Those people probably couldn't raise $1 million, let alone $11 million. But the money isn't what's important here. What's important is discouraging Phelps' merry band of hatemongers from carrying on, and this suit doesn't seem to have done that in the least.
Too bad someone can't make them all martyrs, but that's counter-productive.
Well, maybe if they end up losing everything but the shirts off their backs, or in jail for contempt of court for refusing to pay up, it'll change their attitude.
If they were trespassing on private property, and refused to vacate when ordered by legitimate authority, punish them for that, at the rate which trespassing is normally punishable.
I hate those bastards, but I can't get behind the "justice" system awarding millions of dollars for "intent to inflict emotional distress".
Especially since everyone involved in this charade freely admits that the award is intended as discouragement of a particular speech activity that is unpopular. Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."
But hey, the government does about a million things a second that I think are complete bullshit, so it's not like this event stands out particularly.
And hey, after all, these are dead military guys. It's not like they were mocking pictures of Mohammed or Allah. Perhaps the Imams should have sued for emotional distress over the Danish cartoons. It sounds like they'd have gotten a lot more support than for their death threats. Of course, some people have threatened to kill the members of Westboro Baptist, and that seems to go over pretty well. I guess it's always a matter of whose sacred cows one is slaughtering.
There's a line, however ill-defined, between "free speech" and "harassment". IMHO, picketing some random SOB's funeral to spread a message of hate and bigotry fairly clearly crosses it.
You wanna stand up and tell me that "Hooray! American soldiers are dying because God hates fags!" ISN'T hatred and bigotry?
Let me clarify my position here:
If he wants to stand on the Washington Mall and holler through a megaphone at random passers-by that God hates fags, that's first-amendment protected speech, and he may be a shit-gargling excuse for a drunkard's by-blow, but he still has a right to say it. If he goes and pickets some poor bastard's funeral to say that said poor bastard died because God hates fags, he is intruding without invitation or welcome on a private and very personal ceremony that happens, pretty much by necessity, to be happening in a public place temporarily borrowed for the purpose, and that is IMHO not protected free speech, any more than it would be protected free speech for him and his inbred little clan to gatecrash a wedding and march through the middle of the ceremony chanting "NIGGER-LOVING WHORE, NIGGER-LOVING WHORE."
But we would allow someone to stand 1000' away on a public street and do so, which is what happened in this case. That you don't like these guys in no way changes that their speech is almost certainly protected. Heck, the MD law that this case inspired only requires such protesters stay 300' away from a funeral.
As usual, tho, this is why people refuse to see much difference between Libertarians and Republicans. Freedom of speech is a grand thing until the people *I* don't like use it.
It is hardly the job of the government to restrict what you think is 'hatred and bigotry'. As I said before, this basically puts you in league with the radfems and the religious right who don't want people saying things that they don't like.
Someone else made the point that what Phelps' crowd do is harassment, and harassment is not protected free speech. If they want to get their message across, they could go to the town hall steps, or to a mall.
you said, however, "IMHO, picketing some random SOB's funeral to spread a message of hate and bigotry fairly clearly crosses it."
Thus *you* are completely in the realm of regulating content that you don't like. And they're clearly not targeting 'some random SOB'. They're targeting specific funerals for specific reasons. You just don't like that reason. This is clearly political speech.
As for harassment, you've also continued to completely ignore the actual facts of this case. The plaintiff actually testified that he didn't see the content of the signs at the funeral. The protests were 1000' away. How exactly is this harassment, except that you don't like the message and are all bent out of shape about it?
If this case actually happened as you've consistently tried to portray it, with Phelp's gang of loons dancing on the guy's casket, you'd have a point, but this isn't what happened.
Also, please explain how this protest was completely legal under the new MD law that this case inspired? They *could* have been 700' closer than they were and still be legal under the law designed to stop this kind of thing.
It is way more fun to argue again the actions of an insane mob that over ran the funeral site, but that isn't what happened. Ignoring this fact won't make it what happened either. Basically, this is your 'porn causes rape' and why people think 'Libertarians are just Republicans who like porn.'
Hint: you'll do better ignoring the funeral and focusing on the web postings.
Actually, it sounds more like libel and slander. Which are not protected by the First Amendment. Suing under those charges might have been more effective then let those idiots claim First Amendment protections. Have you ever noticed that the hate mongers are so very willing to trample all over others rights but cry foul when someone infringes on theirs?
Harassment isn't protected under the first amendment. Intent to inflict emotional distress is, effectively, a sub-category of harassment. It happens when someone doesn't just express an idea or a position or a criticism or thought or feeling, they go after someone else and try to bother and hurt them.
These people may be critical of the government, but the reason they do what they do the way they do it is to harass grieving families.
Slander isn't protected. Libel isn't protected. Lying in a contract (fraud) isn't protected. Yelling something to panic people in a crowd, where there's an imminent danger of them hurting each other, isn't protected. Playing your music blasting out the ears of the neighbors at 3 a.m. to express your displeasure with them over some neighborhood dispute isn't protected. Threatening someone with bodily harm or other illegal harms isn't protected.
And harassment isn't protected.
I can't come to your house, stand just off the property line with a speaker and amp van, point the speakers at your windows, and yell how much I disagree with you into your ears at 2 in the morning. Even if there wasn't a noise ordinance I couldn't. Purposely harassing people isn't a right.
Personally, I think we let anyone who calls themselves a "protester" get away with murder in this country, when they picket the houses of people who work in labs or other private individuals they really don't like. It's harassment. It's not intended to express a point of view, it's intended for the presence and the constant noise and the constant people right outside your house to upset you and your family, frighten you, and make your life hell.
