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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Yep, free to argue the toss for, months and months and months and months and years.

Actually, I think that allowing free speech is the worst that can happen to the the Westboro Cause. If they were censored, what they said would seem lllicit and possibly sympathetic.

By allowing them to keep ranting, we actually allow for more of a frank discussion about homosexuality and homophobia in culture. Does anybody think that Westboro is doing a good job in recruiting anybody to their way of thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Ok, actual slander is not protected speech. Nothing Westboro does is slander. Legal terms have legal meanings.

Abuse is a very subjective standard. They're not following around parents, or picketing homes. They're appearing in public areas. What they're doing is mean, but we have laws for harassment, and invasion of privacy and what not.

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Yep, free to argue the toss for, months and months and months and months and years.

Yep. Your point?

Polonius wrote:Actually, I think that allowing free speech is the worst that can happen to the the Westboro Cause. If they were censored, what they said would seem lllicit and possibly sympathetic.

By allowing them to keep ranting, we actually allow for more of a frank discussion about homosexuality and homophobia in culture. Does anybody think that Westboro is doing a good job in recruiting anybody to their way of thinking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Ok, actual slander is not protected speech. Nothing Westboro does is slander. Legal terms have legal meanings.

Abuse is a very subjective standard. They're not following around parents, or picketing homes. They're appearing in public areas. What they're doing is mean, but we have laws for harassment, and invasion of privacy and what not.

That's a fair point, but they've not suddenly started doing this, they've been at it for sometime now. If I started making offensive comments on this forum I'd get banned, which seems a bit unfair in light of the defense of the 1st Amendment.

My point is Frazz is that you would prefer to let somebody get away with being offensive rather than stop and say, "hold on a minute, freedom of speech is one thing, this is taking the p***." You're so paranoid about the government and any perceived threats to your freedom you'd rather let this scum have their say than have something in place that stops them.

As an aside, as I wrote the paragraph above I starred out some letters, just incase I broke the forum rules on language. Ironic when these people appear on your TV channels screaming this abuse, where everyone can see it, even kids.

Wolfstan wrote:

That's a fair point, but they've not suddenly started doing this, they've been at it for sometime now. If I started making offensive comments on this forum I'd get banned, which seems a bit unfair in light of the defense of the 1st Amendment.

The key difference being is that this forum is private, while Westboro is protesting in public. If they tried to come onto private property to do their protesting, the owner is within every right to tell them to gtf off his property right there and then. However, the WBC has as much right to protest on a street about whatever they want. It's the downside of freedom....sure you get open discussion, but you being free also means the crazy people are free to say whatever they want.

Also, you're not American, and as such the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to you. (joking guys)

=Shakes head= And this is why I like Plato's ideas of government the best...

Edit: Having just seen Wolfstan added a bunch on, I shall edit my reply

Yes, Americans are paranoid about losing their freedom, it's bred into our culture that our freedom is what our predecessors and fathers fought and died for in the Revolution, the Civil War and both World Wars. It's something that's deeply deeply embedded into us as a people. America also works on the idea that there is a slippery slope, and that if you ban something for being 'bad'....well what's to stop you from doing it to anything else? This, I'm fairly sure comes from our little flirtation with McCarthyism....

So yes, America will let people say whatever the hell they want, even if it is very offensive, because they have the right to do so. Is what they say hurtful? Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. Their right to say what they want is greater than my right to not be offended by people. It's not a perfect system, but we've realized we have to live with the holes that let crazy people do this stuff, just because attempting to plug them could be much much worse than just leaving them in place.

Also, you're not American, and as such the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to you. (joking guys)

I can't see why not, your lawmakers like to apply their laws to things that aren't American, off shore internet gambling sites or companies that trade with countries on your banned list. So why wouldn't a foum hosted in the US and owned by an American offer the same rights?

As mentioned before I think the US Constituation is a noble endeavour, but with flaws.

@Wolfstan: I don't think it's paranoia to say that the Government should never ban speech based on content. I think it's a fairly well reasoned decision based on the fact that allowing government to decide what can and can't be said is giving awesome power to the state, which will almost certainly be abused.

