Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Khornholio wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They have freedom of speech, but there should be reasonable location limits. if portestors can be forced to stay away from Presidential speeches, then there can be location limits on protests near funerals. Problem solved without destroying the First Amendment.

^^This. They might be totally fething Loony tunes, but ^^This.

I have to agree,while I can't stand these people...they do have the "right" to voice their beliefs,but for decency's sake...keep them the feth away from the bereaved families.

Also,I honestly have to say,I'd never even consider punishing a Mother (or any other family member) who had suffered a loss of a loved one for opening up on a group of these low lifes.

The thing you all need to realize is that these people are not "nut jobs" in the sense that they know exactly what the are doing. And that is manipulating the judicial system by instigating attacks on them selves so that they can then generate a moneymaking lawsuit.

To me they are kind of like conmen/gypsies in that regard.

GG

edit...That is why I believe it's important for them to lose this case, so that they then may finally go away.

hmmmmm.... that's.... a good point.

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Violating noise laws? Littering? (unless she picks up the
shell casings of course-be green! recycle!)

...there are people who don't pick up shell casings? I guess I can see .22s but something you'd actually use to kill someone? Shell casings are money!

We have a reloader in our midst! (images of Mom chasing brass around for the tumbler)

olympia wrote:Westboro are crazy, but is there any way to know what god really thinks about homosexuality?

egor71 wrote:

olympia wrote:Westboro are crazy, but is there any way to know what god really thinks about homosexuality?

Come on, it's he right? I mean if he'd just write down how he felt about things in a pamphlet or maybe even a book I can't help but think it might sell a few copies.

generalgrog wrote:The thing you all need to realize is that these people are not "nut jobs" in the sense that they know exactly what the are doing. And that is manipulating the judicial system by instigating attacks on them selves so that they can then generate a moneymaking lawsuit.

Which is why I think the FWD can cover this. It's not words to incite violence, it's words to incite a lawsuit to make money. At that point it's no longer speech needing protecting.

Frazzled wrote:We have a reloader in our midst!

If you do any amount of shooting and you don't then you're an idiot.

Tyyr wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The thing you all need to realize is that these people are not "nut jobs" in the sense that they know exactly what the are doing. And that is manipulating the judicial system by instigating attacks on them selves so that they can then generate a moneymaking lawsuit.

Which is why I think the FWD can cover this. It's not words to incite violence, it's words to incite a lawsuit to make money. At that point it's no longer speech needing protecting.

Again, it's not the way it works. It's hard to deny that they're making a political statement. They don't hassle individuals out of personal vendetta, they hassle members of groups. They have a political message, as insane and hatefilled as it may be.

Political Speech is always protected. Always.

It doesn't matter what ulterior motives there are (isn't all political speech in the end about money?), if your speech makes a political statement, it's virtually bulletproof.

I don't mean to tell people what should or shouldn't be protected, but I'm guessing I'm one of the few people here to actually study the First Amendment in any depth, and the doctrines are actually pretty clear cut at this point. Admittedly, my professor once was Chief Litigator for the Ohio ACLU so he's got a distinct viewpoint, but there are only a few areas that are truly muddled right now.

generalgrog wrote:The thing you all need to realize is that these people are not "nut jobs" in the sense that they know exactly what the are doing. And that is manipulating the judicial system by instigating attacks on them selves so that they can then generate a moneymaking lawsuit.

To me they are kind of like conmen/gypsies in that regard.

GG

edit...That is why I believe it's important for them to lose this case, so that they then may finally go away.

Westboro has lost many, many lawsuits. Indeed, they have been indemnified several times.

They aren't doing this for money. They actually believe what they're saying.

Polonius wrote:Again, it's not the way it works. It's hard to deny that they're making a political statement. They don't hassle individuals out of personal vendetta, they hassle members of groups. They have a political message, as insane and hatefilled as it may be.

It's hard to see how it's not a personal vendetta when they post up poems about specific people and inform them that their child is burning in hell and take joy in it. Yes, they are targeting those people because their children were soldiers but by going after them on an individual basis rather than generalities, "Your son is," as opposed to, "Soldiers are."

I am frankly a big fan of the bill of rights and I'm usually the one taking the side of, "It all has to be protected or none of it is." Maybe it's a mark of just how disgusting these people are that even I would happily look for any loophole I could find to shut them up.

Well, except the poem was posted online, and frankly while apparently awful (I haven't read it) it's hard to see how that is a problem. If we start going after people for saying mean stuff and posting it online, that'll kill the internet.

Even as a personal vendetta (and while these attacks are personally tailored, I think they'd argue and I'd believe that the purpose is still political) the overall impact is broader.

And the problem with your statement is that if we start allowing speech to be stifiled because of what it says, that's a problem. It simply is.

It's important to remember the actual cause of action in this case. The westboro folks weren't arrested for what they did, they were found liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. that's a common law tort that is built around the idea of stopping people from doing pretty much what the westboro people did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress

The only problem is that the church is saying that what they did was protected speech, and thus can't be considered "outrageous conduct".

