|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Shirley/Westboro will win on appeal.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Shirley/Westboro will win on appeal.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Jeton |
the First Amendment precedent is hard and clear on this matter. tortious claims cannot unduly restrict religious expression.
hate speech is protected speech...even if an initial appeal fails, SCOTUS will strike down any undue burden on religious expression. |
|
|
| Jeton |
| Brent's not the best defender of rationalism...:D |
|
|
| Jeton |
| Brent's wayyy out of his league arguing law with Shirley Phelps, this is EXACTLY the sort of religious freedom case SCOTUS jumps on. they will protect Shirley long b4 they'd protect Bubba. |
|
|
| Stew |
| Hey Jeton....man you have risen from the dead more times than anyone i know :jj: |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Stew
Hey Jeton....man you have risen from the dead more times than anyone i know :jj: |
1 deading, 2 gayings, 6 or 7 to'ings...:hw: |
|
|
| Timmy |
| Notice how eveyone was basically cool with her when she JUST protested dead gays. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Timmy
Notice how eveyone was basically cool with her when she JUST protested dead gays. |
hey, her madness is my political gain, but the First Amendment is more important than either of us...:) |
|
|
| V00 D00 |
| That is 1 woman I would punch. |
|
|
| TheRealCP Trav |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
the First Amendment precedent is hard and clear on this matter. tortious claims cannot unduly restrict religious expression.
hate speech is protected speech...even if an initial appeal fails, SCOTUS will strike down any undue burden on religious expression. |
I support "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion". Actually, "hate speech" is only protected on your land, or until "such rights infridges upon another's rights." |
|
|
| TheRealCP Trav |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
the First Amendment precedent is hard and clear on this matter. tortious claims cannot unduly restrict religious expression.
hate speech is protected speech...even if an initial appeal fails, SCOTUS will strike down any undue burden on religious expression. |
Answer me this Scooter, how is putting a son/daughter rest and seeing this group signs is not "undue burden on religious expression?" |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by TheRealCP Trav
I support "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion". Actually, "hate speech" is only protected on your land, or until "such rights infridges upon another's rights." |
:rolleyes: this is sophistry for whihc u have no legal citation. public land allows for public assembly, often without permit, whihc Westboro had. :hw: |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by TheRealCP Trav
Answer me this Scooter, how is putting a son/daughter rest and seeing this group signs is not "undue burden on religious expression?" |
kid, rewrite that into a coherent query, and i'll answer you. :) |
|
|
| bluegraysky |
Jeton you present yourself as such a scholar but I would be very intrested to know your profession.
This is not actually a cased based on previous court decisions regarding the 1st amendment. I think this decision will stand on merit and it would take some OJ like bamboozling to over turn it.
By the way it's really sick that these people protest at the grave of american hero's |
|
|
| bluegraysky |
Quote: Originally posted by bluegraysky
Jeton you present yourself as such a scholar but I would be very intrested to know your profession.
This is not actually a cased based on previous court decisions regarding the 1st amendment. I think this decision will stand on merit and it would take some OJ like bamboozling to over turn it.
By the way it's really sick that these people protest at the grave of american hero's |
|
|
|
| mongrel |
I agree they have a frist amenmdment right to carry out there protests. There is no criminal case here. However their protests do cause emotional distress to the members of any family unfortunate to witness them at a loved one's funeral. Everyone has seem judgements awarded based on emotional distress. As private citizens we also enjoy a right to privacy. I can't think of many moments in a person's life that should expect that right more than a loved one's funeral. In a battle of rights which one wins?
Beyond any of the legal issues it will always be distasteful for anyone to use another person's death for their own gain. These are not people lobbying for the common good, they are lobbying for their own religious agenda. I can definetly see the comparison to the KKK and these people. They both blame a group for various social ills. They are both hate groups. Their speech is protected. They have just chosen a tasteless although apperently effective manner to spread their message. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by bluegraysky
Jeton you present yourself as such a scholar but I would be very intrested to know your profession.
This is not actually a cased based on previous court decisions regarding the 1st amendment. I think this decision will stand on merit and it would take some OJ like bamboozling to over turn it.
By the way it's really sick that these people protest at the grave of american hero's |
:hw: i'm a bum, this decision has no merit, and is the very reason we have appeals courts. did u even hear BTLS today? Phelps was 1,000 feet away with a legal permit, UNSEEN AND UNHEARD. the complaintants only learned of the protest AFTER THE FACT. such a tort is the very definition of an undue burden on the exercise of free assembly and free exercise of religious belief. Bubba and Brent sounded like retards on that point.
your post is sentimental bullshit without merit. :) |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by mongrel
I agree they have a frist amenmdment right to carry out there protests. There is no criminal case here. However their protests do cause emotional distress to the members of any family unfortunate to witness them at a loved one's funeral. Everyone has seem judgements awarded based on emotional distress. As private citizens we also enjoy a right to privacy. I can't think of many moments in a person's life that should expect that right more than a loved one's funeral. In a battle of rights which one wins?
Beyond any of the legal issues it will always be distasteful for anyone to use another person's death for their own gain. These are not people lobbying for the common good, they are lobbying for their own religious agenda. I can definetly see the comparison to the KKK and these people. They both blame a group for various social ills. They are both hate groups. Their speech is protected. They have just chosen a tasteless although apperently effective manner to spread their message. |
i'll make a gentleman's bet that the first, partial Appeal's COurt hearing of this will strike down the award. i'm betting it wont even reach a full appeals court or scotus.:hw: |
|
|
| fubared |
| I hope it holds up in appeal. |
|
|
| mongrel |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
i'll make a gentleman's bet that the first, partial Appeal's COurt hearing of this will strike down the award. i'm betting it wont even reach a full appeals court or scotus.:hw: |
I am with you, it will not reach the supreme court. To much legal precedent to dictate a new ruling. As far the appeals, I think it is a 50/50 bet for either side. This issue has enough emotional impact and first ammendment ramifications to thoroughly confuse any but the most savy of judges. The decision will ultimately come down to a which sides counsel makes the most eloquent case. There really is that much grey area here. I'll take the bet for the first round of appeals. After that :dontknow: |
|
|
| TheRealCP Trav |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
kid, rewrite that into a coherent query, and i'll answer you. :) |
In my country saying goodbye someone IS an religous expression. If you protest the war in Iraq, I'm with you. But, be human. |
|
|
| bluegraysky |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
:hw: i'm a bum, this decision has no merit, and is the very reason we have appeals courts. did u even hear BTLS today? Phelps was 1,000 feet away with a legal permit, UNSEEN AND UNHEARD. the complaintants only learned of the protest AFTER THE FACT. such a tort is the very definition of an undue burden on the exercise of free assembly and free exercise of religious belief. Bubba and Brent sounded like retards on that point.
your post is sentimental bullshit without merit. :) |
Wow, a bum...who would of guessed that.
Get a decent education, a job, and perhaps a life. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by TheRealCP Trav
In my country saying goodbye someone IS an religous expression. If you protest the war in Iraq, I'm with you. But, be human. |
dude, if the rainbow letters dont give it away, look underneath my posts for the words "gay man"....i'm no friend of Phelps here, and she's exactly the kind of ideological enemy i have my sights on. nonetheless, she is a skilled attorney with a more than fair professional record, and she has configured her protests to be ultimaitely unimpeachable legally. sh'es also proven saavy enough to push the envelope...this kind of legally unsustainable jury award makes the jury and plaintiff feel good, but she's playing them like a stradivarius. this whole circus serves her purpose, and legally, she WILL win. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by bluegraysky
Wow, a bum...who would of guessed that.
