First I wanna say that I extremely dislike these people (westboro baptist church). But I don't like how the media paints things they were 1000 feet away from Snyder's funeral. They weren't standing right outside harassing anyone. I can't believe its went this far. Are we just carving out exceptions to the First amendment now? Its just like when that pastor was gonna burn a Quran. We are all for speech until it hurts our feelings. Its just stupid. Again, I hate these ppl and find them pompous asses. But the fact we have to go to the USSC to decide whether its free speech is alarming.
I am all for free speech, and I don't believe we should be passing laws to prevent them from saying what they choose to say.
However, their freedom of speech is not a license to harass, stalk, or emotionally batter someone either. We do have laws about that. If they want to conduct demonstrations at funerals, let them. Let them also deal with the consquences of their actions.
The issue here is about the intentional infliction of mental cruelty upon the attendees of the funeral, and I firmly believe the actions of the Westboro baptist were intentionally cruel, and specifically intended to inflict emotional battery. For that, the family of the soldier is completely within their rights to sue the church. I would have loved to be on the jury that heard this case. I wouldn't have hesitated for a moment to find for the plaintiff.
Purely as a matter of law, there is nothing illegal in what the WB's did. That doesn't excuse them from being held accountable by civil action for the effect their "free speech" had on a grieving father.
Then again, I am no Constitutional scholar.
You pretty well nailed it. For far too long, our country's court rulings, our peoples modus operandi, our media, etc... have ignored the rights of the innocent. The slime of the earth seem to have been elevated to some "holier than thow" position at the expense of the "real" contributors to society. I absolutely cringe at the thought of how I might have reacted if this happened at a funeral for one of my family members. I fear that my friends from back in the day would have had no reservations in showing them who the lord loves, and I know he loves the business end of a machine gun a hell of a lot more than a bunch of non believers chanting slurs at the funeral of a military hero.
I agree PW. BUT....what I am saying is, why is there even a decision to be made? It's free speech period. They were 1000 feet AWAY from the funeral. They werent stalking, harassing, or bothering any of those at the funeral directly. Do I think it's disgusting to protest a funeral? YES. But Im sure they stayed back 1000 feet for a reason, to allow the family to grieve while also exercizing their rights to free speech. I watched the 2 attorneys on CSpan argue their ideals, and as much as I hate to say so, The Phelps (the church) attorney was the one in the right.
However, this all started bc they are being sued for emotional distress by the family. Again, they were 1000 FEET AWAY from the funeral. That's quite a distance. If they can sue for emotional distress, then why cant anyone who is upset by ANY speech? In fact, I was passing a office park a few weeks ago on Powers Ferry and seen 2 elderly anti-abortion protestors picketing on the sidewalk. (I didnt even know there was a clinic there) and told my friend about it when I picked her up from an appt down the road. I showed her when we passed, the placards with grisly photos. She immediately claimed they had "no right" to expose others to the photos, blah blah blah.... I am pro-choice but I vehemently disagreed. They have every right so long as they are peaceful. She then said she would get out and beat them up, LOL I said go ahead, and I'll see you at your arraignment for assault, and civil rights violations.
Weve become increasingly (and alaramingly) tolerant of curtails on our freedoms.
To protect the First Amendment, we must protect even the most heinous speech. That's how it works.
Well, I believe the SC will ultimately decide it to be protected speech and maybe that's the best decision if they actually rule on that aspect; however, there still can be civil liability for the emotional distress caused as determined by a jury. I think that aspect is what was actually appealed.
Nobody should ever be awarded "damages" for their feelings being hurt by any speech that's not criminal. Period.
"Protected" speech applies to our laws. No one is arguing that we need to pass a law to stop speech we don't like.
But we are still responsible for every action we take. Just because there is no law against something, doesn't mean we aren't or can't be subject to civil liability for our action.
That is why we have both a criminal, and civil justice system. If I don't repair a broken step on my front porch, I've broken no law. If you fall on my steps and break your arm, I will never see a day in jail for it. However, you certainly have an excellent case to sue me for medical costs, and hold me liable. Not only would I likely be required to pay your medical bills, but if you can establish that I willfully neglected to repari the step (maybe I ws warned it was a hazard and ignored the warning), I am likely to be subject to a punitive award as well as actual damages.
The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". We are not talking about establishing any law. We are talking about holding a person responsible for the things they choose to say or do. YOu don't have the right to intentionally inflict emotional harm on someone, and this is what the Phelpses did. They targeted a grieving family, stalked them, and willfully and with malice inflicted emotional battery on them. And for that, they can and should be held liable.
Sadly, I suspect the USSC will side with the Phelpses, but we'll just have to wait and see.
There was no "stalking" and no "harassing". They didn't make threats against them as individuals, or anything of the sort. In fact, if that was so, why werent any REAL charges brought against them for it? Targeting an audience isnt illegal. and as I said...they kept 1000 feet away from the family at all times. and speech has restrictions, which are liable, and slander. They werent accused of that either.
If I picket an abortion clinic (I wouldnt bc Im pro-choice) and say abortionists are murderers, many take that as 'emotional distress" to the doctor. Can I be sued?
You cant argue we have free speech, but hey...lets sue the shit out of everyone we feel offended by.
If I believe breast cancer is a punishment from God, and say so, am I "emotionally distressng" breast cancer victims, and they can sue me in a class action suit? Free speech doesn't exist if lawsuits can shut it down everytime someone feels upset by the speech. If the Phelpses were standing right outside the funeral and laying hands on people, I could see your point. Your argument s akin to gun control advocates who say that we should have gun rights, while purposing excessive taxes and costs on firearms. There IS NO "free speech" if it's made difficult by jumps and hurdles.
My dad was in the military and I dont have any love for the Phelpses. But if we begin to allow lawsuits for speech bc it bothers us, it will never end.
The First Amendment is only useful if it protects things people want to stop from being said.
I hated the ACLU for defending Nazis at Skokie, agreeing at the same time that they were right.
There is no meter designed to gauge degrees of offensiveness on a scale that can be used fairly.
Ugly, hideous, offensive speech should be allowed unless it crosses into a "non-protected" class, like libel, criminal solitication, etc.
The best way to deal with these ass holes is through public censure, not censor. The two may sound alike, but they are vastly different. A free society uses the first.
Thank you. A lawsuit is just an attempt to shutup speech that ppl dont like...