Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

  1. #51
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You know, I just had a thought. If the lawsuit against Phelps is defeated in the Supreme Court, it could be the beginning of an excellent way to pay him and his klan back.

    Every time someone in Phelps' church dies, get about 10,000 people to picket the funeral with signs that say "God Hates False Prophets", "God Loves Dead Phelpses", and "This Dead Phelps Douchebag is Going Straight to Hell". Totally outnumber these assholes and shove their own tactics right down their throats. Make sure to televise it too, and let the whole world see what America thinks of these scum.
    I agree. Don't get mad, get even.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #52
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,692

    Re: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    OK, so this is going to be about free speech. No problem, except that some people don't seem to get it that, with rights, come responsibilities. You must be familiar with the notion that free speech does not grant one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What the Supremes will be deciding will be the extent of limitations involved in free speech. Does it give Fred Phelps the right to invade the privacy of others, and disrupt the grieving of families during funerals with this.................?



    Here is the deal, folks. God gives us the right of freedom of speech, but that does not mean that we can trample the rights of others in the process. Phelps and his klan can rant all day about whether or not "God hates fags". However, when they disrupt the funerals of soldiers, they have crossed the line, and I hope that the family of the dead soldier these punks protested gets every dime from them.

    Finally, in the picture, Mrs. Phelps is right about one thing, although I am sure she didn't intend it. Yes, I thank God every day for dead soldiers, because without those who spilled their blood to defend us, there would be no United States of America. However, unlike Mrs. Phelps, I thank those soldiers, both straight and gay, who made the ultimate sacrifice, and gave their last measure, to keep America a free nation. We all die, eventually, and I believe that our rewards in the afterlife are commensurate with how we lived our lives. In that context, I truly believe that it sucks to be part of the Phelps klan, who (IMHO) will be enshrined in everlasting shame, once they leave this world.

    Article is here.

    EDIT: Check out the picture, and see how patriotic Mrs. Phelps is, with her desecration of the flag. She is a disgusting excuse for a human being, and a waste of good oxygen.
    The solution is simple...they should be allowed to demonstate on public land...and someone else should be able to drive up in a van with 4 monster column speakers with sound direction and pump a 12000 htz audio signal at about 600 watts...exercising their own freedom of expression. If they could still stand and protest with that going on...good on them.

    There is a story of a group of protestors that announced they were going to burn a flag after a demonstration at their state capitol building. A group of vets showed up and politely listended to their diatribe about how bad America was...and when it was all over and as they prepared to burn their flag, the group approached them and doused them with some form of ignitable fluid. They made a simple declaration...people fought...people died for the strengths of their convictions and the right of even idiots to act like idiots. So...based on their own convictions...they should by all means...light the match. There was no flag burning that day.

    I wonder...consider those assholes are protesting at the funerals of soldiers who were fighting at the direction of the government of the United States...I wonder whot those protestors would be willing to fight for...and die for...and how we could maybe arrange that opportunity for them...

  3. #53
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You know, I just had a thought. If the lawsuit against Phelps is defeated in the Supreme Court, it could be the beginning of an excellent way to pay him and his klan back.

    Every time someone in Phelps' church dies, get about 10,000 people to picket the funeral with signs that say "God Hates False Prophets", "God Loves Dead Phelpses", and "This Dead Phelps Douchebag is Going Straight to Hell". Totally outnumber these assholes and shove their own tactics right down their throats. Make sure to televise it too, and let the whole world see what America thinks of these scum.
    I agree if the decision by the appeals court is upheld by the SC. Although, I do so distastefully. I would much prefer that the SC uphold that they are liable for emotional harm caused to the people.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #54
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I don't think either of those cases really covers this situation. In both NYT v Sullivan and Hustler v. Falwell, the cases were based on the lies were protected because they didn't maliciously go out to harm the person they were about. Both had to do with something being written about someone that wasn't true, but was not done out of malice, just greed.
    That's actually the reverse of what Hustler said. In that case, the court explicitly noted that there was "malice" (in the colloquial sense, not the libel sense), but that there was no falsehood. Even if the plaintiff showed intent to cause harm, he would also have to show that the statement was false, and it's precisely because nothing in the Hustler case was a demonstrably false statement that Flynt won.