What is possible is that the courts will carve out a new exception for IED claims by non-public figures. The first amendment generally allows you to say anything against a public figure, as long as it's satire or true. it's possible that they rule that against private figures, such conduct can be found to be outrageous.

it's actually a pretty close call. i think the big problem is going to be that the most tailored material was the poem, which the father would have to seek out to read. The physical protest is inflammatory, but more general. I'm interested to see how they rule.

Polonius wrote:And the problem with your statement is that if we start allowing speech to be stifiled because of what it says, that's a problem. It simply is.

And I was trying to admit that I was wrong but just not in so many words.

What is possible is that the courts will carve out a new exception for IED claims by non-public figures. The first amendment generally allows you to say anything against a public figure, as long as it's satire or true. it's possible that they rule that against private figures, such conduct can be found to be outrageous.

Which would be fine with me. Public figures are... public. When you reach that level you have to expect a certain level of this. A man burying his son isn't a public figure neither is he going to really be prepared to have people protesting his sons funeral praising the people who killed him.

think the big problem is going to be that the most tailored material was the poem, which the father would have to seek out to read. The physical protest is inflammatory, but more general. I'm interested to see how they rule.

Except that today you don't have to seek something out for it to find you. A group like WBC has enough exposure that if they say something it's very likely to find its way back to the person they're speaking about. If I say, "Al Gore is a douchebag," I would put better odds on me winning the lottery without ever buying a ticket than him ever hearing about it. If say... the NAACP said that I suspect it would be on this evening's news if it took even that long to get on the air. The WBC hasn't attained that level of course but its well known enough that if they post something it's going to start making its way around. It's not a private individual having a conversation with another individual that they have any expectation its going to stay private. It's a public entity publicly posting this kind of thing about a private individual.

Didn’t a well known biker gang put a stop to these idiots a while back by making a burley hairy wall of mussel and motorcycles???

Ugh... you know, if the terrorist nut jobs want to blow people up why can’t they blow the westboro people huh? They are crazy far out wacko nutjob Christians so thats like major bonus points right? More virgins guys, now strap on the vest and get to work!

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, IIED, is an intentional tort, not a negligence based tort. Which means that the Defendent has to have intended to act in an outrageous way to the plaintiff. The level of conduct is actually pretty high, if you read the wiki article it does a good job. It's a jury issue, of course, and in this case the jury did find it.

If I write something outrageous and awful about somebody's deceased child, and post it online, that person would have to 1) be told by a third party that it was there, and 2) go out of his way to read it. That's simply not what IIED is meant to cover. Here are the some guidlines for what's considered "outrageous": (1) there was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it; (3) the defendant was in a position of power; (4) racial epithets were used; and (5) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty.[8] (wikipedia)

Of those, you can argue 2, and maybe 1, although like I said the father is only seeing that poem if he either regularly surfs the Westboro website, or somebody told him about it (that regularly surfs the Wesboro site). Yes, the Westboro people are public, but it's not like the media cover every thing they put online.

There is an old saying in jurisprudence: Bad facts make bad law. This case is dangerous, because the facts are so extreme and awful that it's likely the court may create a dumb exception in First Amendment law just to try to shut these guys up.

Courts are also generally not big fans of IIED. It's never been as strong a cause of action as Defamation or the like.

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We have a reloader in our midst!

If you do any amount of shooting and you don't then you're an idiot.

I like shooting .22LR a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, it's not the way it works. It's hard to deny that they're making a political statement. They don't hassle individuals out of personal vendetta, they hassle members of groups. They have a political message, as insane and hatefilled as it may be.

It's hard to see how it's not a personal vendetta when they post up poems about specific people and inform them that their child is burning in hell and take joy in it. Yes, they are targeting those people because their children were soldiers but by going after them on an individual basis rather than generalities, "Your son is," as opposed to, "Soldiers are."

I am frankly a big fan of the bill of rights and I'm usually the one taking the side of, "It all has to be protected or none of it is." Maybe it's a mark of just how disgusting these people are that even I would happily look for any loophole I could find to shut them up.

To me thats much moreof a winning case for the family- thats harassment and all kind of things. You could win on that.

Frazzled wrote:I like shooting .22LR a lot.

Well .22's are the exception. Well pretty much any rimfire I suppose.

Hmmm, these dicks again.

I would use a fool-proof method for hurting them the most, without being in the wrong.


Simply state to a few of them that there is no god.
Should provoke them to start with, then continue with other such phrases to them until one of them snaps.
Wait for an action of violence, then have them arrested and charged.


Pretty much doing what they are.

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I like shooting .22LR a lot.

Well .22's are the exception. Well pretty much any rimfire I suppose.

Burn through 525 for $19-excellent!

The only thing you can actually afford to shoot anymore.

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I like shooting .22LR a lot.

Well .22's are the exception. Well pretty much any rimfire I suppose.

Burn through 525 for $19-excellent!

