own right, and they have nothing to do with speech. thanks for trying, though.

8/9/2008 10:00:25 PM

haha nice. way to focus on an offhanded summary remark, and completely ignore the numerous points where i shot down your pathetic attempt at rabble-rousing.

and FTR, certain forms of obscene speech are most certainly NOT protected, and depending on the local laws, you'll get a quick citation or even land in jail

thank YOU for trying. I'm sorry that you're just not competent to play, though





[Edited on August 9, 2008 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2008 10:53:39 PM

just because we make a law against it doesn't make it right. see: segregation. it's ok, though. YOU are the one, of course, arguing that it is OK to ignore the Constitution.

8/9/2008 11:42:44 PM

im doing no such a thing.

im not saying one way or another that the ruling against WBC is right or wrong. The problem is this is a gray area that isn't easily resolved as to whether it's politically-protected speech, or if it's a crime where one group is purposely trying to provoke and/or traumatize another group by hate speech.

What I'm saying is, that "Freedom of Speech" is not some blanket pass for dipshits like you to go and say whatever you want whenever you want. There are real limitation on speech in this country that have historic precedents going back 200 years.

and dont try pulling the race card, you intellectual midget.

8/10/2008 1:46:43 AM

Quote :

"I hope people realize that this group of fuckwads claiming to be Westboro Baptist Church are in no way connected to the real Baptist community and are just a"

i baptists i know are weird although they may not be that extreme

8/10/2008 12:27:32 PM

nah, most Baptists are not like the ones who make all the waves.

8/10/2008 12:28:33 PM

I might agree with aaronburro here.

I'm not sure this has happened before.



Direct action should be answered with direct action, not courts and fines. On the other hand, I support the community censuring the WBC. That's what this ruling represents.

8/10/2008 12:38:04 PM

WBC was kicked out of the Southern Baptist Convention -- a long, LONG, time ago.

the WBC is comprised of mostly (90% or so) of Fred Phelps' extended family. they're an inbred cesspool of nepotistic retardation. unfortunately they also have an large number of family members who have acquired law degrees and are able to practice law.

the WBC is the sore on americas genitalia, and should be surgically removed.

8/10/2008 1:17:47 PM

the thing that really irks me in this situation is that there was no crime committed, yet WBC is being fined. Coupling that with other recent events, such as denying tax-exempt status for their purchases, and I think this is clearly a violation of 1st Amendment protections. I mean, we fucking let NAZIS parade in a predominately JEWISH town, for crying out loud! I think we can let a couple people shout "God Hates Fags" until they are blue in the face...

More importantly, I would be all for letting some of the funeral-goers beat the ever living shit out of the WBC crew. I think we can muster up some temporary-insanity for those folks, don't you?

And, btw, joe, I wasn't trying to "play the race card." Rather, I was merely showing that just because something is a law, doesn't make it "right." Segregation is a clear example of that

8/11/2008 10:23:29 PM

oh, i would gladly trade the fines for turning a blind eye to some vigilante justice in this case...but that isn't going to happen, so I'll settle for the fines.

8/11/2008 11:10:36 PM

^ same here

I think the spirit of the laws aren't to protect WB brand of idiocy, and when those laws were written, they didn't have our media that can turn the most pathetically lame and insignificant group in to a national pariah. Obviously, they should be able to challenge the rulings in court, but I think the court should be able to interpret the law broadly enough to fine them, if not worse.

8/11/2008 11:30:13 PM

so, the court should be able to interpret the law broadly enough to ignore it. got it.

8/11/2008 11:37:32 PM

Quote :

" burro : More importantly, I would be all for letting some of the funeral-goers beat the ever living shit out of the WBC crew. "

except thats illegal, and a criminal act

and the WBC lawyers are already all over any motherfucker who so much as looks at them crosseyed.

they are one of the most litigious organizations in history.

sorry if i dont give a fuck that the court has interpreted their bullshit hiding behind political free speech to be a sham and a crime.

8/12/2008 12:03:15 AM

^^ they have been doing that for decades

what else is new

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 12:03 AM. Reason : 

8/12/2008 12:03:36 AM

^^^ If that's how you want to look at it, then yes. That's why we have an appeals system and the supreme court.

But I don't think that ignores it.

Plus, I think there is grounds for a fine in this case, without any strange interpretations.

8/12/2008 12:06:21 AM

i would love to hear such grounds... "He said fags die in hell... waaaaaah!"

moreover, joe, I'm willing to bet that if instead of "God hates fags" their signs said "FUCK YOU BUSH!!!" you would be all over their nuts supporting them.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 12:09:37 AM

^ Did you even read the initial article?

Quote :

"sued the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and its leaders for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ... ...some of the other signs at the funeral included "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for IEDs.""

Isn't that somehow encouraging terrorism? I bet Bin Laden and crew use their antics to teach their supporters that some of us Americans want their "liberating."

