Excellent.  Phweddy Felps gets what he deserves..."God Hates' Em!"

They mention the church members heard the verdict with "tight lipped smiles".  The problem is they will see this as more vindication they are on the right path.  Their persecution makes them stronger.  Maybe Hillary will go Waco on them when she gets in office.

Taint wrote:

Then another one will take his place.

Like cutting the head off a placard-waving Hydra. The 'wife' would indubitably step in. She's born him enough crotchfruit to last into the next century. Why can't we just have them listed as a terrorist organization--while the standards for that remain so lax--and be done with it? They're already living in trailers and suffering malnutrition to the point of brain damage, so maybe freezing their assets will cut down on their ability to buy rainbow-colored cardboard from Staples.

George Orr wrote:

Three million bucks is a lot of cabbage for the Phelps clan.  They'll remain eye- and mind-sores for the poor folks who have share their hometown, but with their financing taking such a hard hit, they won't be able to spread their poison very far.
I'm guessing godhatesfags.com and its offshoots will have to shut down very soon.

Nah, they'll appeal this one as far as it can go, so it'll still be around at least until that's over with.

Any bets on whether or not the ACLU will represent them?

Free speech trumps all else. The ACLU's primary focus is just that, whether they approve the company of their defendents or not.

the ACLU is representing them.  And they hate it.  But it's one of those things that they have to do.  Trust me, there's tons of internal turmoil over this fucker.

phreddy wrote:

feisty wrote:

the ACLU is representing them.  And they hate it.

If the ACLU has any sense of humor and fair play, they'll assign a gay Jewish lawyer to the case.

They do.  That's why they hired a jewish lawyer to represent the KKK who marched in Skokie.

Bottom line, the father of this soldier will never see any of the money...

The judgment only serves to galvanize these psychos.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

The damages are up to 11 million.  The jury came back with an additional 8 mil. punitive damages on top of the 2.9 mil. compensatory damages.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/

just more money the plaintiff will never see...

Taint wrote:

Lurker wrote:

just more money the plaintiff will never see...

You're such a pessimist. I prefer to think of it as lots and lots of money the plaintiff won't see. Doesn't that sound better?

Just a matter of fact. I really do wish that the Phelps klan would be bled dry, literally as well as figuratively.  Most people don't realize that many judgments go unpaid.  Look a OJ and the Goldmans.  (I DO NOT feel bad that Fred "Handlebar" Goldman isn't getting anything.  I'm sick of that entire family)

Unfortunately, the Phelps' will just use this as a way to raise money, which probably won't be much, since the majority of the church members consist of their inbred spawn.

Last edited by Lurker (2007-10-31 20:17:57)

Taint wrote:

Free speech trumps all else. The ACLU's primary focus is just that, whether they approve the company of their defendents or not.

While I usually agree with the ACLU I am disgusted by their involvement here - I would forward the argument here that burying one's dead is an age old measure of "free speech" and that these shitbags are denying these individuals the basic freedom of saying goodbye.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

The damages are up to 11 million.  The jury came back with an additional 8 mil. punitive damages on top of the 2.9 mil. compensatory damages.

Another brilliant jury.  Why not one billion?  Hell, why not "One Gazillion smackers!"  The higher they make it the easier it will be to appeal.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2007-10-31 21:49:08)

While I detest the creepy fanaticism of the Phelp's clan, I am not sure if this is a good result for constitutional rights. I take it that it hinged upon whether someone can speak out against a private vs public event. Doesn't the first amendement cover your right to speak out against either? Say your neighbors hosted Prussian Blue singalongs in their backyard, couldn't you speak out against that, even write letters to the editor, whatever?

Lurker wrote:

fnord wrote:

Because they torment the families of heterosexual soldiers and churches with heterosexual congregations, the gay community probably sends them a lot of anonymous contributions.  What better way to change peoples' minds about gay people than to have these fucktards show up?

fnord, do you actually believe what you are saying?   I'm sure gays were the LAST thing on this family's mind when they buried their son.   Like the Phelps family, I guess you are just an equal opportunity hater....

You’re right, gay people ARE the last thing anyone is thinking about when a soldier is buried, a hurricane occurs, or after any other tragedy.  To have these whackjobs show up with their insane picket signs causes entire communities to reevaluate their beliefs.  Americans are more accepting of gay people in the last few decades, and these whack jobs are a large part of the reason.

fnord wrote:

You’re right, gay people ARE the last thing anyone is thinking about when a soldier is buried, a hurricane occurs, or after any other tragedy.  To have these whackjobs show up with their insane picket signs causes entire communities to reevaluate their beliefs.  Americans are more accepting of gay people in the last few decades, and these whack jobs are a large part of the reason.

