Part of me sometimes believes that they do what they do to provoke action from the general public, as opposed to imposing their messages. I mean think about it, you gather a community and go to “work”; 2-3 people picket various places in America at all times, and many turn over profit through crimes —> lawsuits in court. It is pretty smart, honestly, but I still think they are a bunch of scumbags.
As much as I’m in favor of the Phelps family burning in hell at some point in eternity, I’d rather not see the Supreme Court trim back the first ammendment because of these attention whores. Here’s the kicker:
NOBODY EVEN KNEW THEY WERE THERE. The father who is sueing didn’t even know they were there until he watched the news that night. Yet he’s somehow entitled to $5 million dollars? No.
These people are only a big deal because we make them a big deal. Remember when they came to Buffalo? Weren’t there like 3 people on the corner for half an hour and like 50 kids from UB making it into a bigger spectacle? Who really disrupted that funeral?
It goes back to what Chris posted. We have the freedom to shout whatever the shit we want, as long as it doesn’t encroach on someone else’s freedom. That’s all our constitution does. It keeps one man’s rights from being encroached upon by another man’s rights. Not that we really follow that old thing anymore, but if we did…
Freedom of speech is not an absolute, and that’s the issue here. You can organize a protest and preach all the hate you want but when you start directing that hate at an individual instead of an ideal it crosses into harassment. What the court has to work out is if indeed that hate was directed at the family and their fallen son or not.
In the mean time someone needs to edit up a video to show Phelps burning a Koran, toss it on youtube, and let some other extremists take care of him.
They knew there we there. They just didn’t see them because they were surrounded by the media and police, lol;
… this notice necessarily resulted in increased police presence and media coverage at Lance Cpl. Snyder’s funeral.
It doesn’t matter anyway if he saw the signs that day or a week later, they arguably still have the same effect. Like if you were out to dinner with your wife and she told you she was going to the ladies room when it fact she went into a broom closet and gave the waiter a blow job. If you found out 5 months later you’d still be as angry as if you walked in on them that night looking for a broom…
And besides that they said specific things about the fathers son on their website (libel);
Defendants posted specific comments that Plaintiff and his wife “raised [Matthew] for the devil,” “RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery,” “taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity,” and “taught Matthew to be an idolator.”
Albert SNYDER, Plaintiff,
v.
Fred W. PHELPS, Sr., et al., Defendants.
So this case has implications for the web as well.
Also from the opinion:
Their defense implicates both the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.[9] They once again argue in the pending motions that this lawsuit and the resulting jury verdict unconstitutionally restrict the content of their speech, which was in the form of signs and the “epic” entitled “The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder” published on the church’s website. They contend that their speech was purely religious in nature. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized that “not all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.” Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 758, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985). In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a private individual could recover damages under a common law defamation claim where the subject of the lawsuit was a matter of private 577*577 concern. Id. at 763, 105 S.Ct. 2939. The Supreme Court cited its previous opinion in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), in which it held that the First Amendment interest in protecting speech must be balanced against a state’s interest in protecting its residents from tortious injury. Quite simply, the Supreme Court has recognized that there is not an absolute First Amendment right for any and all speech directed by private individuals against other private individuals.
… By their own actions, Defendants also created an atmosphere of confrontation. This atmosphere was created by signs carrying both a general message as well as signs that could reasonably be interpreted as being directed at the Snyder family. 578*578 There were signs expressing general points of view such as “America is doomed” and “God hates America.” However, there were also signs stating “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “Semper fi fags,” “You are going to hell,” and “God hates you.” While signs expressing general points of view are afforded First Amendment protection, these additional signs, which could be interpreted as being directed at the Snyder family, created issues for the finder of fact. Comments published on the church’ website stating that Matthew Snyder was raised for the devil and was taught to defy God created similar issues to be addressed by the finder of fact. The jury addressed these issues and determined that such comments on signs and on the website were so outrageous as to inflict severe emotional distress and invade the privacy of a private citizen during a time of bereavement.
A few justices indicated that they might want to take on the larger First Amendment questions that stem from Snyder v. Phelps. For example, after establishing that Snyder had seen the offensive content of the signs on television and the internet, rather than during the actual funeral, Justice Stephen Breyer raised two questions. “One is under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that’s very obnoxious,” he said. “And the second is to what extent can they put that on the Internet, where the victim is likely to see it. Now, those are the two questions that I am very bothered about. I don’t know what the rules ought to be there.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101007/us_time/08599202406200
And that might be part if this case. Precedence says It doesn’t matter when or how he saw the signs, but that he did see them. As with libel vs. slander, both are still defamation just by different means with similar outcomes.
And that’s why this case is in the supreme court, lol.
I’m all for rights. I just wish more people practiced common sense.
I just love how that these people protest soldiers, but if it wasn’t for soldiers, they wouldn’t have a first amendment to defend their filthy asses.
I think there should be a law agianst taking advantage of the constitution. I know when our forfathers wrote the constitution I KNOW they didn’t plan on some ass hats doing this.
oh, and call me a hypocrite, but as soon as one of these basterds dies, I’ll be sure to be at their funeral and be the loudest mo fucka there
This is the only response needed for this entire thread. I dont like them, i dont agree with what they do, and i would never associate with them. But protesting is a very important right in this country, and if they aren’t allowed to do what they do, then all of our liberties and freedoms are in jeopardy. you dont like what they do? then hold a protest against their protest, which is what usually happens to them anyway. Being able to speak your mind is one of things that USED to make this country great…once again I AM NOT SUPPORTING WHAT THEY DO IN ANY WAY AT ALL!!!
i have a feeling that if the SC deems this illegal for harassment, loads of people will jump on the 1st amendment bandwagon, giving their whole movement support.
damned if we do, damned if we dont.
I second that.
lol @ 5:24, awesome way to protest
This is a case of having your cake and eating it too. So frustrating but it is what they’re allowed to do, i will for sure be there when these fucks get put in the ground.