Westboro Baptist

randallscott35 · #1 10-07-2010, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Did I say their free speech shouldn't be protected? It really shouldn't be, but it has to be. No way around it even though the court is dying to find a loophole.

There will be no loophole and it should be protected...They will win the case. It never should've gone to trial to begin with.

GBBob · #2 10-07-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

There will be no loophole and it should be protected...They will win the case. It never should've gone to trial to begin with.

yup

jms62 · #3 10-07-2010, 01:15 PM

They should get no police protection for their rallies and let the chips fall where they may.

NTamm1215 · #4 10-07-2010, 02:07 PM

What they do is tasteless, disgusting and completely vile to anyone with any legitimate sense of what activities a civilized society should conduct.

However, they're going to win this case. The appeals court threw out the ruling to give the deceased soldier's father 11 million dollars for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. I think it's very hard to believe the Supreme Court will overturn that decision.

The most nauseating part of the NIghtline story is when those two assholes scoffed at Terry Moran for even mentioning that they protest at the funerals of men and women who fight to support the right they so willingly use. Talk about circular logic.

somerfrost · #5 10-07-2010, 02:23 PM

when speech is shown to clearly hurt others, it is not protected, I believe in the 1st Amendment but I think they cross the line. The emotional trauma they cause the families of slain heroes is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Yes, much speech is crude and disgusting...that's protected but yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not.

GBBob · #6 10-07-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

when speech is shown to clearly hurt others, it is not protected, I believe in the 1st Amendment but I think they cross the line. The emotional trauma they cause the families of slain heroes is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Yes, much speech is crude and disgusting...that's protected but yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not.

Obviously on a technicality, but I think you can see the difference between the two

Riot · #7 10-07-2010, 02:28 PM

??? The way I understand it, the case isn't about Westboro's ability to stand on a sidewalk and demonstrate their low IQ's, it's when they specifically named these people on their website and went after them.

randallscott35 · #8 10-07-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

when speech is shown to clearly hurt others, it is not protected, I believe in the 1st Amendment but I think they cross the line. The emotional trauma they cause the families of slain heroes is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Yes, much speech is crude and disgusting...that's protected but yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not.

Incorrect. Hyperbolic speech is always protected...."God Hates Fags, God Loves Dead Soldiers" is hyperbolic. Again, they will surely win this case.

somerfrost · #9 10-07-2010, 04:04 PM

But when "God hate fags and thank God for dead troops" is spewed at a funeral it becomes harmful to the families....I don't give a damn if they have their hate fests but not at military funerals. The right to one's opinion is not the same as attacking innocent folks and beating them over the head with one's perversion. They are encouraging violence....I think this is a gray area...hopefully the Court will use common sense!

hi_im_god · #10 10-07-2010, 04:19 PM

you've simplified plaintiff arguments in a way that if true would, in fact, make this a slam dunk. so why did the supreme court grant cert?

plaintiff won $5 million against westboro in a lower court. the appeals court overturned that verdict. now the supreme court agreed to hear the case when all they had to do was deny cert and the appeals court ruling stands. why would they bother hearing the case?

re-read what riot wrote. it's not about signs held up at funerals. it's about the speech specifically targeted at plaintiff on the westboro website. the issue is going to be whether or not this plaintiff is a public figure. that's where the justices questioning went. if he is, then falwell vs. flynt applies and it is indeed a slam dunk.

if he's not, then they'll either expand the free speech rules from flynt so they also apply to private individuals or they'll distinguish from flynt and you could see a very different ruling than you expect.

the court took on the case for a reason. i don't know what it is but i guarentee it wasn't to waste all the time and effort to say the appeals court had it exactly right. they're going to make a point. they wouldn't have taken the case otherwise.

clyde · #11 10-07-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

What they do is tasteless, disgusting and completely vile to anyone with any legitimate sense of what activities a civilized society should conduct.
However, they're going to win this case. The appeals court threw out the ruling to give the deceased soldier's father 11 million dollars for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. I think it's very hard to believe the Supreme Court will overturn that decision.

The most nauseating part of the NIghtline story is when those two assholes scoffed at Terry Moran for even mentioning that they protest at the funerals of men and women who fight to support the right they so willingly use. Talk about circular logic.

ET,

As eloquently as you typed this.....don't you realize where you are...now?????

#12 10-07-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The most nauseating part of the NIghtline story is when those two assholes scoffed at Terry Moran for even mentioning that they protest at the funerals of men and women who fight to support the right they so willingly use. Talk about circular logic.

Yeah the government, big oil, blackwater etc. eat that s.hit up. It's a card used to censor objectors so these a.ssholes can continue lining their pockets with bogus wars that do ANYTHING but protect our freedoms.

johnny pinwheel · #13 03-03-2011, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Yeah the government, big oil, blackwater etc. eat that s.hit up. It's a card used to censor objectors so these a.ssholes can continue lining their pockets with bogus wars that do ANYTHING but protect our freedoms.

ding,ding,ding...we have a winner. forget about the fag talk......if any of you bothered to listen to the lady that agrued for them (and she won). thats their whole point...its not about fags or hate.......they are pointing out the fact that our soldiers are dying for all of our sins......being gay is just one....greed, violence and imperialism are some of the others...they have no class but they do have a point...as long as we accept these illegal wars...we are all guilty. the government and media don't want it spun the way it really is and as usual most drones will eat up the media version. sure thats what God would of done....he would of blown the hell out of Iraq....lol....ok...throw hypocrites on the list too....lol

somerfrost · #14 03-03-2011, 12:17 PM

First of all, it's quite arrogant of you to assume none of us heard the vile rhetoric of the daughter of the church founder (yes. she somehow became a lawyer and did indeed represent the church before the Court). If these folks believed that our troops were dying for our collective sins then why not call society to task rather than singling out dead troops and their families? They are a hate group, pure and simple and simplistic attempts to cling somehow to some higher calling cannot disguise that. They hate gays, much as the clan hates blacks and Nazis hate Jews...trying to explain their actions with some philosophical justification cannot wash the crap away!