    This case presents us with a novel question involving First Amendment limitations upon a State's authority to protect its citizens from the intentional infliction of emotional distress. We must decide whether a public figure may recover damages for emotional harm caused by the publication of an ad parody offensive to him, and doubtless gross and repugnant in the eyes of most. Respondent would have us find that a State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do.

    ...

    Respondent argues, however, that a different standard should apply in this case because, here, the State seeks to prevent not reputational damage, but the severe emotional distress suffered by the person who is the subject of an offensive publication. In respondent's view, and in the view of the [p53] Court of Appeals, so long as the utterance was intended to inflict emotional distress, was outrageous, and did in fact inflict serious emotional distress, it is of no constitutional import whether the statement was a fact or an opinion, or whether it was true or false. It is the intent to cause injury that is the gravamen of the tort, and the State's interest in preventing emotional harm simply outweighs whatever interest a speaker may have in speech of this type.

    Generally speaking, the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most, if not all, jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), we held that, even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will, his expression was protected by the First Amendment:

    Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.

    Id. at 73. Thus, while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.

    ...

    We conclude that public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of publications such as the one here at issue without showing, in addition, that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.
    Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

    Because nothing in this case is a demonstrably false statement about the soldier in question, the issue before the court is primarily whether Hustler should apply in this context, where it's a private figure being discussed rather than a public one.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #55
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,751

    Re: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    That's actually the reverse of what Hustler said. In that case, the court explicitly noted that there was "malice" (in the colloquial sense, not the libel sense), but that there was no falsehood. Even if the plaintiff showed intent to cause harm, he would also have to show that the statement was false, and it's precisely because nothing in the Hustler case was a demonstrably false statement that Flynt won.



    Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

    Because nothing in this case is a demonstrably false statement about the soldier in question, the issue before the court is primarily whether Hustler should apply in this context, where it's a private figure being discussed rather than a public one.
    Are you saying then that this case has to do with parody involving a dead gay soldier? I just don't see it.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #56
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Really? So vulgar language cannot be oppressed for example? Can you walk into a restaurant and bleep away at the crowded room?
    That would be up to the owner of the restaurant I'm in. I certainly haven't been kicked out of bars for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Is there any greater or more honorable peace to disturb than a grieving family burying a son or daughter who has died for their country?
    Mine

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    You cannot walk around DC with a sign that says I hate "fill in the blank." It's called responsibility and the law should shackle your arse and remove you from the scene. We don't allow atrocious racism with n word signs or signs I've seen in the South as a child depicting black men hanging from trees.
    Why shouldn't I be able to? We've gone overboard on the PC front. You can't say this and you can't say that. I say bull****! I'll say what I want when I want and so long as I'm not directly infringing upon others rights in the process than poo poo on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    We find it offensive for anyone to fly the rebel flag of the Confederacy, we protect our flags....we need to protect the honor of our fighting men and women and allow them to bury their children. If there ain't already a law, there should be one, free speech is one thing, yelling fire in a crowded church quite another.
    Is flying the confederate flag illegal? Maybe if it's above the US flag, but that's due to codes based on sovereignty. Free speech along with all of our rights must be upheld to their maximum.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #57
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Court to rule in military funeral protest case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You know, I just had a thought. If the lawsuit against Phelps is defeated in the Supreme Court, it could be the beginning of an excellent way to pay him and his klan back.

    Every time someone in Phelps' church dies, get about 10,000 people to picket the funeral with signs that say "God Hates False Prophets", "God Loves Dead Phelpses", and "This Dead Phelps Douchebag is Going Straight to Hell". Totally outnumber these assholes and shove their own tactics right down their throats. Make sure to televise it too, and let the whole world see what America thinks of these scum.
    You should be perfectly fine to do just that if you wish.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •