Phelps loses case

Hivemind187

Sky news report

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1291071,00.html

Honestly, I am extremely happy about this. Freedom of speech is not freedom from a smack in the mouth. A few more lost cases like this and Phelps will go bankrupt and probaly have to put an end to this kind of garbage.

pH

I for one hope this awful decision is overturned quickly. What Phelps seems to do is 'Free Speech' in its purest sense, a small organised demonstration on public property - and from what I've seen from a couple of TV docs - the demos are a reasonable distance from the actual funerals.

At no time does he appear to call for violence, nothing is ever thrown nor do the demos get violent.

While I disagree with what he says, I cannot think of any reasonable law that could proscribe what Phelps does but allow any other demonstrations to continue.

Dades

pH wrote: »

While I disagree with what he says, I cannot think of any reasonable law that could proscribe what Phelps does but allow any other demonstrations to continue.

Incitement to hatred? There are some pretty clear laws about that in Europe anyway.

If there is any legal avenue to shut that nut up they should use it.
And I've no doubt that most Christians would rather see him gagged too.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Incitement to hatred? There are some pretty clear laws about that in Europe anyway.

If there is any legal avenue to shut that nut up they should use it.
And I've no doubt that most Christians would rather see him gagged too.

Absolutely delighted.

dudara

I understand what pH is saying here with regard to the right to free speech, but this guy and his misguided collection of followers are inciting hatred.

It's the right decision morally, but whether it will be upheld on appeal is another story.

pH

Dades wrote: »

Incitement to hatred? There are some pretty clear laws about that in Europe anyway.

If there is any legal avenue to shut that nut up they should use it.
And I've no doubt that most Christians would rather see him gagged too.

If anything what this nutter is doing is the opposite to Incitement to hatred. From what I've read he's convinced that an all powerful vindictive God is killing these soldiers because the US 'allows gays'. I haven't seen him actually asking anyone to murder or harass soldiers or homosexuals, he mainly seems to be drawing a link between gays and dead soldiers.

I fail to see how he is inciting any hatred.

PDN wrote:

Absolutely delighted.

And this is my problem with all this, If someone on this thread is going to say that saying that 'Gays cause soldiers to be killed' incites hatred towards homosexuals and the punishment is $11m, how much for saying that 'Gays cause floods Or is that different? ... yea of course it is ... because as usual when it comes to free speech everyone really understands it as 'Freedom to say what I agree with'.

Ahhh PDN, in this case you're not defending Phelps on a theological technicality I wonder why!

Zombrex

On the one hand a person should have the right to freedom of speech, and the right to protest peacefully.

On the other hand those rights don't extend to a right to harass other people.

Now I'm not saying that is what Phelps was doing, I don't have the details of this specific case.

But hiding behind "freedom of speech" only goes so far. My right to freedom of speech doesn't extend to, for example, me walking down the street beside you shouting in your ear.

But like it or not Phelps does have the right to protest at a funeral. It is how he does this that is the issue.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PDN

pH wrote: »

And this is my problem with all this, If someone on this thread is going to say that saying that 'Gays cause soldiers to be killed' incites hatred towards homosexuals and the punishment is $11m, how much for saying that 'Gays cause floods Or is that different? ... yea of course it is ...

Ahhh PDN, in this case you're not defending Phelps on a theological technicality I wonder why!

I think that anyone who says that gays cause floods is a nutjob and deserves to be sued as well. My comments on that issue were simply to point out that the bishops concerned had released a statement denying making such a claim. Not so much a theological technicality as my distrust of journalists and my naive belief that Church of England bishops are generally decent (if somewhat ineffective) old geezers who don't normally tell bare-faced lies.

because as usual when it comes to free speech everyone really understands it as 'Freedom to say what I agree with'.

Absolute nonsense. I believe people should have freedom to declare that there is no God, that does not imply that I agree with such atheist sentiments.