If you want to criticize someone who works in a lab, do it in the town square, on the capitol or courthouse steps, on the side of the highway at the entrance to the interstate. Far, far more people will hear you. If your goal is to express yourself, then the number of people matter. If your goal is to express yourself to the lab guy, you did it the first day.
The goal is harassment, pure and simple, and it works to harass, and just because someone dons the holy mantle of "protester" too many people decide that any harassment they do of private individuals is a-okay.
Harassment is not okay, and if you really think the first amendment as written makes harassment of private individuals for the deliberate purpose of making their lives hell sacred and sanctified, then sign my vote up right now for amending the amendment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Too bad someone can't make them all martyrs, but that's counter-productive.
no subject
(And pigs might sprout wings any time now, too.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
If they were trespassing on private property, and refused to vacate when ordered by legitimate authority, punish them for that, at the rate which trespassing is normally punishable.
I hate those bastards, but I can't get behind the "justice" system awarding millions of dollars for "intent to inflict emotional distress".
Especially since everyone involved in this charade freely admits that the award is intended as discouragement of a particular speech activity that is unpopular. Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."
But hey, the government does about a million things a second that I think are complete bullshit, so it's not like this event stands out particularly.
And hey, after all, these are dead military guys. It's not like they were mocking pictures of Mohammed or Allah. Perhaps the Imams should have sued for emotional distress over the Danish cartoons. It sounds like they'd have gotten a lot more support than for their death threats. Of course, some people have threatened to kill the members of Westboro Baptist, and that seems to go over pretty well. I guess it's always a matter of whose sacred cows one is slaughtering.
no subject
no subject
Congrats...you're now in the realm of regulating content of political speech. You can now be a proper Democrat or Republican.
no subject
Let me clarify my position here:
If he wants to stand on the Washington Mall and holler through a megaphone at random passers-by that God hates fags, that's first-amendment protected speech, and he may be a shit-gargling excuse for a drunkard's by-blow, but he still has a right to say it. If he goes and pickets some poor bastard's funeral to say that said poor bastard died because God hates fags, he is intruding without invitation or welcome on a private and very personal ceremony that happens, pretty much by necessity, to be happening in a public place temporarily borrowed for the purpose, and that is IMHO not protected free speech, any more than it would be protected free speech for him and his inbred little clan to gatecrash a wedding and march through the middle of the ceremony chanting "NIGGER-LOVING WHORE, NIGGER-LOVING WHORE."
no subject
As usual, tho, this is why people refuse to see much difference between Libertarians and Republicans. Freedom of speech is a grand thing until the people *I* don't like use it.
It is hardly the job of the government to restrict what you think is 'hatred and bigotry'. As I said before, this basically puts you in league with the radfems and the religious right who don't want people saying things that they don't like.
no subject
no subject
Thus *you* are completely in the realm of regulating content that you don't like. And they're clearly not targeting 'some random SOB'. They're targeting specific funerals for specific reasons. You just don't like that reason. This is clearly political speech.
As for harassment, you've also continued to completely ignore the actual facts of this case. The plaintiff actually testified that he didn't see the content of the signs at the funeral. The protests were 1000' away. How exactly is this harassment, except that you don't like the message and are all bent out of shape about it?
If this case actually happened as you've consistently tried to portray it, with Phelp's gang of loons dancing on the guy's casket, you'd have a point, but this isn't what happened.
Also, please explain how this protest was completely legal under the new MD law that this case inspired? They *could* have been 700' closer than they were and still be legal under the law designed to stop this kind of thing.
It is way more fun to argue again the actions of an insane mob that over ran the funeral site, but that isn't what happened. Ignoring this fact won't make it what happened either. Basically, this is your 'porn causes rape' and why people think 'Libertarians are just Republicans who like porn.'
Hint: you'll do better ignoring the funeral and focusing on the web postings.
no subject
Have you ever noticed that the hate mongers are so very willing to trample all over others rights but cry foul when someone infringes on theirs?
no subject
no subject
These people may be critical of the government, but the reason they do what they do the way they do it is to harass grieving families.
Slander isn't protected. Libel isn't protected. Lying in a contract (fraud) isn't protected. Yelling something to panic people in a crowd, where there's an imminent danger of them hurting each other, isn't protected. Playing your music blasting out the ears of the neighbors at 3 a.m. to express your displeasure with them over some neighborhood dispute isn't protected. Threatening someone with bodily harm or other illegal harms isn't protected.
And harassment isn't protected.
I can't come to your house, stand just off the property line with a speaker and amp van, point the speakers at your windows, and yell how much I disagree with you into your ears at 2 in the morning. Even if there wasn't a noise ordinance I couldn't. Purposely harassing people isn't a right.
Personally, I think we let anyone who calls themselves a "protester" get away with murder in this country, when they picket the houses of people who work in labs or other private individuals they really don't like. It's harassment. It's not intended to express a point of view, it's intended for the presence and the constant noise and the constant people right outside your house to upset you and your family, frighten you, and make your life hell.
If you want to criticize someone who works in a lab, do it in the town square, on the capitol or courthouse steps, on the side of the highway at the entrance to the interstate. Far, far more people will hear you. If your goal is to express yourself, then the number of people matter. If your goal is to express yourself to the lab guy, you did it the first day.
The goal is harassment, pure and simple, and it works to harass, and just because someone dons the holy mantle of "protester" too many people decide that any harassment they do of private individuals is a-okay.
Harassment is not okay, and if you really think the first amendment as written makes harassment of private individuals for the deliberate purpose of making their lives hell sacred and sanctified, then sign my vote up right now for amending the amendment.
Harassment = Free Speech? Ridiculous!