Get a decent education, a job, and perhaps a life. |
refute my points if you can, cuntfungus.:) |
|
|
| mkriss5681 |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
the First Amendment precedent is hard and clear on this matter. tortious claims cannot unduly restrict religious expression.
hate speech is protected speech...even if an initial appeal fails, SCOTUS will strike down any undue burden on religious expression. |
First amendment is 100% protected when it comes to civil trials. I have high hopes this is upheld. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by mkriss5681
First amendment is 100% protected when it comes to civil trials. I have high hopes this is upheld. |
:nono: don't bet on it. |
|
|
| Korn Dog |
| From what I heard on the show it sounds like they were in compliance with federal laws . I am all for freedom of speech and unfortunately these idiots do deserve to win their appeal. |
|
|
| Scales |
I can never figure out how someone as smart and educated as she seems to be, can actually beleive in the existance of God.
Religion has spawned so many hate groups, does anyone know of a hate group that has formed that hates Religion? (not specific religions, just religion in general) |
|
|
| Scales |
Quote: Originally posted by Korn Dog
From what I heard on the show it sounds like they were in compliance with federal laws . I am all for freedom of speech and unfortunately these idiots do deserve to win their appeal. |
I was thinking that during the show. I find it a bit sad, that someone who fights for certain freedom of speech, wants it taken away from others. It's called hypocracy, like it or not.
It seems like that is the case so often, another example of this happened not long ago on either Howard or Bubba, i can't remember what it was right now. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Scales
I can never figure out how someone as smart and educated as she seems to be, can actually beleive in the existance of God.
Religion has spawned so many hate groups, does anyone know of a hate group that has formed that hates Religion? (not specific religions, just religion in general) |
you belong to the group ur asking about, called various things like militant atheism, scientism, stoic rationalism, etc.
the religious impulse is a primordial evolutionary distinction between humans and other species, a cornerstone of the expression of abstracted symbolic language, and a clear evolutionary advantage as evidenced by the greater social cohesion and generally longer life spans of the religious vs the non-religious...not to mention the greater average charitable activity of the religious vs the non!
Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens so laughably NOT withstanding, rationalism does not fit the heuristic disposition of most humans, and science-as-religion remains a social non-starter.
among other things, humans beings like to ask "why", and science, rationality and logic are FOREVER confined to "how"... |
|
|
| Scales |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
you belong to the group ur asking about, called various things like militant atheism, scientism, stoic rationalism, etc. |
I'm not a militant Athiest, I just asked made a comment to lead into a question, but thanks for catagorizing me. (no, really)
I am usually quite passive in my thoughts about religion because I also tend to try to believe in religius tolerance. But the way things are going in the world, I might change that pretty soon.
But you will still be gay :D So there! :jj:
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
...... remains a social non-starter. |
Non-starter... ah looks like you picked up yet one more phrase that will be used by you for a few days, or did you write that one down in your life long book of wordsmyth?
:D |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Scales
I'm not a militant Athiest, I just asked a question, but thanks for catagorizing me. I am usually quite passive in my thoughts about religion because I also tend to try to believe in religius tolerance. But the way things are going in the world, I might change that pretty soon.
But you will still be gay :D So there! :jj:
Non-starter... ah looks like you picked up yet one more phrase that will be used by you for a few days, or did you write that one down in your life long book of wordsmyth?
:D |
:rolleye3:
:console:
:giggle: |
|
|
| Scales |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
:rolleye3:
:console:
:giggle: |
Thanks for quoting that quickly so I look at a dork going back to edit it a bit.
I don't want to side track the discussion though, I find it really interesting and there are a lot of good points and good reading so far. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Scales
Thanks for quoting that quickly so I look at a dork going back to edit it a bit.
I don't want to side track the discussion though, I find it really interesting and there are a lot of good points and good reading so far. |
:yawn: |
|
|
| Scales |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
the First Amendment precedent is hard and clear on this matter. tortious claims cannot unduly restrict religious expression. |
O.K, but
| Quote: A Baltimore federal jury awarded Mr Snyder a total of $10.9m (£5.2m) after ruling that the group had violated the family's privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress . |
The Jury awarded the settlement not based on religious expression, but on privacy and emotional distress.
The Jury obviously felt that the families rights were violated regarding privacy and distress, and Jury's are a part of the legal process for a reason.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, I can see it being overturned by a judge. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Scales
O.K, but
The Jury awarded the settlement not based on religious expression, but on privacy and emotional distress.
