Posted on 11/24/2007 7:44:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
red irish wrote: “Are you saying if this group was saying nasty things about Muslims there would not be any court action? “
No. There would likely be court action in either case. My points were:
#1 Do restrictions on offensive speech violate the 1st Amendment?
#2 Is this particular case likely to be overturned on appeal?
For whatever reasons, libs seem to rush to the defense of Muslims these days.
From BreitBart...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SKEED02&show_article=1
“BALTIMORE (AP) - A federal jury on Wednesday awarded the father of a fallen Marine $2.9 million in compensatory damages after finding an anti-gay Kansas church and three of its leaders liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress for picketing the Marine’s funeral in 2006.”
Also...
” The jury was to begin deliberating the size of punitive damages after receiving further instructions, although U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the compensatory award “far exceeds the net worth of the defendants,” according to financial statements filed with the court.”
This is how they arrived at the $11 million award.
This is a civil case.
The government has no interest or involement and therefore is NOT a ‘free speech’ or First Ammendment violation of rights.
The First Ammendment does NOT protect you from a citizen suing you for libel, slander or emotional distress or any other ‘speech’ you make.
The First Ammendment was written to protect you from the Government. NOT citizens.
Bigh4u2 wrote: “And the First Ammendment and ‘free speech’ have nothing to do with it.”
I didn’t know civil suites could override constitutional protections. Seriously, how can legal claims for offensive speech override a constitutional protection of free speech?
If you’re a lawyer, please explain.
What is so hard to understand?
It is in black and white: Slander and Libel are not protected.
CajunConservative wrote: “They don’t have the right to slander and libel people without consequence.”
slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person’s reputation.
No disrespect, but how did they slander and/or libel someone?
I’d say that guy is trolling, that’s why he can’t seem to understand that libel and slaner are not protected.
“I didn’t know civil suites could override constitutional protections. Seriously, how can legal claims for offensive speech override a constitutional protection of free speech?”
You are either being purposely DENSE, or you are looking for an argument.
The FIRST AMMENDMENT does NOT protect you from another citizen suing for LIBEL or SLANDER. Or any other reason.
The FIRST AMMENDMENT was written to protect your FREE SPEECH rights from the GOVERNMENT...
PERIOD.
The BILL OF RIGHTS has NOTHING to do with one citizen suing another.
READ THE CONSTITUTION...
fish hawk wrote: “People that think like you are a big part of the problem. Hence, if they are not breaking a law being despicable, others have to make up and pass new laws. Therefore giving government more control over you and me.”
No, the problem is people who want to create laws to prevent anything that offends them.
“Let me say I’m 100% opposed to Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church and what they are doing. However, this $11 million judgment bothers me. What exactly did the church do to cause $11 million of damages? They are disgusting slugs, but when did the 1st Amendment start prohibiting speech we don’t agree with? This isn’t like the case of shouting fire in a crowded theater. Public safety isn’t at risk, nor is Fred Phelps advocating (to my knowledge) illegal activities. Opinions?”
It’s because of the emotional duress inflicted upon the family for one. Secondly the funeral was more than likely a private affair and the inbreds “invaded” the family’s privacy.
Yeah phelps may have the “right” to free speech, but on the flip side the family has the “right” to sue his ass.
phelps and his klan of inbreds have no business “protesting” at these funerals because these soldiers are not public officials.
It’s nothing more than some sick demented publicity stunt.
They’re trolling.
Don’t step in it.
I can’t believe someone is this dense about the Bill of Rights and the law.
Unless, of course, they’re a liberal.
Liberal trolling for a fight.
And to sit and claim they don’t support the Phelps, and then turn around and defend their behavior is not only disgusting but trolling.
Darksheare wrote: “It is in black and white: Slander and Libel are not protected.”
Perhaps I’m just not getting it today. I understand slander and libel are not protected. Nor is speech that creates a public safety hazard, i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theater.
How is sign stating, “God hates...” slanderous? How does it create a fear of being attacked, i.e. assault? How can a state law legally prevent speech that creates “emotional distress?”
If this is true, that someone can sue me simply for saying something that causes them emotional distress, then I don’t really have free speech any more.
“Perhaps I’m just not getting it today.”
Understatement of the year.
“And to sit and claim they don’t support the Phelps, and then turn around and defend their behavior is not only disgusting but trolling.”
I just think this person is truly ‘misinformed’ as to how the Bill of Rights and the Constitution work.
He/she doesn’t seem to understand that the Bill of Rights was written to protect you from Government intrusion and has nothing to do with civilians suing each other.
Liberal talking points can be ingrained in anyone it seems.
“Keep in mind, I agree this “church” is despicable, but unless they are breaking trespassing or other laws (not related to constitutionally protected free speech), what right do we have to punish them?”
The families have every right to sue the hell out of them.
Not only for the “emotional” harm inflicted, but for defamation, libel per se, etc.
“In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.”
“How does it create a fear of being attacked, i.e. assault? “
You haven’t seen video of the Phelps, have you.
And if you have, your statements here are disingenuous and trolling.
“I understand slander and libel are not protected.”
Really?
Then why do you continue with your line of unreasoning?
“How is sign stating, “God hates...” slanderous? “
Now where did I say that sign specifically?
I didn’t.
Their slander was of our soldiers.
Got that?
“then I don’t really have free speech any more.”
You have free speech, you just aren’t free to call our soldiers baby killing rapists, libel and slander me, or anyone else.
Nor does it guarantee you an audience.
Nor does it guarantee you the ‘right to be heard’.
The rest of us can ignore you at will.
Or sue you if you are disruptive enough.
“How does it create a fear of being attacked, i.e. assault? How can a state law legally prevent speech that creates “emotional distress?””
There is REASONABLE PRESUMPTION that a funeral is a time and place of mourning and grieving.
People like you and the Phelps don’t understand this at all.
Go troll elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.