Poop Fred Phelps wins - Page 3

**alnorth** · 12:37 PM

The Supreme Court has just ruled in an 8-1 decision that if you protest at a funeral, you are immune to lawsuits from the family for inflicting emotional distress.

Quote:

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker,"

The Chief Justice wrote the opinion. The dissent was written by Alito.

From Alito's lone dissent:

Quote:

"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,"

No one disputed that you have a right to protest at a funeral (ie, you cant be thrown into jail or barred by the government), the question was whether you could be sued if your protest emotionally damages your target at a funeral.

The $5 million judgment against the Phelps clan has been thrown out, and now the father of the dead marine who originally sued has to pay the Phelps' legal bills.

edit: oh, also for the legal nerds out there, that windbag justice Breyer apparently wasn't satisfied with simply signing onto the majority opinion, he wrote his own concurring opinion.

Skyy God · 03-02-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

The mo. Woman who harassed the girl on myspace should be countersuing now with this ruling. Her harassing the girl is perfectly legal, they infringed on her right of free speech, she can say it is part of her religious beliefs for bonus.

Read the decision. They make a clear distinction between the special protection accorded public speech vs. purely private speech.

**alnorth** · 03-02-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

The mo. Woman who harassed the girl on myspace should be countersuing now with this ruling. Her harassing the girl is perfectly legal, they infringed on her right of free speech, she can say it is part of her religious beliefs for bonus.

It would seem that we all have a constitutional right to troll with impunity. Your feelings are hurt? Feeling suicidal? Grow a pair and get a thicker skin.

Valiant · 03-02-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Read the decision. They make a clear distinction between the special protection accorded public speech vs. purely private speech.

A social network is private?

**alnorth** · 03-02-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Read the decision. They make a clear distinction between the special protection accorded public speech vs. purely private speech.

That is a silly distinction. Assuming you are careful to avoid libel and slander, you can try to intentionally harm someone emotionally with speech without fear of the consequences (eg they kill themselves) as long as you make sure everyone can see and hear you?

In the context of this decision, why should private speech not enjoy the same protection from lawsuits?

kepp · 03-02-2011, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Reading just the syllabus of the decision, the court made the right call. Allowing emotional distress for speech that is purely public in nature (c.f., your mom is a whore), no matter how disagreeable, expands the tort into a protected area of discourse.

See, you're just fancy-talking and I don't buy it!

**Iowanian** · 03-02-2011, 10:39 AM

I just hope the court eventually remembers the words "justifiable homicide" when some grieving family member flips out and sends them all to hell.

Valiant · 03-02-2011, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

It would seem that we all have a constitutional right to troll with impunity. Your feelings are hurt? Feeling suicidal? Grow a pair and get a thicker skin.

No I am saying a ton of smaller court rulings need/ are going to be overturned imo

Personally I would just pay a bunch of kids to fill ballons with paint and give them waterballon launchers. You know the ones with 300 yard range. Tell them to fire as many as possible and then run and hide.

Pants · 03-02-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Reading just the syllabus of the decision, the court made the right call. Allowing emotional distress for speech that is purely public in nature (c.f., your mom is a whore), no matter how disagreeable, expands the tort into a protected area of discourse.

Tortes are tasty.

**alnorth** · 03-02-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

No I am saying a ton of smaller court rulings need/ are going to be overturned.

I know. If I wasn't clear, I agreed with your post.

ClevelandBronco · 03-02-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian

I just hope the court eventually remembers the words "justifiable homicide" when some grieving family member flips out and sends them all to hell.

Yeah, well, I think they just sent a crystal clear message that it quite literally would not be justified.

Skyy God · 03-02-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

That is a silly distinction. Assuming you are careful to avoid libel and slander, you can try to intentionally harm someone emotionally with speech without fear of the consequences (eg they kill themselves) as long as you make sure everyone can see and hear you?

In the context of this decision, why should private speech not enjoy the same protection from lawsuits?

It wasn't that the forum was public, the subject matter was (arguably).

**Iowanian** · 03-02-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Yeah, well, I think they just sent a crystal clear message that it quite literally would not be justified.

Then I hope the person who eventually decides to smash these assholes is very near the end with a terminal disease.

ClevelandBronco · 03-02-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Then I hope the person who eventually decides to smash these assholes is very near the end with a terminal disease.

Put it on your bucket list.

chiefsnorth · 03-02-2011, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warispeace

It's the right decision. The Phelpses would do far more damage criminalizing speech then they could with a thousand protests. Let those windbags say whatever they want.

Agree. I think this is the right decision. This tiny cult will die off, but damage to the 1st amendment would last forever.

Valiant · 03-02-2011, 10:55 AM

I have wondered. I do not know much about restraining orders and their effect on public land. But could local businesses and cemetaries get them against the group, to where it would block them even further away from demonstrating?

Just a random thought.

03-02-2011, 10:39 AM	#36
Iowanian Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Utopia Casino cash: $4788454	I just hope the court eventually remembers the words "justifiable homicide" when some grieving family member flips out and sends them all to hell.
Posts: 61,520

03-02-2011, 10:55 AM	#45
Valiant Valiant 'The Thread Killer' Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $6442380	I have wondered. I do not know much about restraining orders and their effect on public land. But could local businesses and cemetaries get them against the group, to where it would block them even further away from demonstrating? Just a random thought.
Posts: 18,351