Phelps loses case

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

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

As a non-Catholic living in Ireland I feel the same way. The only difference is that you can tell your daughter in good conscience, "Ah don't listen, there's no such place as hell anyway."

Hivemind187

2Scoops wrote: »

OFF-TOPIC POSTING ALERT!

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

That would make him a pedarist not a paedophile - a distinction that sorely needs to be drawn.

Hivemind187

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?

Point is PDN, free speech wasnt the issue at stake in the Phelps case. it was a civil case brought by the family for harassment.

I dislike Phelps, his acolytes and the zealotry they expound but I havent a problem with them wanting to express it. They should be allowed to do so. However, at the point where they begin to harass, intimidate and publicly attack private individuals at a vulnerable time as a means of furthering some disgusting agenda then they are not engaging in free speech.

Once you cross the line and begin to harass people in the concerted and organised and clearly pre-meditated way that the Phelps do then you are opening yourself up to one of two things. 1) Getting sued for harassment, bullying etc or 2) Get smacked in the mouth like you would in any pub or football game.

I'll say it again, freedom of speech does not imply the freedom from a smack in the mouth.

(and before anyone says it, I am not a fascist for thinking that people should have the right to justice when knobends like the Phelps abuse a privalage).

pH

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?

Obviously I wouldn't like it, but isn't that what free speech is about - the right to say things that someone somewhere would prefer that you wouldn't? This is not an abstract right - when you think about free speech don't think about it in terms of the things you want to proclaim, think about it in terms of people's rights to say things that you hate.

So back to Phelps, there's no evidence that any disruption of the service occurred and they were 1,000 ft from the church. The man was a marine who died serving the military.

Is it the location of the protest or the content of the protest that bothers you? Say the exact same protest occurred miles away would that still be a problem?

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'll say it again, freedom of speech does not imply the freedom from a smack in the mouth.

You keep posting this rubbish - what are you saying? Freedom of speech is fine but if you upset me I've a right to beat the sh1t out of you? How about my right to behead you if you say something I don't like. In a free and democratic society freedom of speech is freedom from violent reprisals for your speech, otherwise freedom of speech is meaningless.

"You're free to say whatever you like, I'm free to beat you to death for saying it" is not freedom of speech.

cavedave

Agent J

Originally Posted by cavedave View Post

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.

Sorry I did not make myself clear. If someone kills someone you know you would probably want the scumbag strung up.
If someone protested someone you knows funeral you would probably want the scumbag strung up.
If you think of yourself in the place of victims of papparatzi, satire, tabloids, phelps you might want all these strung up too so you need to be careful how much power you give victims.

Another point no one seems to have made is do you think George W might start doing all his public speaking at "Memorials to our fallen heroes" now a president is set protesters at these "funeral like" events can be sued like the Phelps

Hivemind187

pH wrote: »

Obviously I wouldn't like it, but isn't that what free speech is about - the right to say things that someone somewhere would prefer that you wouldn't? This is not an abstract right - when you think about free speech don't think about it in terms of the things you want to proclaim, think about it in terms of people's rights to say things that you hate.

So back to Phelps, there's no evidence that any disruption of the service occurred and they were 1,000 ft from the church. The man was a marine who died serving the military.

Is it the location of the protest or the content of the protest that bothers you? Say the exact same protest occurred miles away would that still be a problem?

Again, you're missing the point entirely.

It was a CIVIL case, not a FEDERAL one. That means that the family, who were the innocent and unfortunate targets of a frankly childish religious campaign, were made to suffer. They sued. They won. End of.

The employment of the deceased is largely IRRELEVANT because he is dead (at which point his employment status would have changed drastically nu?). The family were the victims of this and they were given no choice in the matter by the Phelps. The family who were trying to bury their dead son were griveing, vulnerable and had done nothing to attract such attention.

Had the family been celebrities, religious extremists, politicans, buiness magnates or media moguls then their might have been a case for justifying the Phelps actions as "protest" ... but it wasnt and their isnt.

Regarding the issue of distance ... have you been to the states? A thousand feet is NOTHING to these people. Some of their roads are a couple of hundred feet across, most of their carparks are several times that distance. And its irrelevant because the Phelps travelled to the funeral with the intention of disrupting it and essentially hijacking it for their own purposes. Their actions caused distress and further unnessesscery pain to the family of the dead soldier - thats what thePhelps were sued for, not their right to speak their mind.