The Jury obviously felt that the families rights were violated regarding privacy and distress, and Jury's are a part of the legal process for a reason.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, I can see it being overturned by a judge. |
:yes: |
|
|
| Scales |
| I've also wondered if this group's main goals are actually religious based, or if the whole thing is some kind of made up schtick, and they are trying to prove a point about freedom of speech, the legal system, or the relationship of church and state and have taken their stance just for effect. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Scales
I've also wondered if this group's main goals are actually religious based, or if the whole thing is some kind of made up schtick, and they are trying to prove a point about freedom of speech, the legal system, or the relationship of church and state and have taken their stance just for effect. |
:rolleye2: |
|
|
| Scales |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
:yes: |
So is this just a big lesson on how the legal system is very flawed, and how Jury's don't always uphold the law the way it is written?
I also have to wonder if the people who actually wrote the laws of the land, had any idea how the court process would some day treat the written words that they are supposed to uphold, and how much thought actually went in to the initial writings.
Oh, and to carry on the smiley theme...
:ass2mouth |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Scales
So is this just a big lesson on how the legal system is very flawed, and how Jury's don't always uphold the law the way it is written?
I also have to wonder if the people who actually wrote the laws of the land, had any idea how the court process would some day treat the written words that they are supposed to uphold, and how much thought actually went in to the initial writings.
Oh, and to carry on the smiley theme...
:ass2mouth |
:)
post-Enlightenment legal theory ala our Founders is often meticulously cognizant of the variables in a situation that can produce a broad range of results in legal proceedings. the Founders occasionally wrote of social trends alatering how laws are interpreted...they typically believed in the idea of forward progress, and that eventually future generations would know better than past ones. and they were also aware that such progress is not guaranteed...philosophically speaking, much of our Constitutional law was formulated with an eye towards the failures of earlier civilizations, their legal systems and their attendant social instabilities.
it boils down to the justifiable idea that restricting Phelps ability to protest from 1,000 feet away would ultimately harm society more than allowing her to would....AND the idea that such a "social impact" calculus must itself be fairly balanced against the intrinsic rights inherent to being human, as only partially enshriined in the American Bill Of Rights.
:) |
|
|
| baldeaglejones |
| i heard the father being interviewed, and he wasn't even aware of the protest until he saw it on tv...it seems like he could have just turned the channel, and the distress would have been over |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by baldeaglejones
i heard the father being interviewed, and he wasn't even aware of the protest until he saw it on tv...it seems like he could have just turned the channel, and the distress would have been over |
zakli |
|
|
| TheRealCP Trav |
Quote: Originally posted by baldeaglejones
i heard the father being interviewed, and he wasn't even aware of the protest until he saw it on tv...it seems like he could have just turned the channel, and the distress would have been over |
IF that is true, I may rethink my opinion on the amount awarded. However, I can see how having one's son funereal being turned into an unwanted protest shown on tv could cause emotional distress. You can not agree with the war and respect the troops. Although, this radical group kind of make the right wing think we're all hug a terroist kind of people. |
|
|
| stab2death |
| All these people want is attention, and lots of it. The bitch says it herself, she wants there message heard. Well one good way to get alot of attention is to fuck with American soldiers, especially those killed in combat. You will not only get attention but you will be the most hated pieces of shit on the land. All these fuckers want is attention. |
|
|
| Drakar2007 |
Personally I hate the Phelpses and everything they stand for, but here I've gotta agree with Jeton: the standing decision has no merit. There are no constitutional rights guaranteeing against hurt feelings, while there are rights guaranteeing unrestricted speech. And I've gotta sadly agree with Phelps herself, just in that this decision is probably the best thing that could have happened to them, as it will give them unprecedented publicity and they will acquire more cult followers from among those who had somehow not heard of them before.