Scuse please.  Fnord, I may bait you here and there, but you usually don't come up with this kind of bullshit.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but you are giving credit to a group who bases their whole philosophy on the hatred of gays, and this is somehow a conspiracy to make the world accept that lifestyle?  People like us could understand the parody, but do you seriously think the sheep do... and do you think it's parody on the part of the Phelps crowd?

Unfortunately, as ridiculous as these "whack jobs" are, they resonate with a large part of the biblethumping bushlicking bibilous* crowd that vote their Republican closet cases into office. 

*Not to be confused with "bibulous", of which I'm a proud member.

opsec wrote:

Perhaps I misunderstand, but you are giving credit to a group who bases their whole philosophy on the hatred of gays, and this is somehow a conspiracy to make the world accept that lifestyle?  People like us could understand the parody, but do you seriously think the sheep do... and do you think it's parody on the part of the Phelps crowd?

Of course it’s not parody on the part of the Phelps family.  They believe the bullshit they spout; I believe it has the opposite effect from what they intend. The gay community would be foolish not to take advantage of that fact by encouraging these ridiculous caricatures to act up as often as possible.

Taint wrote:

Sorry, Emmy, I gotta disagree with you on this one. The letter of the law is - especially in this day and age - more important than the spirit. Yeah, it sucks that Phelps' morons result to such despicable behavior. Grieving families deserve the right to privacy.

However, free speech is free speech. When you allow the government to set the conditions for when and where free speech is appropriate, you allow them to set additional parameters farther down the road. This is why, as a gay man, abortion rights are important to me. When the government can tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, then the government can tell me who I can and can't fuck.

In a time when Dick Cheney and his asswipes are pushing the interpretations of law and regulations to fit their own very limited agenda, it's more important that we protect freedom of speech in the most literal sense. The minute the government gets to set the rules, we're all screwed.

Unfortunately your reality makes short work of my Blue Sky world - you even played the Cheney card.  How can I not concede the fact that any changes instigated under this administration will end badly.  I'd love to see a privacy amendment in our future but sincerely doubt it - even after the next election the best we can hope for is a transition from the current big brother state to a nanny state which is the equivilant to zero net delta.

Taint wrote:

However, free speech is free speech. When you allow the government to set the conditions for when and where free speech is appropriate, you allow them to set additional parameters farther down the road.

Crowded theater. Yelling "FIRE!"  It's not cut and dried.

opsec wrote:

And this legitimizes the gay community... how?

Apparently, other people see the connection.  There are fake hate crimes committed where blacks burn down their own churches, rabbis paint swastikas on synagogues, and in one especially notorious case, a college professor in California trashed her own car with hate slogans.  In all these cases, there was an outpouring of community support until the ruses were exposed.

Last edited by fnord (2007-11-01 01:29:40)

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater means that if your speech has the direct effect of putting people in physical danger, then you have crossed over the free speech line.

There is nothing in the constitution that says individuals have to be free from harassment.  There is, as a matter of fact, a provision in the constitution that allows for privacy.

"Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


What these two amendments mean is that the government does not have the right to do anything outside of the powers enumerated in the constitution itself.


Interesting info from the University of Missouri-Kansas School of Law:


From Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy


Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy?)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.






Also, Check this site out... interesting interpretations about the right to privacy:
http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000757.html

Last edited by feisty (2007-11-01 01:50:23)

That the Phelps coven will utilize any venue for their vitriol is not in contention. They would picket a four year-old's birthday, if there was nothing else within driving distance and they thought it would get them some press. They don't care whether other Christians want them, and they're not even 'fundamentalists,' except for the glancing commonalities they may have with other marginal hate-groups. They're religiopaths. There is no such thing as bad publicity, because they live in a subjective world of their own imagining. Put bluntly, they're psychotic, and other people's emotions aren't real to them.

As far as I'm concerned, the ACLU should handle their appeals, and do the best job they possibly can with the case. Whether they lose now or in five years, they'll still blame the Jew/Fag Conspiracy, and all it will have done is gotten them more ink, more airtime, and no blood from that particular stone. They are desperate and insane, and such people can be both cruel and crafty....less like a fox than a junkie. Although it is difficult to imagine anyone worse than the WBC, you can be sure that--like the veneer of faith they spackle over their Fear--the Phelpses are just a crust to the animalistic virulence people are capable of.