My opposition to Phelps is the same as my opposition to Ian Paisley (in the days before he kissed and made up with Martin McGuinness). Anyone who claims to be Christian but manifests obvious hatred to others is a disgrace.

Paisley, at least, had the good manners not to attempt to disrupt funerals.

John Wine

PDN wrote: »

Anyone who claims to be Christian but manifests obvious hatred to others is a disgrace.

And you were delighted Phelps was gagged - but I presume there's no hate there?

PDN

John Wine wrote: »

And you were delighted Phelps was gagged - but I presume there's no hate there?

You are absolutely correct. No hate whatsoever. It's perfectly possible to desire for bad activities to cease without hating those who commit such acts.

karen3212

Anyway I don't think the verdict will/should stand. He is not calling for violence. It's awful but peaceful demonstration. I'm sure Christians would love it if he could be shut up, because they can't prove he is not making a correct interpretation of the little good book.

Hivemind187

Actually, freedom of speech is about protecting your right to say what you want - it does not give you carte balnche to injure or defame others, nor does it give you the right to harass them.

What the Phelps family are doing is actively and maliciously harassing the families of soldiers killed in action as part of a utterly ridiculous rapture fantasy. If you watch the documentaries or read any of the statements that come from the church you'll see what I mean.

Yes, they have the right to say what they like. Thats fine. That is freedom to speak your mind without the government or some other group gagging you. The Phelps werent gagged. They were sued in a civil action and got what they deserved.

I again make my point, freedom of speech is not freedom from a smack in the chops.

Hivemind187

Oh, and the Phelps do call for violence, albeit in a slightly round about way. They want their "god" to layeth down the smack upon the unbelievers.

"We pray for more dead kids!" ... yeah, nothing violent about that slogan eh?

Dades

Maybe we should all respect Phelps' right to shout "God Hates Fag Enablers" at a funeral, even if we don't respect his actual views on the matter...

Good points Hivemind.

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

Maybe we should all respect Phelps' right to shout "God Hates Fag Enablers" at a funeral, even if we don't respect his actual views on the matter...

Good points Hivemind.

Thanks Dades.

There is a problem though. Here is a guy (or rather his family since he doesnt turn up to his own handiwork anymore) who is intruding on the private grief of others in order to make a point regarding a global issue.

What of the rights of that family to engage in their griving ritual in peace? To express their feelings and sentiments without the interference of others with an agenda?

The Phelps defence that it is their right to free speech and expression to do these things without interference but they are ultimately undermining their own position by interfering with others - as much to say "We have freedom of speech at your expense but you dont have fredom of speech at our expense!"

... or did I miss something (genuinely asking).?

John Wine

PDN wrote: »

You are absolutely correct. No hate whatsoever. It's perfectly possible to desire for bad activities to cease without hating those who commit such acts.

Sounds very Thomas Aquinas - esque, Hate the sin, not the sinner.

PDN

John Wine wrote: »

Sounds very Thomas Aquinas - esque, Hate the sin, not the sinner.

I first saw it attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. I suspect he stole it from Aquinas.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I first saw it attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. I suspect he stole it from Aquinas.

Who previously stole it from Boards.ie.

"Attack the post, not the poster".

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

Who previously stole it from Boards.ie.

"Attack the post, not the poster".

Ghandi = plagarist ... brilliant!

Only on boards.ie

pH

Hivemind187 wrote:

There is a problem though. Here is a guy (or rather his family since he doesnt turn up to his own handiwork anymore) who is intruding on the private grief of others in order to make a point regarding a global issue.

The protest in question was 1,000 ft from the church, and the marine's father (who brought the case) admitted in court that he could not read the signs at the funeral, only afterwards on the TV news coverage.

So come on, let's see you attempt to define this law no protests during any funeral? how close? what about after the funeral? how far from the funeral ... what do you think is fair?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Ghandi = plagarist ... brilliant!

