gnomon
Well-Known Member
And the United States government did not infringe on their free speech rights. I will say again that I find the settlement excessive and have to agree with Seyorni that such a decision will not alter their philosophy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Phelps Verdict
- Thread starter LogDog
- Start date
And the United States government did not infringe on their free speech rights. I will say again that I find the settlement excessive and have to agree with Seyorni that such a decision will not alter their philosophy.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
the government restricted their free speech rights by imposing liability and a judgment for damages. e.g. If I can sue your for damages for preaching your religion, I have restricted your free speech rights. You can't get away from that fact--the question is whether it is a constitutionally permitted restriction. Even the right to free speech is not absolute.
My guess is that you are not a lawyer?
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Nope. But I can pretend. And I am most likely wrong.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Not that all opinions aren't welcome. It's just that you stated them as fact; the law views it differently.
mcteethinator
Idiosyncratic Muslim
It's about time. I hope Fred Phelps becomes utterly destitute. 
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
1. It's constitutional. Here in the U.S. that rates pretty high.
2. It's not total, but the question is where to place the limits. An example would be flag-burning. Really gets some patriot's knickers in a twist, but it's constitutionally protected free speech (expression.) Should it be? Offensive speech always makes someone miserable.
3. The basic idea is that if I want the right to espouse my unpopular views, I have to defend other's right to espouse views I myself despise.
I think this Phelps case is right on the edge, which is what makes it interesting from a legal point of view.
Thought of another counter-example. Some gay people attend a service of an anti-gay Christian church, then get up during the service and unfurl a pro-gay rights banner. Permissible free speech? Or actionable or even criminal disturbance?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Their real "hit" will come when God says to them "I never knew you!" But for now, we will accept this earthly justice.
Maybe being anti-gay should be actionable like being a racist!
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Someday..... )( :rainbow1:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Here in the U.S. the constitution protects the rights of racists to advocate racism. Not to practice it, to advocate it. I support that, because I value my right to advocate controversial views and change public opinion.
In fact, the ACLU has frequently represented the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis to defend their right to hold parades and rallies. If the Phelps clan weren't chock full of their own lawyers, whom I'm sure are rubbing their hands together with glee anticipating bringing this fight to the court of appeals, I'm sure the ACLU would represent them in this case.
The rationale is that 50 years ago, courageous gay people first picketed publicly for their civil rights.
This was very controversial. Now we can look back and see that in fact they did change public opinion, and many of us are glad they did. They were able to do so because their right to free speech was protected.
It's the idea of having confidence in the marketplace of ideas, that if you are right, you can sway public opinion, and don't have to censor the views of your opponents.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
gnomon
Well-Known Member
The more I think about this I do not think there is any clear distinction based upon prior rulings of public speech in criminal court as to whether or not the WBC had their free speech violated.
The "fighting words" doctrine still exists. That case that brought the determination of fighting words as unprotected speech pales in comparison to the reaction of the WBC's actions. That case was about a Jehovah's Witness distributing religious literature found offensive by many individuals who filed a complaint. He was charged, convicted and the conviction upheld. It was a criminal case.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Many decisions by the courts, even the Supremes, have not provided a clear clarification nor overruled the Chaplinsky decision.
Even though the above is about criminal law it is those laws and the Supreme Court's decisions reviewing those laws which will determine the extent of the first amendment.
The flag burning decisions have come down on the idea of political speech. Such speech is probably guaranteed protection under the first amendment under most interpretations.
But none of this is civil law. That is what disturbs me about this case. If the church, however reprehensible they may be, were not violating any zoning issues or criminal conduct then the civil lawsuit is unnecessary. It may also be considered a religious/political action that may lead to a claim of civil rights violations on the part of the WBC.
In other words, the wisdom was given long ago that ignoring this group rather than the continued media and court presence is better.
Playing with a can of worms.
The "fighting words" doctrine still exists. That case that brought the determination of fighting words as unprotected speech pales in comparison to the reaction of the WBC's actions. That case was about a Jehovah's Witness distributing religious literature found offensive by many individuals who filed a complaint. He was charged, convicted and the conviction upheld. It was a criminal case.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Many decisions by the courts, even the Supremes, have not provided a clear clarification nor overruled the Chaplinsky decision.
Even though the above is about criminal law it is those laws and the Supreme Court's decisions reviewing those laws which will determine the extent of the first amendment.
The flag burning decisions have come down on the idea of political speech. Such speech is probably guaranteed protection under the first amendment under most interpretations.
But none of this is civil law. That is what disturbs me about this case. If the church, however reprehensible they may be, were not violating any zoning issues or criminal conduct then the civil lawsuit is unnecessary. It may also be considered a religious/political action that may lead to a claim of civil rights violations on the part of the WBC.
In other words, the wisdom was given long ago that ignoring this group rather than the continued media and court presence is better.
Playing with a can of worms.
Note the date of the article. I agree - you sure can call them. It seems you have an uncanny knack for predicting events that happened more than a year ago. I can't wait to see if you can somehow divine the winner of the 2005 World Series.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Note the date of the article. I agree - you sure can call them. It seems you have an uncanny knack for predicting events that happened more than a year ago. I can't wait to see if you can somehow divine the winner of the 2005 World Series.
In other news, Dewey defeats Truman.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Thanks for the chuckle... that was good.
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
This was a civil action. It was not the government restricting anything, or involved in any way. Private suit between private citizens, not government restriction of free speech.
OU College of Law Class of 1998, by the way.
B.
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
Being a racist is not actionable. How could a person's thoughts and ideas themselves ever be actionable? Are we in an Orwell novel?
B.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Hate crimes are actionable and rightfully so. Hate crimes against minorities are just as heinous as hate crimes based on your sexual orientation.
OMG, do you mean to tell me that in the US you can be a racist and get away with it? In the UK it is a criminal offence to make racist comments or carry out race hate crimes! Thank God I live in the UK!!!