They're no threat to my sexuality, my identity, or to the opinions of anyone I might care to know. They are, however, what GLBTQ youth sees in the media, and what validates the most arcane phobias of closeted adults (Have you voted Republican in FL, WA, or ID, lately?). Because they are dangerous in their behaviors, to other persons, and should otherwise comprehend that the 1st Amendment was not intended to preserve speech with a sole purpose to disrupt, demean, and dismay, they are considered culpable of harrassment and fined accordingly. And why someone hasn't removed all minors in their custody is beyond me. It's not just the rhetoric. They use their kids as bait and pawns.

Unfortunately, in this country, at this time, a certain element is trying to push the envelope. Not against political correctness, but for the right to be ignorant. I say they may have that right as long as--like the religions they are free to observe--they practice it in deference to to the peace and safety of others. Failing that, I think their punishment should be proportionate to how disingenuous their claims of righteousness may be.

(Also works for terrorists, major chemical concerns, and Ann Coulter. Not available in Texas.)

feisty wrote:

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater means that if your speech has the direct effect of putting people in physical danger, then you have crossed over the free speech line.

There is nothing in the constitution that says individuals have to be free from harassment.  There is, as a matter of fact, a provision in the constitution that allows for privacy.

Feisty,

The larger issue is if the new laws some states have passed  prohibting protesting at funerals can hold up. That falls into the public/private and privacy issues you mention.

In this case the issues seems to fall on whether you can extend to it the somewhat ambigious tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Isn't this similar to the case of Falwell suing Flynt? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g … 5&invol=46

In that case the Supreme Court set precedent protecting all sorts of negative speech against a public person. But the ruling is narrowed to only public figures.  They didn't rule on private persons. Fallwell lost his bid that Flynt's speech was directed at his private person and thus the precedent of Sullivan vs NYT applied. If Phelps loses his appeal point on private /vs public won't he have to seek to get Freedom of Speech extended to intentional infliction of emotional distress on private persons? That seems like a hard row to hoe. Rather they might try to seek a determination  that the fallen soldier is an involuntary public figure or limited purpose public figure. This might be a difficult case to see through to the SCOTUS.

As distressing as Westboro's speach is they are clearly making a political/religious statement and they make it to everyone rather than just singling out the Snyder family. It seems to me that some arguement could be made that soldiers deaths and even a particular soldier's death in a very public war, thrusts him into the public sphere in a limited sense.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress cases seems like shitty civil law anyway. And in the Flynt case the SCOTUS had its qualms about it's standards:

"“Outrageousness” in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.

An “outrageousness” standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience."

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2007-11-01 05:48:26)

feisty wrote:

the ACLU is representing them.  And they hate it.  But it's one of those things that they have to do.  Trust me, there's tons of internal turmoil over this fucker.

That's precisely why the ACLU is so priceless.

Think about it creeps, what kind of precedent will this set ? Remember McLibel ? Nailing Phelps would be a nail in the coffin for _dissent_ of any kind.

Felch

feisty wrote:

Yes.  That's why we're all fucked up about this... (we as in the ACLU).  The Gubment has the right to put restrictions on time, place, and manner (as far as violent vs. non-violent), but not content.  So these people, however disgusting, have had their constitutional rights violated by this ruling.  God, I hate it when doing the right thing means protecting dickholes like these guys.

Whether their constitutional rights were violated is certainly debatable.  The funeral was a private function not held on public land.  If they have the right to protest, how close are they allowed to get?  Are they allowed on the public street outside of the cemetary?  Are the allowed to enter the cemetary?  If they are allowed on private land to protest, why can't they come into the funeral home,  or into the soldier's home and carry on the protest?  They are allowed to peacefully assemble.  Was their assembly peaceful?  And what about the fighting words exception?  Are their activities so inherently harmful that they are likely to incite a riot?  I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the ACLU is right in this one.

Johnny Rotten wrote:

Every one of your questions was not part of the suit nor any coming constitutional challenge. The WBC has taken care in the last few years to make sure they do not run afoul of the law. They assert their right to assembly, by making sure they know where it is lawful to assemble. They do not invade private property and when asked to maintain a certain distance for civil order, they do and stay in their designated zone on public property. They do not assert any right to enter private property or invade a funeral. They do not hurl threats nor do they spew fighting words. They may insult people who counter them, but it seems pretty clear they do not intend to provoke a riot.

They may not win their case, but not for the reason of any of the issues you mention. I thought you were a lawyer?

You know what, I'm not in the mood for this shit today.  Every one of my points has merit in this discussion for various LEGAL reasons,  but if you're gonna start off with that same tired argument (because I don't see the world that you do, you being a NON-ATTORNEY, then I must not be an attorney) I'm not going to waste my time.  Did it ever occur to you that people get tired of your long, boring-ass stories, your name dropping and your know-it-all attitude, you pretentious fuck?  There are many times I could rail on you, but I just let it go, so back the fuck off.