No offense, but you seem to have a pretty superficial knowledge of 1st amendment and free speech issues.

That's a fair point, but they've not suddenly started doing this, they've been at it for sometime now. If I started making offensive comments on this forum I'd get banned, which seems a bit unfair in light of the defense of the 1st Amendment.
***This is a private board. You have no rights here. But thats a common lack of understanding of what freedom of speech is. The government can't arrest you and take you away.

My point is Frazz is that you would prefer to let somebody get away with being offensive rather than stop and say, "hold on a minute, freedom of speech is one thing, this is taking the p***." You're so paranoid about the government and any perceived threats to your freedom you'd rather let this scum have their say than have something in place that stops them.
****You call it and me paranoid, which is itself a bit cookoo. We call it it freedom of speech, with a nice fat bright line keeping it from being infringed. What part of FREEDOM OF SPEECH are you not getting? If you don't like it, fine I care less than nothing. You have your country and can decide your own rights and obligations. We have ours.

In the words of the immortal bard: "Surrender? What do you think the A stands for? France?"

Wolfstan wrote:

Also, you're not American, and as such the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to you. (joking guys)

I can't see why not, your lawmakers like to apply their laws to things that aren't American, off shore internet gambling sites or companies that trade with countries on your banned list. So why wouldn't a foum hosted in the US and owned by an American offer the same rights?

As mentioned before I think the US Constituation is a noble endeavour, but with flaws.

Lol. Because the constituion, more than anything, protects private property. The 1st Amendment (and every part of the constitution except the 13th amendment) only restricts governmental action. If you are in my house, I can restrict your speech, worship, or assembly. If you invite me in, I can search your home without a warrant. Even Texas allows private property to restrict carrying weapons.

Polonius wrote: Even Texas allows private property to restrict carrying weapons.

Crazy isn't it?

Wolfstan wrote:

I can't see why not, your lawmakers like to apply their laws to things that aren't American, off shore internet gambling sites or companies that trade with countries on your banned list. So why wouldn't a foum hosted in the US and owned by an American offer the same rights?

As mentioned before I think the US Constituation is a noble endeavour, but with flaws.

You need to remember that the US Constitution is not 'law' persay, but more of a contract a state signs when joining the Union. They give up certain powers they would have if they were a sovereign state, and in return they get a few things, as well as a promise from the Federal Government that they will only do a few thing as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. The various amendments change the powers of Congress, which is why they have to get sent to the states.

So yes, the First Amendment does not say: "You can say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want, wherever you want." The 1st Amendment says that the Federal Government will not pass a law restricting free speech. But, as has been said, once you step onto private property it's all null and void, as it's no longer the Federal Government making the rules. If I recall correctly, when you signed up for dakka, you agreed to the rules, one of which was a prohibition against offensive speech. That rule trumps free speech because you agreed to it.

The Supreme Court has ruled in support of this pov with the case Morse v. Frederick (otherwise known as 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'). The courts ruling was basically that the rules of an institution you join trump free speech. Basically, if you go to work and sign a contract that says you can't be homophobic, then go around supporting Fred Phelps, your workplace is perfectly within its rights to fire you, and free speech is no protection.

You're so paranoid about the government and any perceived threats to your freedom you'd rather let this scum have their say than have something in place that stops them.

I'd rather have idiots spouting idiotspeak and have the rights we do than shut down idiocy and give up those rights.

As if there were no idiocy in GB. Of course there are no guns, so you have the worst of both worlds IMHO.

Polonius wrote:@Wolfstan: I don't think it's paranoia to say that the Government should never ban speech based on content. I think it's a fairly well reasoned decision based on the fact that allowing government to decide what can and can't be said is giving awesome power to the state, which will almost certainly be abused.

No offense, but you seem to have a pretty superficial knowledge of 1st amendment and free speech issues.

Which is why I'm trying to understand it as it's a totally alien concept to me.