Hivemind187

cavedave wrote: »

Another point no one seems to have made is do you think George W might start doing all his public speaking at "Memorials to our fallen heroes" now a president is set protesters at these "funeral like" events can be sued like the Phelps

Nope. Because they have a specific target in the president not the funeral itself.

Agreed that it would be a horrid thing to do to any grieving family, but that protest would be legitimate if the target was the president and not the funeral.

Its a bit like the current "maddie madness" controversy involving a German magazine. People are saying its wrong to make jokes at all but the jokes are directed at the hystereia surrounding the case rather than the child - its a problem people have with putting the right context on things.

Dades

2Scoops wrote: »

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

LOL. But to echo what Scofflaw said - every new thread by a particular poster is a chance to start afresh. One thread may dissolve into farce, but the next discussion should be approached with innocent vigour, regardless of the poster.

Now - enough on said topic. Anyone want to start a thread on Ghandi?

pH

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point entirely.

It was a CIVIL case, not a FEDERAL one. That means that the family, who were the innocent and unfortunate targets of a frankly childish religious campaign, were made to suffer. They sued. They won. End of.

CIVIL? FEDERAL? what are you talking about?

It doesn't matter, there are some things that you shouldn't be able to sue for, the law should protect people's rights from someone's ability to get 12 sympathetic people to agree with him. Look at America's racist past, just because you can get 12 people on a jury to agree with you does not make it 'right'. Citizens need a set of fundamental rights that no jury or state body can curtail.

Had the family been celebrities, religious extremists, politicans, buiness magnates or media moguls then their might have been a case for justifying the Phelps actions as "protest" ... but it wasnt and their isnt.

In your opinion, for me the fact that the man died in the service of the state trying to achieve its foreign policy increases the legitimacy of a protest against the state during his funeral.

Regarding the issue of distance ... have you been to the states? A thousand feet is NOTHING to these people. Some of their roads are a couple of hundred feet across, most of their carparks are several times that distance. And its irrelevant because the Phelps travelled to the funeral with the intention of disrupting it and essentially hijacking it for their own purposes. Their actions caused distress and further unnessesscery pain to the family of the dead soldier - thats what thePhelps were sued for, not their right to speak their mind.

You don't know that, for all intents and purposes the Phelps travelled to make a point that an all powerful and vindictive God was killing US soldiers because of the fact that the US 'allows gays' (whatever the hell that means).

There was no evidence given that they tried to disrupt the service.

cavedave wrote:

Another point no one seems to have made is do you think George W might start doing all his public speaking at "Memorials to our fallen heroes" now a president is set protesters at these "funeral like" events can be sued like the Phelps

Exactly - like the way the US/British govs are abusing their new found anti-terrorist laws for non-terrorist activity, and the appalling case from the US where a 15 year old girl found herself facing the full harshness of the child pornography laws for taking a picture of herself - governments and state agencies have shown over and over that they will misuse any powers they are given for their own ends.

As much as I dislike what Phelps is saying, I would feel comforted that if he can say that then pretty much anything I want to say is safe for me to do so.

Hivemind187

pH wrote: »

CIVIL? FEDERAL? what are you talking about?

It doesn't matter, there are some things that you shouldn't be able to sue for, the law should protect people's rights from someone's ability to get 12 sympathetic people to agree with him. Look at America's racist past, just because you can get 12 people on a jury to agree with you does not make it 'right'. Citizens need a set of fundamental rights that no jury or state body can curtail.


In your opinion, for me the fact that the man died in the service of the state trying to achieve its foreign policy increases the legitimacy of a protest against the state during his funeral.



You don't know that, for all intents and purposes the Phelps travelled to make a point that an all powerful and vindictive God was killing US soldiers because of the fact that the US 'allows gays' (whatever the hell that means).

There was no evidence given that they tried to disrupt the service.

pH obviously you need to sit down and read how the freedom of speech law is implemented and what it actually means.

Secondly, I do know that they were disrupting the funeral because their presence evidences that. They travelled over a distance with the intention of targetting the funeral (a private griving ritual) of a young man (his employment doesnt matter because it ceased upon death - or do you suggest the marines actively employ corpses?) for the purposes of furthering their agenda by a publicity stunt.

Their actions impinged on the griveing people at the funeral, people who had done nothing to attract the attention of these Phelps lunatics - they were picked on and specifically targetted and that makes it harassment.

Its not about getting people to sympathise with you, its about have equal rights. The right to freedom of speech and the right to live without being harassed by looneys for no good reason.

You are attempting to protect one right at the expense of another which is counter productive.