Quote :

""As far as their picketing goes, they want to do it in front of a courthouse, they want to do it in a public park, I could care less. But I couldn't let them get away with doing this to our military," Al Snyder said. "

Members of the military get special protection elsewhere in the law, it wouldn't necessarily be unprecedented to extend that to prevent this type of thing as well (although I would be against this, considering existing laws have them covered).

8/12/2008 12:30:38 AM

niiiiice. using the evil turrists as a reason that these fools should be deprived of their rights.

Invasion of privacy: it was at a public place, no?
Defamation: did WBC ever claim the specific soldier was gay? Nope.
Emotional Distress: sorry, your kid is dead. seems like the emotional distress was a pre-existing condition. Or, should we sue YOU, moron, for causing hooksaw emotional distress with your recent thread? I wonder if the Nazis caused anyone "emotional distress" in Skokie...

8/12/2008 12:59:07 AM

Quote :

"Or, should we sue YOU, moron, for causing hooksaw emotional distress with your recent thread?"

You can try and it's up to the courts to decide.

8/12/2008 1:03:51 AM

Quote :

"Defamation: did WBC ever claim the specific soldier was gay? Nope."

Quote :

"Read the legal complaint. The defamation and distress portions of the lawsuit are based on comments made by Westboro Baptist that were specifically directed (by name) at Snyder and his family. It was not based on Westboro's general anti-homosexual protests. The invasion of privacy is based on the fact that Lance Corporal Snyder was not a public figure, his funeral was not a public event, and Westboro was not invited to the funeral."

8/12/2008 2:16:27 AM

The problem here is accountability.
We have too much of it.
50 years ago those people would have gotten the ever living shit kicked out of them a time or two and given up.
Now nobody wants to do it because they're the ones who will end up in trouble.
Now I know shit kickings have been used for all the wrong reasons and that's why we have laws against them, but unfortunately those laws also protect the people that truly deserve a good shit kicking.

8/12/2008 5:38:47 PM

yeah, i've thought for a long time that we oughta be a little more accomodating of people who whip the shit out of someone when it's totally deserved.

8/12/2008 5:43:34 PM

^^^ but still, gop. public place. Westboro was not specifically denied the right to be there, thus, there is no invasion of privacy. I'm almost certain that the funeral was publicized and said "hey, yall come on out." Seems perfectly legit, then, for the jackasses at WBC to "come on out." Am I going to get sued if I go to a funeral where I am not explicitly invited? if not, then you have a clear case of discrimination, as both I and WBC took the same action, but they were treated differently.

8/12/2008 8:54:33 PM

burro obviously has a hardon for Fred Phelps

8/13/2008 4:00:46 AM

Whether you are invited or denied access to an event is irrelevant to what I (re)posted. I referred explicitly to "defamation and distress." If your big beef is with the "privacy" part, then I ask, would you be content if they knocked a third off of the 10.9 million total?

As I understand it, defamation pretty much requires a public forum (ie, it's not defamation if I call you a child molester in private). So your "public place" argument is pretty irrelevant there. "Distress" can go either way. And even privacy...I mean, hell, a public restroom is a public place, but you have reasonable expectations of privacy in one. Looking at the article and the legal complaint, it's hard to tell exactly what sort of property WBC was on. I'll assume it was public, because WBC has a legal team that isn't nearly as retarded as the people it represents. Even so, if I may:

Quote :

"42. The defendants intentionally entered upon the solitude and seclusion of the plaintiff and his family members. Additionally, the defendants intruded upon the plaintiff’s private affairs and concerns. 43. Plaintiff Albert Snyder’s personal affairs are not a matter of public concern. Matt’s private funeral was not a matter of public concern.... 47. In addition, or alternatively, the defendants’ publicity given to private life was and is an invasion of privacy. 48. The defendants’ actions and statements were highly offensive to a reasonable person. 49. The defendants’ actions and statements were not consistent with any legitimate concern to the public.""

Now, "highly offensive to a reasonable person," I don't really care about and I'm sure you don't either. But other than that, it seems reasonable to me that you should not be permitted to go make a public display out of a private individual's private business. Anyone who is even remotely a public figure is fair game. Someone running for Pasquotank Dog Catcher? Go picket all up and down the streets that you think he's the biggest asshole that ever lived. Chase him around with a camera trying to catch him doing something immoral. Whatever. You're not supposed to do that with just some random dude. That's why, even in a public place, film crews have to get you to sign off on being filmed in an identifiable way. It's why some people's faces are blurred out on reality or prank TV shows. It's why not everyone who gets filmed acting foolish on COPS ends up appearing on COPS.

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 4:12 AM. Reason : ]

8/13/2008 4:12:19 AM

Quote :

"yeah, i've thought for a long time that we oughta be a little more accomodating of people who whip the shit out of someone when it's totally deserved."

