Gay-bashing church pickets GI funeral - damages $11 million (almost)

[gipper]

The set-up is different. In one you have intruders in a sanctuary of private life, by all rational indicators, and in the other you have pure speech from one's own property not technically intruding but merely affecting passersby.

[Plane]

I have heard about exceptions being made for "opprobrious" language , so that at some point a persons speech is offensive enough to be restricted , this must be hard when the offense is marginally applicable and subjective.

In this case the whole point of the exercise was to make offense and there is little mitigation.

The Confederate flag is offensive when it is ment to be so and when it is accepted to be so , most people who fly one do not mean offense and the people who take offense seem prone to it.

One could say the same thing about a funeral and signs that say "God hates fags."

That "heritage" was one in which Africans were subjugated to being less than humans and the property of white persons. Make no mistake that if you read the states reasons for leaving the union, you'll read about slavery. Some use crafty language to explain it, others like South Carolina and Mississippi just say it point blank.

So what is the difference? Other than people are "prone to" being offended.

In your mind my ancestors did nothing other than subjugate and mistreat other human beings.
Nothing
elese
period

My ancestors included some interestig caricters who did all sorts of things that run the full gamut from heroism to villany.

Probly yours too , but it is a good idea to emphasise the positive , without forgetting the negative , your children need to have the hope that they can do well and can do good.

Must every symbol of my people be a symbol of shame?

Shame on you for emphasiseing the negative in this way , we are trying to raise children here , we will continue to refuse to tell them that their blood is tainted.

The villany that made slavery what it was was not the exclusive property of my people , and there was more going on than just this .

Phelps is guilty of emphasiseing the negative , arn't you ?

[Cynthia]

With folks falling like flies for saying the N' word, I would love to see justice somehow in the case where the Phelps family insulted to the point of being outrageous behavior.

Imus, Mad Dog, Michael Richards etc....have freely "spoken" some unfriendly words.
They got their hands slapped, and rigthly so.

Why isn't anyone advocating slapping the hands of these people in terms of outrage?

"God is smiling about the dead soldiers" paraphrasing here....but unbelievable choice of words in the laps of the families as they bury their dead offspring. The sickest part of this free speech issue is that it even falls under the tainted umbrella of Christianity.

These people are simply mean and hateful, with no heart who  advertise their venom in many states across the country at the expense of the hearts and souls of the dead men's families....right up in their faces!!

Outrageous.

[_JS]

No, I think I haven't been clear Plane.

Like you said, we all have good and bad family and ancestors.

But here's my point. My Grandfather fought for the German Army in World War II. He was a conscript, by no means a Nazi Party member. He fought on the Eastern Front and whatever happened, the war helped to ruin his life.

Now, should I fly the Nazi Flag as a point of heritage?

In the same way a lot of Southerners, including me, had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. They may not have fought for slavery specifically in their minds, though there is little doubt that they were fighting for a Government that was fighting on behalf of slavery.

Now should I fly a Confederate Flag as a point of heritage?

What would be the difference in flying the Swastika or the Confederate Battle Flag in either case? I could point to either and say, "it is my heritage." That would be true, even though I don't believe either cause was the righteous cause.

Would local Jews have more right to protest a Nazi Flag, flown for German Heritage and WWII losses, than an African-American protesting the Confederate Battle Flag flown for Southern Heritage and Civil War losses? Knowing that both flags are used by white supremacist hate groups.

[Cynthia]

The church and three of its leaders ? the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 ? were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.



It seems that this was more than just a fight for free speech. Doesn't anyone think that the verdict came down as proper? Emotional distress seems to be a huge factor here.  Battle of rights is right, Domer, and I would think that the moment of someone's funeral would be the ultimate in not only private, but at the height of emotional connection in letting go of a loved one.

If the Phelps are so bent on hate for homosexuals, why aren't they protesting gay bars?

Emotional distress is what they are intending to cause here, I would think. Why else pick a time when people are most vulnerable and emotionally weak.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would think that flying the Confedetare flag in your own front yard would be clearly free speech.

You could fly a flag with anything on it but defamation of character or porn on it, and that would also be free speech.

If I say that I believe that God is punishing the US for allowing homosexuals to practice homosexuality with impunity, I can't see how this is anything but free speech. The Bible clearly is anti-gay,  and says that they should be killed by stoning. A majority of the people if the USA will even say that they believe that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God. I disagree. There are many great truths in the Bible, but also rather a lot of hogwash.

If they were standing on public (not private) property and saying what they said, they are practicing free speech. They are nasty, annoying creeps, but they are freely declaring their Bible-based beliefs.  If their words were so loud as to interrupt the services for the soldiers, however, then they were intruding on the rights of those holding the funeral, and they can be prosecuted. If they were standing on cementary property, then they were trespassing.

The fine was excessive, but these people are excessivly annoying. If the goal is to make them stop interrumting funerals because they have to spend their time and money in court, then I think that there is a good chance that they will cease and desist.

[Cynthia]

If they were standing on public (not private) property and saying what they said, they are practicing free speech. They are nasty, annoying creeps, but they are freely declaring their Bible-based beliefs.  If their words were so loud as to interrupt the services for the soldiers, however, then they were intruding on the rights of those holding the funeral, and they can be prosecuted. If they were standing on cementary property, then they were trespassing.

