not at your son's funeral. there are all sorts of restrictions on free speech. all relative to place and time. but it's not an issue here. this is not the government restricting speech. this is not a constitutional issue in my view. it's a tort case....private plaintiffs v. private defendants. i think this is great. we talk about hoping the justice system actually dispenses justice....i'd say this is an example of it happening.
The criteria for libel and slander are quite well defined. I think what has me hung up at the moment is "emotional distress". That's quite subjective. On the other hand, these douchebags aren't really deserving of my sympathy. On the other other hand - I am not a fan of lawsuits that effectively squelch speach... Hmmmmm.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html well according to this website, I'd say that the "church" was definteley guilty of some form of libel and slander. In fact the estate of the deceased could also probably sue the "church"
While I appreciate the condescension, I still maintain my earlier position. If it helps you, I'm currently taking a Constitutional Law & Free Speech class so I'm getting my fill of cases and arguments about Free Speech. As was stated earlier, neither Congress nor the states have made any law prohibiting this. I mean OJ was found not guilty of murder and was still held civilly liable. Civil and criminal cases are different beasts. EDIT: This reply was written before I read that you retracted your previous posts. I assume someone much more eloquent than I was the reason.
I'm not so sure the judge and jury didn't already know this would be turned over by the Appeals Court. I think it was awarded as as an announcement that good people will not tolerate their hatred. It will be turned over. I have almost no doubt about that. At the least, the church has to spend that much more money on fighting it. Anything to slow them down.
There is a fine line between protesting and disrupting someones life. There is also a fine line of punishment between removing protesters disrupting events and fining them 10 million. There are two glaring issues at hand: 1) If you REALLY think this was about "mental anguish" (to whom???), then you need a dose of reality. This is about a group of people voicing their opinion outside of society's acceptance. Do you really think a group of war protestors would be fined 10 million? 2) Law is interpreted by the results of each legal cases. Just like frivious law suits are out of hand, you will start seeing cases of people suing everyone for "mental anguish" just because they don't agree with them. Bush would be the richest man in the world by all the mental anguish he could receive from this site.
This is exactly the point. You don't use the justice system to suppress someones freedom of speech just because you disagree with it. It was used for over a 100 years after the civil war to keep blacks down. It was wrong then to do it, and it is wrong today.
The first think I thought of was obscenity laws and the sliding scale of acceptability relative to community mores. Is the legal definition of the word 'obscene' specifically more limited than the common definition? In the law does it only deal with p*rnography? Because to me what is at issue here seems to me to be very similar to the issues that people have had with juggling the free speech and community interests with regards to p*rnography. The two competing interests seem to me to be the free speech interests of Phelps, and the desire of the public not to be confronted with things that are openly offensive or repulsive to the community as a whole. Obviously defenders would say that there is some kind of legitimate discourse here, but is there really, or is Phelps simply hoping to shock people? If Phelps was out on a public street protesting, I think the law does have some interest in limiting or at least controling things that are openly offensive and which incite people.
I think that is a very interesting comparison, because it is mostly the fact that their behavior is repulsive to witness that makes their speech problematic. However, I do think their speech probably qualifies as highly meaningful whereas p*rnography is mostly meaningless. The group is expressing their religious beliefs, engaging in a political discourse about how the government should proceed with policy, and engaging in a social discourse as well. So, I think we have a strong interest in allowing them to say what they want to say, though it is too bad they have to be simultaneously wrong, annoying and offensive.
This isn't a fine, Space Ghost. It's a civil judgment. You're viewing this like they did something illegal and the government is punishing them. That's not the way the civil courts system works. People get hit for mental anguish from words. That's not unprecedented. What mental anguish means in a courtroom and what it means in an internet forum are two entirely different things.
And again, the government isn't telling them they can't do say those things. In no way is the government outlawing their speech. This is a civil case. Not a criminal one.
As a stupid nonlawyer, when someone like the KKK gets a permit to march, can a passerby sue them for mental anguish? Or I guess in broader terms, is there any immunity from civil suit on protected speech? Because it then seems to me like someone could conceivably use the courts as a bully pulpit to 'shout down' someone with whom they disagree, for instance ADL suing every permited Aryan Nation march for mental anguish. Or am I missing something?
You can sue anyone for virtually anything. The question is whether or not it sticks. I think showing up at a funeral and slandering the deceased in front of the family is actionable. That's not the kind of case I deal with...but I don't think that's a far reach. This suit isn't about restricting free speech. What they said isn't nearly as important as where and when they said it in this instance. I think the average juror would be so pissed at this...to imagine dealing with that at your own son's funeral. Yikes. Mourning your son's passing while these idiots are screaming him down?? Not even having the moment of peace in burying your son??
This was my concern as well. Where is that fine line between protection and "excessive mental anguish"?
Your speech is protected only from public actors. In other words...your free speech rights aren't owed to you by me or any other private actor. So GENERALLY SPEAKING you're not subject to jail time for your words...but that doesn't mean you don't deal with the consequences of them amongst other private actors. You can't rely on the First Amendment to protect you in those instances...because the private person never owed you First Amendment rights to begin with.
As I initially (and confusedly) pointed out - I can understand this for invasion of privacy, libel, slander etc. But mental anguish? You can be sued for offending someone? I don't like the sound of that.
How about emotional harm? Or do they choose to ignore that there are grieving people in the vicinity? It is a complex issue but if that were my son or daughter, I'd be tempted to take an elephant gun to Fred Phelps. End of free speech right there! It is adolescent to say that you can say whatever you want wherever you want. If it is limited to public property then it's not really free speech... I hope they counter-sue for distress or something.