Only on boards.ie

I agree! I've never heard of Ghandi being accused of plagiarism before. A racist bigot and a paedophile with scatological tendencies sure, but not a plagiarist ... only on boards.ie eh!

John Wine

Dades wrote: »

Who previously stole it from Boards.ie.

"Attack the post, not the poster".

Unless it's Tim Robbins.

Scofflaw

John Wine wrote: »

Unless it's Tim Robbins.

When someone claims moral superiority, pointing out their sins is no longer an ad hominem. Tim claims his arguments are better because he (more or less alone) is using logic properly. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is the case.

pH wrote:

The protest in question was 1,000 ft from the church, and the marine's father (who brought the case) admitted in court that he could not read the signs at the funeral, only afterwards on the TV news coverage.

So come on, let's see you attempt to define this law no protests during any funeral? how close? what about after the funeral? how far from the funeral ... what do you think is fair?

I don't think he should be gagged by regulatory law, but I can't see why he can't be sued for causing distress to the family of the deceased.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

pH wrote: »

The protest in question was 1,000 ft from the church, and the marine's father (who brought the case) admitted in court that he could not read the signs at the funeral, only afterwards on the TV news coverage.

So come on, let's see you attempt to define this law no protests during any funeral? how close? what about after the funeral? how far from the funeral ... what do you think is fair?



I agree! I've never heard of Ghandi being accused of plagiarism before. A racist bigot and a paedophile with scatological tendencies sure, but not a plagiarist ... only on boards.ie eh!

How about the several hundred other protests they have held far closer to the funerals than a thousand feet? How about the individuals right to privacy (not including celebrities etc who actively sell their privacy)? What about the right of the families to grieve in peace wihtout having to worry about religious extremists travelling thousands of miles across country to hold a pseudo-protest and capitalise on the death of a young man who has comitted no crime (that they are protesting anyway)?

As for Ghandi, did you just out him as a nonce?

John Wine

Scofflaw wrote: »

When someone claims moral superiority, pointing out their sins is no longer an ad hominem. Tim claims his arguments are better because he (more or less alone) is using logic properly. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is the case.

I think Tim was trying to use logic correctly and was asking a gang of you to show where he wasn't using it correctly.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I favour logic but that doesn't mean I don't make logical mistakes. No problem if you wish to point out mistakes (as also stated in posts 171). But if you can't or don't want to point them out, so be it.

I think pH has raised a good point about defining limits to protesting etc.
I don't think any protests should be allowed near or around funnerals but I would like to see this made clear in legislation.

Free speech reminds of free will - a wooly argument.

Dades

John Wine wrote: »

I think Tim was trying to use logic correctly and was asking a gang of you to show where he wasn't using it correctly.

A slightly simplified view, there. The problem was the entire thread had gotten bogged down with this notion of 'logic', specifically by posts that were not adhering to the rules of it. Like struggling in quicksand, any attempt to shed light on this would undoubtedly have resulted in further sinkage.

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

? wrote:

I think Tim was trying to use logic correctly and was asking a gang of you to show where he wasn't using it correctly.

A slightly simplified view, there. The problem was the entire thread had gotten bogged down with this notion of 'logic', specifically by posts that were not adhering to the rules of it. Like struggling in quicksand, any attempt to shed light on this would undoubtedly have resulted in further sinkage.

The problem would be that Tim does feel he is using logic correctly, and his requests to be shown where he is not are actually a challenge he meets with rebuttal, not a genuine request for enlightenment.

thoughtfully,
Scofflaw

pH

Hivemind187 wrote: »

How about the several hundred other protests they have held far closer to the funerals than a thousand feet?

Not sure they're relevant here, are they?

How about the individuals right to privacy (not including celebrities etc who actively sell their privacy)? What about the right of the families to grieve in peace wihtout having to worry about religious extremists travelling thousands of miles across country to hold a pseudo-protest and capitalise on the death of a young man who has comitted no crime (that they are protesting anyway)?