The fine was excessive, but these people are excessivly annoying. If the goal is to make them stop interrumting funerals because they have to spend their time and money in court, then I think that there is a good chance that they will cease and desist.

The point of the suit was not just about free speech. Emotional distress counts for something in our justice system.

[kimba1]

sorry
I tried to stay away
but can`t
but the legal issue is intent of what a funeral supposed to be.
true the church has a right to annoy the grieving family
but that doesn`t mean they should do it
note very few people protest at funerals
it`s a dumb move-globally
also notice after all this time that churches membership hasn`t exactly grown
sorry for the intrusion I stay away from now on

[BT]

sorry for the intrusion I stay away from now on

What is this about?

[kimba1]

actually I can`t really explain it very well
i call it the rosy odonnell factor
things are said here that well greatly anger me and very few will understand and understandedly will never understand it
so as basicly I must faced being viewed as oversensitive .
this is not a single incident it kinda built up.
I`m not blaming anyone it just finally got too much for me to take.
everybody has to the right to say what they want here,but it doesn`t mean I should take it with a smile.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point of the suit was not just about free speech. Emotional distress counts for something in our justice system.

I am pretty sure that "emotional distress" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Free speech is clearly mentioned, and preaching that you believe what the Bible quite clearly says also involves freedom of religion, even if it suggests that the USA should rightfully be destroyed by God for allowing gays to openly express their gaiety.

I don't agree with anything that these lameoids preach. I don't think that any just God would punish entire societies for the supposed transgressions of a minority, or of the majority for allowing the minority to transgress. I have zero proof that God disapproves of homosexuality. I have seen male dogs humping one another, and firmly believe that any onmiscient diety would be able to design male dogs that would not hump one another.

Nor do I believe that the Bible is the word of God. Much of it is far too silly and bigoted for this to be the case.

On the other hand, the Constitution says what it says, and like it or not, it is the law of the land.

How do I prove that I am emotionally distressed, anyway? I suggest that proving such a subjective thing as emotional distress is damn near impossible: one mourner at a funeral might see the Rev. Dingbat with his sign and be deeply offended, while another would just shrug it off as a typical act of fanatical religious idiocy. Both could claim emotional distress, or neither might claim it, but the fact is that the degree of emotional distress is unknowable and unproveable.

Should we set up a scale of emotional distress, where 10 is seeing your baby being flattened by a very slow bulldozer, and a 1 is a small zit on your nose on Prom Night? I mean, how do you measure anything as subjective as emotional distress, other than when said distress causes a person to totally lose it and kill the bulldozer owner or shatter the bathroom mirror?



 

[BT]

actually I can`t really explain it very well
i call it the rosy odonnell factor
things are said here that well greatly anger me and very few will understand and understandedly will never understand it
so as basicly I must faced being viewed as oversensitive .
this is not a single incident it kinda built up.
I`m not blaming anyone it just finally got too much for me to take.
everybody has to the right to say what they want here,but it doesn`t mean I should take it with a smile.

I can understand the cumulative effect some of the nastiness on this board can have. And i can understand the need to step away sometimes if only to regain perspective and or cool off.

The last couple years we have had non stop pissing matches in which an occasional debate will break out.

I used to think we could do better, but I'm not so sure now.

Anyway, we will leave the light on for you.

I do enjoy your posts. You bring a welcome perspective to the forum.

[kimba1]

thanks
I just need to cool off
but as you said before I can`t just give this up
as you notice by me posting.
I can`t help clicking here by reflex.

[The_Professor]

actually I can`t really explain it very well
i call it the rosy odonnell factor
things are said here that well greatly anger me and very few will understand and understandedly will never understand it
so as basicly I must faced being viewed as oversensitive .
this is not a single incident it kinda built up.
I`m not blaming anyone it just finally got too much for me to take.
everybody has to the right to say what they want here,but it doesn`t mean I should take it with a smile.

This is similar to the reasons I have greatly limited my involvement.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Imus, Mad Dog, Michael Richards etc....have freely "spoken" some unfriendly words.
They got their hands slapped, and rigthly so.

Why isn't anyone advocating slapping the hands of these people in terms of outrage?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing is that this preacher and his annoying flock are not broadcasting on the public airwaves like Imus.
They are not dependent on the public for their income, like Richards.

They are more annoying that either Imus or Richards have ever been. They are deliberately rude and annoying and what's more, they claim that they are on a mission from God. 

The Constitution protects their speech, if they gave their speeches on public property and out of hearing of the attendees of the funeral. If not, then the law could be different.

 Maybe it shouldn't, perhaps the framers of the Constitution might have written something different had they lived in our times. I hardly think we can consider the Constitution to be perfect. It wasn't, as we know, written by God. It is certainly not more serious than say, the Ten Commandments (if we assume that the Ten Commandments are the Word of God).


Perhaps we need to consider another amendment to the Constitution that will deal with problems such as this.

The difficulty would be with interpreting how much 'emotional stress' was transmitted by the speech or written messages in question.

I am wondering how much anyone can really be offended by nutty religious fanatics such as these. I don't think that if I had lost a son to the war I would take them seriously at all.