It's sad that I can only dream about wielding a Mossberg 590 loaded with Fin Stabilized LTL Projectiles and firing at these idiots. Well, I guess it could easily become a reality, but in the end I'd be the one to get sued.

8/13/2008 5:04:29 AM

Quote :

"Am I going to get sued if I go to a funeral where I am not explicitly invited?"

If you go and pay your respects, probably not. If you go and act like a total d-bag, then yea, sued, have some manners beaten into you, shot, some where on that scale.

8/13/2008 10:54:20 AM

bump by request

3/2/2011 8:42:13 PM

8-1 decision by Supreme Court that these jerks can be douchebags. w00t

3/2/2011 8:57:15 PM

And douchebags everywhere rejoice.

3/2/2011 10:48:33 PM

Someone is eventually going to go all Texas belltower on those motherfuckers. Hopefully the evidence gets lost or mishandled when it eventually happens, if you know what I'm saying.

3/2/2011 10:49:42 PM

[Edited on March 2, 2011 at 10:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2011 10:59:17 PM

How has a clever lawyer not construed this as stalking or some sort of other twist of legality? I caught a blurb on NPR where one of the justices said the removal of freedom of speech wasn't the necessary response to the pain caused by their actions. Well if pain is the standard, then why can't they have their asses whipped? How is the response to a mental assault any different than to a physical one?

3/3/2011 6:38:31 AM

Because with case history in this country, organizing for a cause and holding signs gives you more protection than otherwise. The Supreme Court ruled that exposing your breasts in public was Constitutionally protected as long as you're doing it at a rally that's about the unconstitutionality of making breast exposure illegal.

Also, equating mental assault with physical assault has all sorts of problems with diagnosis. This will get better with more advances in neurology, but at the moment I'd be extremely against laws that would define what Westboro does as mental assault.

Don't get me wrong, I'd probably physically assault these assholes if they picketed my daughter's funeral, but I'd expect to be prosecuted for it.

3/3/2011 8:48:47 AM

Quote :

"OFF TOPIC Quote : "Now you will receive us, receive the arsonist." I see what you did there Jamie "

haha. 3 years later but I just noticed the post. And thanks, I'm glad someone got the reference Awesome song and even better since it bashes Westboro.

3/3/2011 9:16:23 AM

Quote :

"The problem here is accountability. We have too much of it. 50 years ago those people would have gotten the ever living shit kicked out of them a time or two and given up. Now nobody wants to do it because they're the ones who will end up in trouble. Now I know shit kickings have been used for all the wrong reasons and that's why we have laws against them, but unfortunately those laws also protect the people that truly deserve a good shit kicking."

fuckin' A

3/3/2011 9:57:08 AM

I wouldn't be opposed to them catching a few bullets in their domes every time they show up somewhere until they knock that shit off.

Oh, damn. I'm being a psychopathic monster again.

3/3/2011 6:10:52 PM

Don't worry, I don't think McDanger has discovered this thread yet.

3/3/2011 9:59:59 PM

So, Sammy Alito thinks that corporations should get full first amendment rights but not churches?

Thank goodness the other 8 weren't in agreement.

(WBC protesters are still a bunch of assholes, but assholes can speak freely in this country)

3/4/2011 7:04:45 AM

I'm fairly certain if McDonalds protested at a funeral they'd lose an 8 figure suit quicker then you can spill a cup of coffee

3/4/2011 11:10:03 AM

wat

3/4/2011 11:16:48 AM

Sooner or later, someone is going to strike back at them hard, and I probably won't shed a tear when it happens.

From what I read over at SCOTUSBlog, the Westboro Baptist Church played this one very carefully. When they protested Snyder's funeral, they went out and got the proper police permits, maintained the distance required by the police (~1,000 ft), and stayed orderly. They did what they could to avoid crossing the line between their protests and personal assault. As a result, the Justices really didn't have any other way out.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/commentary-privacy-in-different-settings/

It's a real shame.

3/4/2011 2:12:28 PM

Just out of curiosity, why the hell do churches, especially ones like this one get tax exempt status?

Does that not just seem patently wrong to anybody else?

3/4/2011 3:48:38 PM

Yes. It's terribly wrong. Incoming theDuke or Grumpy telling me I'm a militant atheist for saying so.

3/4/2011 4:27:03 PM

Somehow I doubt theDuke will say that.

3/4/2011 4:32:00 PM

Yeah, I mean, I'm agnostic, although I'm not at all hostile to religion or churches (and in fact, have a generally positive opinion of churches, Christians, etc).

I don't really understand the tax exempt status, either, although I've never spent a lot of time thinking about it. The only thing I can think of is that pretty much all of their "income" is from charitable donation. How are charities treated under the tax laws?

3/4/2011 5:46:33 PM