Well the man in question was a state employee who died in service of a state pursuing its overseas objectives. I'm not sure how much state/military involvement was involved at this marine's funeral (there may have been none) but if there was state involvement then it can hardly be described as private. That said, even if it was an entirely private affair (with no state/military involvement) the man was a state employee who died carrying out US foreign policy, the protest/placards did not specifically target that soldier and they stayed well back from the church and made no attempt to invade the privacy of the actual service.

As for Ghandi, did you just out him as a nonce?

Me? certainly not! Ghandi's predilections for girls and enemas and his views on the Hindu caste system and his attitude to 'blacks' when he lived in South Africa are all well known.

John Wine

Dades wrote: »

A slightly simplified view, there. The problem was the entire thread had gotten bogged down with this notion of 'logic', specifically by posts that were not adhering to the rules of it. Like struggling in quicksand, any attempt to shed light on this would undoubtedly have resulted in further sinkage.

Is that argument by analogy
Seriously I read through that debate and I thought there was cyber bullying going on. He was trying to use logic, and asked a few of you to show you were he wasn't. He admitted he makes mistakes, but all you wanted to do was lambast and make fun of him.

I guess he thought the only way he could corner Hivermind was to apply stricter logic. You people do that do the Christians all the time.

Anyway, I'll exit before taking this interesting thread off topic.

Dades

John Wine wrote: »

Anyway, I'll exit before taking this interesting thread off topic.

Yes, that would be wise. But watch this space...
*cough/Tim*

EDIT2: Under surveillance. That is all.

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

Yes, that would be wise. But watch this space...
*cough/Tim*

It's certainly interesting to meet someone so supportive of Tim's case. Still, I'm sure Tim will be back to argue his own corner.

thoughtfully,
Scofflaw

Keith186

They shouldn't really be protesting at funerals and with them being christian they should know that. They should protest somewhere else where's it's not as sensitive but the only problem with that is they know they won't get as much media attention as they do at a funeral.

Only in America, God Bless America,

Phucked up place!

Zillah

Keith186 wrote: »

They shouldn't really be protesting at funerals and with them being christian they should know that.

Who are you to tell them what a real Christian should do, you damned fag-enabler?

Hivemind187

pH wrote: »

Not sure they're relevant here, are they?



Well the man in question was a state employee who died in service of a state pursuing its overseas objectives. I'm not sure how much state/military involvement was involved at this marine's funeral (there may have been none) but if there was state involvement then it can hardly be described as private. That said, even if it was an entirely private affair (with no state/military involvement) the man was a state employee who died carrying out US foreign policy, the protest/placards did not specifically target that soldier and they stayed well back from the church and made no attempt to invade the privacy of the actual service.

So do you mind if I turn up to your funeral or the funeral of a close friend or reletive with the express intention of using that funeral as a sounding board for my beliefs about the supernatural or abortion or politics?

Its suprememly easy to say "yeah, protesting a funeral is fine" when its not someone you know or care about.

Protesting a funeral in that manner is nothing more than a way of grabbing attention (a good marketting strategy) but it is harassment regardless of the man employment - the legal status of which after he has died is open to debate.

Agent J

Gotta love the Patriot riders for their actions to stop this maniac.

As someone once said.

"Free speech does not mean you can Yell fire in a crowded theatre and not be held accountable for your actions..."

I think it was a US judge but im not sure.

Protesting at a funeral like that is sick. This is the same chap who protested when something like 30 miners died in pennselvannia with shirts saying "Thank God for Dead miners".

If they can bankrupt him then i'm all for it. I'm normally one for tolerance and such but if he said any thing like that here we would do him for incitement to hatred.

Binomate

I really admired the phelps. They were the closest thing to real life trolls. The only problem was that they were motivated to troll by their christian extremist beliefs and not by their desire for epic lulz.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Agent J

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not nesscarily

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Yes i know its wiki but go with it.