Amen to that. We have a .22 rifle that everyone basically just passes around when we run out of the fun stuff to shoot. And yea, you cant feel guilty for shooting a couple hundred rounds when they cost like $20.


OT Westboro = bad

dogma wrote:They aren't doing this for money. They actually believe what they're saying.

This. Have you seen the children of the members? I have never heard so many profanities uttered from a child's mouth. Ever. Of all time.

If their kids are spouting the same insanity that they are, they believe it.

Sanctjud wrote:They have freedom of speech, they are not immune to consequences of that freedom.

People keep saying this, and it just isn't how free speech works. Free speech means you really are immune to any government consequences, and retain all your other rights regardless of how popular your views.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:Westboro are crazy, but is there any way to know what god really thinks about homosexuality?

We don't. Given we can't really know, it's best just to go through life without being dicks to each other over the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I guess the important issue, if the mother pulled out a pistol and emptied two clips into the Westboro "church" and you were on the jury, would you convict her, and what for?

I don't know if I would convict.

But I would certainly attend the funeral of the dead Westboro person with a sign saying "God hates bigots".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Again, it's not the way it works. It's hard to deny that they're making a political statement. They don't hassle individuals out of personal vendetta, they hassle members of groups. They have a political message, as insane and hatefilled as it may be.

Political Speech is always protected. Always.

It doesn't matter what ulterior motives there are (isn't all political speech in the end about money?), if your speech makes a political statement, it's virtually bulletproof.

Yeah, thing is I agree that all speach needs to be protected. Else it's a very short right to what's happening in the Netherlands right now.

But surely you can restrict the time and place speech is given, without infringing on a person's right to give his view? No view can be made illegal, but restricting that speech from very specific places at very specific times would seem reasonable to me.

I can't watch those WBC videos without thinking of high powered rifles for some reason.

"God Hates" :: POP!::

"Oh gak!!!" [runs for cover covered in blood/brains]

I really shouldn't watch them.

I love the fact that if somebody broke the models of a US gamer you rant on about busting their arse, but this evil lot come under the 1st Amendment and you spend hours discussing it.

If it was a Muslim group doing this you'd of lynched them, not rattle on about the 1st Amendment. Your Constitution is a great idea in principal, but you have a legal industry that makes billions from twisting it for their clients.

Wolfstan wrote:I love the fact that if somebody broke the models of a US gamer you rant on about busting their arse, but this evil lot come under the 1st Amendment and you spend hours discussing it.

Well, there's a difference between breaking someone's property and speach. People do shout 'nerds' and the like into GW stores, and to date I've never seen anyone do anything about it. Because it's just speach.

If it was a Muslim group doing this you'd of lynched them, not rattle on about the 1st Amendment. Your Constitution is a great idea in principal, but you have a legal industry that makes billions from twisting it for their clients.

There have been a lot of efforts undertaken to get Westboro's actions stopped. Unfortunately it's a very tricky area, because it is legiitimate political speach, even thought it's odious, and they have a right to voice their opinions. That they choose to voice their opinions in such a place is a trickier matter.

Wolfstan wrote:I love the fact that if somebody broke the models of a US gamer you rant on about busting their arse, but this evil lot come under the 1st Amendment and you spend hours discussing it.

Free speech is a right, criminal mischief is a misdemeanor. It's ever so slightly different.

If it was a Muslim group doing this you'd of lynched them, not rattle on about the 1st Amendment.

No we wouldn't have actually. You'd have some pretty vociferous counter protests but someone being lynched? No. And free speech actually means something over here. Even though some of us, namely me, occasionally let our emotions get carried away once in a while in the end we realize that the moment we start gagging anyone who says something unpopular it's big trouble for everyone.

Your Constitution is ... great ...

Why yes, yes it is.

sebster wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:They have freedom of speech, they are not immune to consequences of that freedom.

People keep saying this, and it just isn't how free speech works. Free speech means you really are immune to any government consequences, and retain all your other rights regardless of how popular your views.
Not in the US, where we have an amendment to that effect. It means you are immune from criminal prosecution. Your employer can still fire your sorry ass.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:I love the fact that if somebody broke the models of a US gamer you rant on about busting their arse, but this evil lot come under the 1st Amendment and you spend hours discussing it.

If it was a Muslim group doing this you'd of lynched them, not rattle on about the 1st Amendment. Your Constitution is a great idea in principal, but you have a legal industry that makes billions from twisting it for their clients.

And your right to free speech is protected how again?

I know this one!

By lawyers taking cases all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rude words after the jump.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/

Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

see more Political Pictures

Wolfstan wrote:Hey, I think the sentiment behind the US Constitution is great and it's motivation is noble. My point is though, it is open to being manipulated big time. You appear to be so paranoid about the government eating away at your freedoms, you are prepared to let this scum spread their twisted opinions.

I fully expect to be able to express my opinions about the government without fear of being locked up, but I don't expect to be walking free if I'm shouting abuse and slander.

We're not paranoid. We're free. Sorry you can't seem to grasp the difference. Thats ok, we are citizens of different countries.