Chill Frazz, all I've done is questioned the concept of your 1st Amendment, not p****d on your porch.

Perhaps you should spend sometime reading up on our history, I think you will find that we know about oppression over here in the Uk.

Wolfstan wrote:

Polonius wrote:@Wolfstan: I don't think it's paranoia to say that the Government should never ban speech based on content. I think it's a fairly well reasoned decision based on the fact that allowing government to decide what can and can't be said is giving awesome power to the state, which will almost certainly be abused.

No offense, but you seem to have a pretty superficial knowledge of 1st amendment and free speech issues.

Which is why I'm trying to understand it as it's a totally alien concept to me.

Chill Frazz, all I've done is questioned the concept of your 1st Amendment, not p****d on your porch.

Perhaps you should spend sometime reading up on our history, I think you will find that we know about oppression over here in the Uk.

Maybe you should read up on your own history. You might find there's a reason its the USA and not GB here. Something about tyranny...

Perhaps you should moderate your tone and not call other posters paranoid.

It's very, very simple. If the people in power right now can decide that they don't like what a group is saying and ban it from being said what's to stop them from banning something else later?

Today Westboro gets shut down and shut up. Great right? Except that tomorrow they decide that anyone criticizing soldiers is banned. Ohhh kay. In fact the day after, lets just open that up and tomorrow you're not allowed to criticize any government official. Of course, now that we've done that, why not just make things all nice and content by banning every political opinion except the ones of those currently in power? I mean, we have established back with Westboro that if the majority doesn't like what you're saying we can ban what you say. So why not just keep using that precedent?

Yes, its extreme but it illustrates precisely why you cannot just start banning people from saying things you don't like. Eventually you wind up in the group that the majority doesn't like what you say and they ban you from saying it. That's the whole slippery slope concept. You can't start down that road because you set a dangerous precedent and reeling everyone back once they start down it is very, very hard.

Tyyr wrote:It's very, very simple. If the people in power right now can decide that they don't like what a group is saying and ban it from being said what's to stop them from banning something else later?

Today Westboro gets shut down and shut up. Great right? Except that tomorrow they decide that anyone criticizing soldiers is banned. Ohhh kay. In fact the day after, lets just open that up and tomorrow you're not allowed to criticize any government official. Of course, now that we've done that, why not just make things all nice and content by banning every political opinion except the ones of those currently in power? I mean, we have established back with Westboro that if the majority doesn't like what you're saying we can ban what you say. So why not just keep using that precedent?

Yes, its extreme but it illustrates precisely why you cannot just start banning people from saying things you don't like. Eventually you wind up in the group that the majority doesn't like what you say and they ban you from saying it. That's the whole slippery slope concept. You can't start down that road because you set a dangerous precedent and reeling everyone back once they start down it is very, very hard.

I'm not saying ban opinions, as that is dangerous and wrong, but some of the stuff they come out with should come under some public order offence (IMO).

Thats the thing, anything done to Westboro will only encourage them. Its like scientology, muslims, tamils or any other nut jobs, if you ignore them they will go away, dont ignore them and they will only gain more power.

Essentially there is nothing legal we can do to shut them up, so ignore them until they do something crazy then come down on them like a bag of hammers.

Its just said that we have to wait til blood is flowing before we decide to give a damn.

Wolfstan wrote:

Tyyr wrote:It's very, very simple. If the people in power right now can decide that they don't like what a group is saying and ban it from being said what's to stop them from banning something else later?

Today Westboro gets shut down and shut up. Great right? Except that tomorrow they decide that anyone criticizing soldiers is banned. Ohhh kay. In fact the day after, lets just open that up and tomorrow you're not allowed to criticize any government official. Of course, now that we've done that, why not just make things all nice and content by banning every political opinion except the ones of those currently in power? I mean, we have established back with Westboro that if the majority doesn't like what you're saying we can ban what you say. So why not just keep using that precedent?