They claim that Phelps was looking to start a riot or cause other lawless action then the 1st amendment defence goes out the window.(Imho)

cavedave

I don't think he should be gagged by regulatory law, but I can't see why he can't be sued for causing distress to the family of the deceased.

Suing for distress is a fairly slippery slope. Larry Flynt makes the point that even if something is unpleasant and distress causing does not mean it should not be protected speech

no one would ever have to prove something was false and libelous to win a judgment. All anyone would have to prove is that "he upset me" or "she made me feel bad." The lawsuits would be endless, and that would be the end of free speech.

Its suprememly easy to say "yeah, protesting a funeral is fine" when its not someone you know or care about.

This is true. In the same way it is easy to say "hang him" when it has been your relative who has been murdered. That is why the victims of crime do not get to choose the punishments as they are likely to be overly harsh.

Protesting a funeral in that manner is nothing more than a way of grabbing attention (a good marketting strategy)

More attention is the last thing we should be giving these people

Scofflaw

cavedave wrote: »

Suing for distress is a fairly slippery slope. Larry Flynt makes the point that even if something is unpleasant and distress causing does not mean it should not be protected speech

Sure, but you can differentiate on the basis of whether the victims of distress had any choice but to be exposed to speech that is unpleasant and distressing, and whether the speech was specifically directed at them - the same discrimination that's used in libel.

In the case of something publicly available, like pornography, there is an element of choice in the exposure, and no question that it is not aimed at you personally (bar photoshopped heads). In the case of the Phelps coming and protesting at the funeral of a family member, you have no real choice about attendance, and it's specifically directed at your relative.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's certainly interesting to meet someone so supportive of Tim's case. Still, I'm sure Tim will be back to argue his own corner.

thoughtfully,
Scofflaw

i've really got to say something here. in fairness, I think you guys do really give him a hard time. I think sometimes his language can be a bit colourful and get peoples back up, accusing someone of being fascist comes to mind, but all and all I think he makes fair enough points IMO. Maybe the delivery puts some noses out of joint, but overall, I'd have to say he gets it rough here. Yee can be a fierce bunch at times.:)*

Smiley inserted as peace gesture so the mob don't turn on me.:)

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

I agree! I've never heard of Ghandi being accused of plagiarism before. A racist bigot and a paedophile with scatological tendencies sure, but not a plagiarist ... only on boards.ie eh!

Is that a p1ss take? or is that for real? Pardon my ignorance if I missed the humour. Seriously, is there evidence he was a racist and peadophile??

PDN

A question for those who are defending free speech.

If someone close to you was getting buried, and they had chosen a nice humanist ceremony with no religious references, how would you feel if I stood across the road preaching my 'Gospel' and holding up banners proclaiming that your loved one was burning in hell because they weren't born again?

Of course I'm far too well mannered to do such a thing, but don't you think I would be deserving of a good kicking? Shouldn't the law protect you from such harassment?

Agent J

cavedave wrote: »

This is true. In the same way it is easy to say "hang him" when it has been your relative who has been murdered. That is why the victims of crime do not get to choose the punishments as they are likely to be overly harsh.

And that is related how?

Choosing to not allow Phleps etc to protest and their relatively funeral is harsh?

The only thing the family tried to do was bury their dead in peace.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

i've really got to say something here. in fairness, I think you guys do really give him a hard time. I think sometimes his language can be a bit colourful and get peoples back up, accusing someone of being fascist comes to mind, but all and all I think he makes fair enough points IMO. Maybe the delivery puts some noses out of joint, but overall, I'd have to say he gets it rough here. Yee can be a fierce bunch at times.:)*

Smiley inserted as peace gesture so the mob don't turn on me.:)

Fair point. I think I honestly try to give him the benefit of the doubt after each reappearance, but of course I can't really be sure that I do, particularly since it always works out the same way.