It's hard to tell how to best deal with people like this... unfortunately at the moment I'm afraid the best thing to do may be to ignore them and not give them the satisfaction of indignance. It's a hard thing to do, but at least given that, they are more likely to just go away. Maybe someday someone will actually outsmart them, but these fuckers have thought WAYYY ahead, it seems. |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Drakar2007
Personally I hate the Phelpses and everything they stand for, but here I've gotta agree with Jeton: the standing decision has no merit. There are no constitutional rights guaranteeing against hurt feelings, while there are rights guaranteeing unrestricted speech. And I've gotta sadly agree with Phelps herself, just in that this decision is probably the best thing that could have happened to them, as it will give them unprecedented publicity and they will acquire more cult followers from among those who had somehow not heard of them before.
It's hard to tell how to best deal with people like this... unfortunately at the moment I'm afraid the best thing to do may be to ignore them and not give them the satisfaction of indignance. It's a hard thing to do, but at least given that, they are more likely to just go away. Maybe someday someone will actually outsmart them, but these fuckers have thought WAYYY ahead, it seems. |
EXCEllent post, noob...welcome indeed.:bigup: |
|
|
| ralphsafag44 |
| I agree with Manson they are my favorite christians |
|
|
| Drakar2007 |
Quote: Originally posted by Jeton
EXCEllent post, noob...welcome indeed.:bigup: |
Thanks =D It's nice to be noticed for something good.
I've known about the westboro people for years now... Since probably before the Matthew Shepherd incident (maybe, can't remember exactly), and have always been annoyed with how sneaky they are and how they delight in taunting people *just* enough to get people really mad, but not to have done anything actually illegal. I believe that if the court's ruling against them in this case were to stand, they'd certainly deserve what's coming to them, but it really doesn't have the legal merit it should (as I said before). |
|
|
| phuktard |
how does one ignore loud, obnoxious assholes when they are screaming things that can only be understood as being directed at your recently deceased?
As far as I am concerned, that goes well beyond the 1st amm.
And if it where to happen at one of my military family's funeral,
there would be lots of hurt and blood... |
|
|
| Jeton |
Quote: Originally posted by Drakar2007
Thanks =D It's nice to be noticed for something good.
I've known about the westboro people for years now... Since probably before the Matthew Shepherd incident (maybe, can't remember exactly), and have always been annoyed with how sneaky they are and how they delight in taunting people *just* enough to get people really mad, but not to have done anything actually illegal. I believe that if the court's ruling against them in this case were to stand, they'd certainly deserve what's coming to them, but it really doesn't have the legal merit it should (as I said before). |
yup, they have a long record from b4 Matt Sheppard's murder and serious legal ande constitutional saavy. they r enemies i take seriously. |
|
|
| Scales |
Quote: Originally posted by phuktard
how does one ignore loud, obnoxious assholes when they are screaming things that can only be understood as being directed at your recently deceased?
As far as I am concerned, that goes well beyond the 1st amm. |
But that is really the whole point. The 1st ammendment is not there to protect you from hearing things you don't want to hear, it is there to protect those who want to say those things. Even if it lacks class and hurts feelings.
Don't get me wrong, I think they are horrible and should be shot and pissed on - but the same rights protect them as should protect everyone, like Howard and Bubba.
You can't really draw a line in the sand and dictate what is over the line and what is not. If left for society to decide that, Howard and Bubba would be on the wrong side of that line and we'd never hear them. It is kind of an all or nothing deal, like it or not.
"when they came for the jews...." |
|
|
| pokerstar |
| I would hit that cunt in the face untill she DIED, fucken bitch. You love god so much I will send you 2 hem |
|
|
| unholydriver200 |
Quote: Originally posted by pokerstar
I would hit that cunt in the face untill she DIED, fucken bitch. You love god so much I will send you 2 hem |
:stupid: :clap: :yippie: |
|
|
| Scales |
Quote: Originally posted by Scales
"when they came for the jews...." |
I also thought it was a bit hypocritical of Bubba and Howard to think Max Hardcore was obscene, if that is what they thought. Should there be a line drawn if no laws are being broken?
If so... then what side of that line should they be on?
Who decides where the line is, the religious right? |
|
|
|
|
|
