Phelps Verdict

[Scuba Pete]

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!!!

Really? No freedom of speech then? I am certainly glad that I live right here. No, hate crimes are not allowed here in the US. Non-hate crimes are not allowed either (go figure). However, as specious and as ugly as they may be, we don't have laws concerning what we say. We use social pressures to deal with those kind of remarks.

 

[gnomon]

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!!!

Which kind of makes all that fighting against fascism in Europe pointless. And apparently the hyper-sensitive hate laws in the UK do not extend to religious prejudice as well given the content of some the posts here.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

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!!!

Of course you can be a racist, how in the world would you make a person's thoughts illegal? Hate crimes are, by definition as crimes, illegal, but then, any hate crime, has to be a crime in and of itself. If somebody punches out a person because they are gay, or black, or asian, or whatever, its not like the same action would have been legal if done against a white person.

B.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No, I believe you're mistaken. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Advocating racism or hatred of a specific group is a crime in several European countries, where Rev. Phelps would be preaching in jail. It cannot be in the U.S., due to constitutional protection of freedom of religion and speech.

Question: Which system is better?

 

[Storm]

Advocating racism or hatred of a specific group is a crime in several European countries, where Rev. Phelps would be preaching in jail. It cannot be in the U.S., due to constitutional protection of freedom of religion and speech.

Question: Which system is better?

Whoa, tough question.

I'd have to go with the American on that one. While the idea of Phelps preaching from jail has a certain appeal, where do we draw that line? I have to place freedom of speech above my (non)right not to be offended. Opinions should never be criminal.

However, I don't believe that speech exists in a vacuum. There are and should be social consequences, and in Phelps' case, I consider civil liability a proper one. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is actionable, and that's his whole schtick.

 

[Autodidact]

Whoa, tough question.

I'd have to go with the American on that one. While the idea of Phelps preacing from jail has a certain appeal, where do we draw that line? I have to place freedom of speech above my (non)right not to be offended. Opinions should never be criminal.

However, I don't believe that speech exists in a vacuum. There are and should be social consequences, and in Phelps' case, I consider civil liability a proper one. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is actionable, and that's his whole schtick.

I'm pretty much with you, but I do think (maybe, not sure) that a funeral might be over the line. There's an emotional aspect to a funeral, it just has a special status. So I'm not sure about how this case will turn out, and I look forward to seeing the appellate rulings.

 

[w00t]

Really? No freedom of speech then? I am certainly glad that I live right here. No, hate crimes are not allowed here in the US. Non-hate crimes are not allowed either (go figure). However, as specious and as ugly as they may be, we don't have laws concerning what we say. We use social pressures to deal with those kind of remarks.

We do have to watch what we say to a certain extent, thank goodness. I am so very, very glad I don't live in the US, it sound like a nightmare country if what one reads on these forums is anywhere near the truth of the matter!!!!

 

[Autodidact]

In many ways, yes, but we're kind of fond of the whole free speech deal.

 

[Panda]

In many ways, yes, but we're kind of fond of the whole free speech deal.

But it isn't really that true. I mean during the McCarthy(sp?) trials people were locked up for specific beliefs. Granted this was 40 years ago.

Anyway in the UK we still have free speech it is just racism and prejudice towards any single group of people is illegal. Of course they can't stop people thinking things, but it helps people be treated fairly. I can say whatever I like, but there are consequences for what I say, which is the way it should be.

 

[Storm]

But it isn't really that true. I mean during the McCarthy(sp?) trials people were locked up for specific beliefs. Granted this was 40 years ago.

Anyway in the UK we still have free speech it is just racism and prejudice towards any single group of people is illegal. Of course they can't stop people thinking things, but it helps people be treated fairly. I can say whatever I like, but there are consequences for what I say, which is the way it should be.

I just don't think there should be criminal consequences for anything anyone says, no matter how despicable.

 

[Panda]

I just don't think there should be criminal consequences for anything anyone says, no matter how despicable.

What about harassment? Or verbal bullying? These can be just as damaging and painful to a person as physically punching them, and often the damage is longer lasting.

 

[Storm]

What about harassment? Or verbal bullying? These can be just as damaging and painful to a person as physically punching them, and often the damage is longer lasting.

Harrassment is actionable (and should be) but that's not an opinion, it's a pattern of behavior. Unlike some here, I am not a lawyer, but I think harassment's liability is under invasion of privacy, and that it's only civilly liable not criminally. Autodidact, correct me if I'm wrong.

What do you mean by "verbal bullying"?

 

[Panda]

Verbal Bullies

Verbal bullies use words to hurt or humiliate another person. Verbal bullying includes name-calling, insulting, making racist comments and constant teasing. This type of bullying is the easiest to inflict on other children. It is quick and to the point and can occur in the least amount of time available. Its effects can be more devastating in some ways than physical bullying because there are no visible scars.

That make it clearer?

 

[Panda]

It's called dealing with life. With physical harassment your life is threatened. I see no such thing coming from calling someone a bad name.

Thats the thing, physical bullying often isn't life threatening. Suicide is one of the worlds biggest killers. I bet verbal bullying has lead to more deaths than physical bullying.

 

[UnTheist]

Suicide is one of the worlds biggest killers. I bet verbal bullying has lead to more deaths than physical bullying.

It's not the verbal bullying alone, but the victim's decision not to deal with meaningless insults. (Do I sound heartless yet?)

 

[Autodidact]

Harrassment is actionable (and should be) but that's not an opinion, it's a pattern of behavior. Unlike some here, I am not a lawyer, but I think harassment's liability is under invasion of privacy, and that it's only civilly liable not criminally. Autodidact, correct me if I'm wrong.

What do you mean by "verbal bullying"?

Well, it can be criminal; it's a very vague term.

 

[Panda]

It's not the verbal bullying alone, but the victim's decision not to deal with meaningless insults. (Do I sound heartless yet?)

I wouldn't say it is a decision but an inability as some people just aren't able to ignore them. When someone attacks you isn't it your inability to defend yourself that gets you hurt?

 

[Storm]

That make it clearer?

Yes. In that case, verbal bullying is something people just have to deal with. It's going to happen, and you need to be able to cope. In the case of kids, it's something for the parents to deal with, not the courts. For adults, welcome to the world, it's full of ***holes. Deal with it. I'm not about to infringe on anybody's freedom of speech because you haven't learned to ignore infantile name-calling.

Edit:

I wouldn't say it is a decision but an inability as some people just aren't able to ignore them. When someone attacks you isn't it your inability to defend yourself that gets you hurt?

Learning to deal with verbal bullies is part of growing up. Yes there are people who never manage, but as I said, I'm not about to limit free expression for the sake of their immaturity.

 

[UnTheist]

I wouldn't say it is a decision but an inability as some people just aren't able to ignore them.

That's their fault