To be honest, I've more respect for Captain Capslock as a poster than I do for Tim. There's something infinitely irritating about someone whose posts regularly contain ad hominem attacks, faulty logic, straw men, and pedantry denouncing everyone else for those faults - and that's specifically what I find irritating. I don't have a problem with general contentiousness or colourful language, and I think some of the points he raises have undoubted merit. I've been on the same side as him in an argument, and I still find him irritating.

In my (our?) defence, I'll point out that in general I don't think either myself or Dades can be accused of being harsh or intolerant to other posters. Nor do I think we are the only people who Tim irritates - and irritates in exactly the same way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that a p1ss take? or is that for real? Pardon my ignorance if I missed the humour. Seriously, is there evidence he was a racist and peadophile??

There is a book which makes those claims, I believe - The Gandhi Nobody Knows by Richard Grenier. The claims certainly come up elsewhere. Validity unknown, but I certainly wouldn't find the facts outrageous - more the prurient interpretation. There's certainly nothing surprising about the idea of him being racist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

OFF-TOPIC POSTING ALERT!

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that a p1ss take? or is that for real? Pardon my ignorance if I missed the humour. Seriously, is there evidence he was a racist and peadophile??

Racist only in as much as he considered African Blacks to be savages. And a paedophile only if you consider sleeping with 12 year old girls to be paedophilia.

All perfectly acceptable in Ghandi's time, so moral relativists start your engines!

Scofflaw wrote:

There's something infinitely irritating about someone whose posts regularly contain ad hominem attacks, faulty logic, straw men, and pedantry denouncing everyone else for those faults - and that's specifically what I find irritating.

I think anyone who's read Tim's posts would find find it impossible to disagree with the above. He struck me as someone more interested in the debate than the discussion, if you know what I mean.

This house says Scofflaw and Dades are not harsh or intolerant to other posters.

Agent J

PDN wrote: »

A question for those who are defending free speech.

If someone close to you was getting buried, and they had chosen a nice humanist ceremony with no religious references, how would you feel if I stood across the road preaching my 'Gospel' and holding up banners proclaiming that your loved one was burning in hell because they weren't born again?

Of course I'm far too well mannered to do such a thing, but don't you think I would be deserving of a good kicking? Shouldn't the law protect you from such harassment?

Sorry i couldnt help picturing myself taking up a box of bibles and bashing you to death with them...

Bit ironic really...

PDN

2Scoops wrote: »

And a paedophile only if you consider sleeping with 12 year old girls to be paedophilia.

Hmm, I once received death threats for suggesting that such behaviour could be construed as paedophilia. It was probably because I was talking about Mohammed at the time. Gandhi is probably more of an acceptable target. After all, the followers of the guru of passive resistance are hardly going to issue a fatwa against you.

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

It was probably because I was talking about Mohammed at the time.

LOL, but I'm sure it was no laughing matter to get death threats! :eek:

Easy targets ftw.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

A question for those who are defending free speech.

If someone close to you was getting buried, and they had chosen a nice humanist ceremony with no religious references, how would you feel if I stood across the road preaching my 'Gospel' and holding up banners proclaiming that your loved one was burning in hell because they weren't born again?

Of course I'm far too well mannered to do such a thing, but don't you think I would be deserving of a good kicking? Shouldn't the law protect you from such harassment?

Hmm. How would I feel if, at the funeral of every single one of my atheist relatives, there was always a priest in charge, representing a religion that damns the deceased? On the other hand, how would I feel if all my school options involved some kind of religious education that will tell my daughter her father is going to Hell? Or if, in a court of law, I was asked to swear on the Bible? Or...but you catch my drift - and it's not really aimed at you, since I know you feel fairly strongly on the matter of established churches.

There's a question for you, though - how do you think we feel? Phelps is just more visible, but the principle is no different.

cordially,
Scofflaw