tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post4264916628186618611..comments2023-11-02T11:20:48.716-04:00Comments on Down the Rabbit Hole: Funeral Protesters Despicable, But Have 1st Amendment RightsBunnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12955817346800123054noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-9352184763463823572007-11-04T21:33:00.000-05:002007-11-04T21:33:00.000-05:00I don't know why it's any more acceptable than Don...I don't know why it's any more acceptable than Don Imus calling basketball players nappy headed hos. There were all kinds of opportunities for civil lawsuits in that one. Just because the law says you can open your mouth doesn't mean that everything that comes out of it is protected so I'm with Joe Flirt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-51871478307641970582007-11-03T10:31:00.000-04:002007-11-03T10:31:00.000-04:00Interesting. I'll have to dig up my photo of Al Go...Interesting. I'll have to dig up my photo of Al Gore hugging his good friend and campaign chairman the "Reverend" Fred Phelps.<BR/><BR/>Regarding SLAPPS, I'd make one point. It's not really about winning-or-losing at the end.<BR/><BR/>For the vast majority of us, the lawsuit in-and-of-itself is punishment. Time away from business and family. Unwanted travel. Lawyer fees. Etc...<BR/><BR/>Sure, we "WIN" at the end. But at what cost?<BR/><BR/>It's tempting to say Grrherhahahaha<BR/>when it happens to a neanderthal like Fred Phelps. But the sad truth is that it happens to decent people too.<BR/><BR/>TORT REFORM!!hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04341805107057968097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-47101003759125796412007-11-02T20:04:00.000-04:002007-11-02T20:04:00.000-04:00We can't allow them into Canada .. they would have...We can't allow them into Canada .. they would have a field day because we allow gay and lesbian marriages. They would be allowed to protest but they could be segregated and kept well away from the scene they want to protestGeorgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14369924981153052978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-34546297677487275232007-11-02T13:05:00.000-04:002007-11-02T13:05:00.000-04:00You know, not fifty years ago those lunatics would...You know, not fifty years ago those lunatics would have gotten the shit kicked out of them and the police would have turned a blind eye figuring justice had been served and the lunatics - regardless of how much money they had - would think twice before doing that again. The only thing different between now and then is that now the lawyers make money on the deal, and people with enough money can be as crazy as they want to, again and again, without any serious repercussions. <BR/><BR/>I don't know what I'm really saying, if anything, just a perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-65240741801448882042007-11-02T11:16:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:16:00.000-04:00I don't think it will be overturned actually, main...I don't think it will be overturned actually, mainly because they were on private property when they were protesting--and that is the biggest deal (although the media is making it more about the emotional distress for the family). I do think the damages will be reduced substantially though--judges just hate those punitive damages (except for in medical malpractice).<BR/><BR/>I agree they have the right to their free speech (as despicable as it is), but they better figure out a better place to do it rather than on private property. <BR/><BR/>And not2shy is right...the 1st amendment is a protection against the state infringing on the right of the people to free speech, not against civil repercussions when they piss someone off. :-)<BR/><BR/>Oddly I've been talking about this all week. I can't believe law school is good for something! :-)Raehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708673350946557695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-8215583165624948152007-11-02T11:09:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:09:00.000-04:00The legal situation is very different here in Brit...The legal situation is very different here in Britain, but the way I understand the 1st amendment is that it prevents the state from stopping someone expressing themselves. It doesn't protect them from civil responsibility if they do express themselves.<BR/><BR/>In this country their activity would be considered behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, and the police would tell them to leave and arrest them if they didn't. I prefer your system, but there are sometimes advantages to ours.not2shyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04451634567328621288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-37867869333543494012007-11-02T10:56:00.000-04:002007-11-02T10:56:00.000-04:00Does America not have a law against inciting hatre...Does America not have a law against inciting hatred? I know its been used several times here. A person has a right to express their views, but not to try and whip up hatred and violence against others while doing so.