Yes, its extreme but it illustrates precisely why you cannot just start banning people from saying things you don't like. Eventually you wind up in the group that the majority doesn't like what you say and they ban you from saying it. That's the whole slippery slope concept. You can't start down that road because you set a dangerous precedent and reeling everyone back once they start down it is very, very hard.

I'm not saying ban opinions, as that is dangerous and wrong, but some of the stuff they come out with should come under some public order offence (IMO).

But why? Do you think people should have a right to not be offended?

Ravenous D wrote:Thats the thing, anything done to Westboro will only encourage them. Its like scientology, muslims, tamils or any other nut jobs, if you ignore them they will go away, dont ignore them and they will only gain more power.

That's just genius. Lump the entire religion of Islam -- all 23% of the world's population -- in with Westboro and Scientology in the nutjob bucket.



...think that's my cue for another self-imposed exile from the OT forum...

Take a vacation to Mecca for me while you're gone. They are real tolerant of non muslims there

Any ethical judgement that boils down to "one of them was mean to one of us, so we should be mean to all of them" deserves the same level of respect as "he who smelt it, dealt it." Meaning, of course, none at all.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:I'm not saying ban opinions, as that is dangerous and wrong, but some of the stuff they come out with should come under some public order offence (IMO).

Here is a decent explanation of the Heckler's Veto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

I live in ohio, and here is our Disorderly Conduct Statute:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11

I think you can argue that what they do fits under (A)(2), but I'm not sure it really does, at least in practice. The protest is not aimed at a specific person, it's also neither obscene nor even profane by most older defintions. It's in very poor taste, but it's hard to paint their protest as simply an attempt to inconvenience or annoy others, and not a method of making a political point.

And that's what it comes down to: if there is a political statement at the bottom of the pile of BS, the courts are going to find it and protect it.

Frazzled wrote: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.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

There are a whol slew of consequences besides criminal prosecution.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

There are a whol slew of consequences besides criminal prosecution.

Yeah, I think Sebster was aware of that. The government can't do anything about your speech, but anybody else can.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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.

I said free speach means you are immune to government consequences. You correct me by saying it means you're free from criminal prosecution...

How is that a correction and not just repeating what I said?

There are a whol slew of consequences besides criminal prosecution.

Yeah, I think Sebster was aware of that. The government can't do anything about your speech, but anybody else can.

Agreed. I was also thinking about government firing you if employed by the government, or losing government contracts, that sort of thing.

Ravenous D wrote:Take a vacation to Mecca for me while you're gone. They are real tolerant of non muslims there

This is what astonishes. Do you think that western civilisation is better than Muslim?

If not, why are you complaining about them?

If yes, why are you behaving like them?

one thing that really does my head in about these wesboro folks is that they give Christianity a bad name, people see church and think Christian. i have great respect for service men and think this is an outcry.
free speech is a good thing, a great thing, but this is over the top.
this is such an abuse of the 1st ammendment....

Most people will see Westboro for a very extreme sect.

Yeah, I'd have trouble imagining many people seeing the WBC as anything but a bunch of loons. I don't think people see them as mainstream Christians.

Please remember that free speech is NOT an absolute right. Further, even "political" speech can be restricted based on location (military base, hospitals).

In the instant case the question is whether the lower court got it right in finding the speech by the westboro folks fell within the bounds of the IIOED statute.

Under Maryland law, the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim are as follows: (1) intentional or reckless conduct by the defendant; (2) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (3) a causal connection between the wrongful conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress of the plaintiff; and (4) severe emotional distress. Harris v. Jones, 380 A.2d 611, 614 (1977). The defendant's conduct must be " 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' " Id. at 614 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46 comment d).

1. Is pretty easy..note that it is not the effect that must be intentional (emotional distress) but the complained of actions
2. Is it really extreme and outrageous? THIS is the real issue
3. Fairly easy to show.. They did A nd now I am distressed.
4. It can't be "they made me sad!" We're talking about true depression here and usually courts demand physical evidence of the emotional distress..vomitting, weight loss, other physical problems related to distress.

You can argue #2 to your hearts content..

ender502