<b>Mr R Rabbit</b>https://www.blogger.com/profile/10685928042711313971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-33468855859207172862007-11-02T10:41:00.000-04:002007-11-02T10:41:00.000-04:00When I lived in LOH, there were a couple of instan...When I lived in LOH, there were a couple of instances of this group showing up at funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq. I think the best thing that happened is that while these folks may have a right to their free speech, others used their right to assembly and free speech to line up along the road near the site of these funerals so that the family and friends were not witness to their despicable behavior. While I am certain that the deceased's loved ones were aware of the "protesters" and their presence they were also aware that their community was with them and supported them which I hope provided comfort to them.Trueselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04376379968984585345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-77038612343106700752007-11-02T09:54:00.000-04:002007-11-02T09:54:00.000-04:00I agree that it total BS and they are in truly not...I agree that it total BS and they are in truly not acting in any way near the Christian moral philosophy, of which I will add, like it or not, is the philosophy this great country was founded on. PLEASE NOTE that I said Christian moral philosophy, not that you have to believe in and accept the Christian God. <BR/><BR/>And I agree that group should have been fined. Don’t get me started on lawyers. <BR/><BR/>As people currently interpret the 1st amendment, you have a point. I do not think and will never support that as a “free pass” to say anything you want, anytime, anywhere. I am sure that was not the intent. When your free speech encroaches on my right to life liberty and their pursuit of happiness, that is the line that should not be crossed. I should not have to have my life invaded, or distressed because you don’t agree with me or the government. <BR/><BR/>I think our current society has digressed a great deal in this area and it is sad that opposing views and philosophical differences are a means to confrontational conflict and just down right hateful mean spiritedness and even violence. That was surely not the intent of the founding fathers.<BR/><BR/>Ok, I guess that was my 5 cents worth. Thanks for the intellectual stimulation and a chance to voice this one man’s opinion. Have a nice weekend.SoCal Salhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13253405584770683895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-4116573134968715572007-11-02T09:53:00.001-04:002007-11-02T09:53:00.001-04:00The right to Free Speech does not include the righ...The right to Free Speech does not include the right to violate others rights. <BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court held in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) that it was constitutional to hold persons responsible when their words or actions were meant to cause or provoke a reasonable person to want to retaliate.<BR/><BR/>And again in Cox v. Louisiana (1965), the court pointed out in its decision that the 1st Ammendment right to speech and assembly P. 554 . (c) The rights of free speech and assembly do not mean that everyone may address a group at any public place at any time. Pp. 554-555 . (d) Communication of ideas by picketing and marching on streets is not afforded the same kind of protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as is pure speech. P. 555 .<BR/><BR/>So no, I don't think there is any way that these pathetic hate mongers are in the right, and I fully expect to courts to uphold the decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-63686399651491864082007-11-02T09:53:00.000-04:002007-11-02T09:53:00.000-04:00I would agree with crse. Obviously not a criminal...I would agree with crse. Obviously not a criminal offense, but a civil one. I don't know the ins and outs of that stuff, but if there's a way to stick it to them, then I'm all for it. <BR/><BR/>I had the "opportunity" to see them up close and personal when they came to Montana to protest because we're apparently a "gay-friendly" state. Picketed the Catholic Church, the Supreme Court and one of the state universities. Reaction to them was either rage or ridicule. Not much in between.Osbassohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955786750729006181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2646772639494369714.post-77568738151211175502007-11-02T09:26:00.000-04:002007-11-02T09:26:00.000-04:00Ok, I agree that they perhaps should not be arrest...Ok, I agree that they perhaps should not be arrested. Which is why the idea of a civil suit is so attractive. Sure you didnt break the law but you caused extreme emotional distress. Sort of like their own personal "asshole tax". Of course Im kind of ignorant about the law buddy so id defer to your knowledge....crsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05938033455038715980noreply@blogger.com