Is free speech only limited though to what contributes to a societal goal or encourages discourse? If that is the standard then if I find someone talking very loudly on the bus about how he thinks Charlize Theron is really sexy can I sue them as they are annoying me and their speech is innane and contributes to no societal goal or encourages discourse? That seems like a very shaky standard. At the sametime though, again I apologize for defending the indefensible but I think is an important point. Preaching one's religious conviction, although one far out of the mainstream, could very well be considered encouraging discourse. If Fred Phelps truly believes that God is punishing the US for tolerance of homosexuality isn't that a matter of public discourse? For instance Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have made similar points yet they are still allowed to broadcast, or were in Falwell's case.
From your definition though of libel and slander I don't see how these apply to this case. From reading the article it doesn't seem like Fred Phelps was slandering the Marine himself as its not clear that he was claiming the Marine was gay but only protesting as the Marine death is a sign of God's punishment. That specifically doesn't seem to impugn the Marine but they are arguing that as an indictment of US society in general.
I completely agree and this seems to be using the power of the courts in order to force a societal norm. For those who are saying that this is a proper limitation of free speech how far should that go. Given that anti-abortion protesters are required to stay a certain distance from abortion clinics but they are still allowed to protest. Should abortion clinics have standing to sue though anytime there are protests since even with the distance though the protests can still be heard and that understandibly is very threatening to those who work in the clinic and women coming to the clinic. Under the standard of invasion of privacy and anguish then abortion protesters should be just as liable as Fred Phelps.
I understand that this is a civil versus a criminal ruling but there still needs to be standing to sue. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of what gives standing is harm caused to one's civil liberties. The question here is if there is a harm caused to the family's privacy right to mourn their son in peace versuse a free speech right for Fred Phelps to express his opinion. It seems to me that the family certainly has a right to privacy and if this had happened on private property then clearly Fred Phelps is liable. On public property though shouldn't Phelps have just as much right to his own civil liberties? Whose rights take precedence? This seems to me that Fred Phelps position is so far out of the mainstream that he becomes liable and the basis of the ruling has more to do with an extreme POV rather than a violation of civil liberties.
I apologize for the multiple posts but I think this is a very important issue since something like this really does hit upon what are the limits of free speech and my time is very limited so I'm not able to follow the discussion as it develops. Except that a lot of things cause emotional harm. There was that guy in DC who sued for $65 million for a pair of lost pants on the basis of emotional harm. As far as grieving people in the vinicity what if it was a funeral for someone who died in a construction accident? Should construction be stopped within hearing of a funeral procession since that would cause emotional harm to the mourners? I don't want to lesson the anguish of this situation but I think when emotional harm is your primary argument that is a very slippery and completely subjective slope. What situations like this though do is put it into the court's hand to decide who is emotionally harmed and how much is that harm worth. I understand that is done all the time but is that a good thing? And you would be charged with murder, or at least manslaughter. I don't deny that words hurt and have consequences but my question is should we resort to the courts for being offended? Should Sharpton sue Imus because his words caused anguish to blacks and women? Should I sue Steve Kerr becuase he called Yao a Chinaman which hurts me as ethnically Chinese and a Rockets fan? The answer to me seems to be to counter with more free speech and regarding Fred Phelps there already is a group countering them. Bikers volunteer to shield the funeral processions from Phelps and his ilk and drown them out by revving thier bikes. At the same time though one could say it is adolescent to run to the courts for a solution and adolescent to allow yourself to get wounded so deeply by words. While you might think this is a joke issue this is anything but as the question of what and how much free speech you can express is integral to what we believe as a free society. Again I don't want to make light of the anguish the family feels and I will emphasize that I find Phelps and his followers despicable. That is a given but as a society should we use the power the of the courts to silence an obnoxious but otherwise peaceful and law abiding group? That's a very tough question..
Thanks. I guess this is what leaves me feeling uncomfortable. I certainly think Phelps got what was coming to him, but it seems like there isn’t a very clear line about ‘what sticks’ and what doesn’t – in other words like there is a whole group of iffy cases that if you took them to juries in civil court 100 times, 50% of the time it you would have a jury that was sympathetic enough to make it stick and 50% not. This might just qualify as a lack of understanding on my part, but based on the description it does seem like there is not a clear line between ‘worthy of damages’ and ‘not worthy of damages’, and that winning is kind of a sympathy game. At a very primal emotional level, I feel that justice should be more clearly defined than appears is the case. Sorry if I'm reading too much into your comments.
This whole episode makes me want to vomit. First of all, as a US Marine veteran and second because Kansas is my birthplace. What this cult/church is doing may be protected speech but, I find it unconscionable to justify "pissing" on the graves of brave souls just to get a message out that is clearly directed at the wrong subject. This father did not deserve such a fate. Clearly the courts saw this also to be the case, Protest in a town square, in front of a government building, in a place where normal Americans could legitimately associate and identify the breadth and the depth of your message. Not at a cemetery where bereaved are trying to bring closure with a respectful, solemn service of a dearly departed heroe. Unbelievable! The ruling was good and just. Civil charges have less limitations in burden of proof. Whereas, in criminal proceedings the State or the Plaintiff would have to prove beyond "reasonable doubt." Incidentally heard this "quack" interviewed on CNN and he is flat out a raving lunatic and has clearly lost his mind. I think their movement on this subject is dead in the water. For Woodsboro Baptist, they're DONE and with the American public's approval.
My God man, someone's child has been struck down in war and you give a rat's ass about someone's right to disrespect that farewell. There's a zillion and one places they can protest. Go somewhere else. It's really simple. I'm not sure what the legal standpoint is ... but let's fid it!! One important component of a free society is its civility. Let's show some to a grieving family. I understand all the complexity and the nuance but let's get out of the ether on this one and realize that someone is putting a dead loved one in the ground and these monkeys should have no right to stain that last farewell with their political protest. Call me The Angry Pragmatist...
Mental anguish is not just for offending someone. It's a means of recovery in all sorts of civil cases. It can be so in a consumer case, for instance. It's usually difficult to prove...especially in Texas. But I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that a father suffered mental anguish when his son's funeral was overrun with protesters. That's about as low as it gets.
They are not being punished. It's not a criminal case. They're not being imprisoned or fined for the content of their speech. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. The father of the son owes the church absolutely zilch in the way of First Amendment rights. The Bill of Rights is afforded to us by the federal government....not by individual citizens. They've had a judgment entered against them for a dollar value to redress a wrong. It's a civil case.
Max, the above is obvious. I am not debating the hideousness of the actions perpetrated by Phelps and his ilk. But, what amount of mental anguish constitutes winning a lawsuit? At what level of offense does my right to free speech end? Do you see what I am getting at here? If there is not libel or slander, this ruling seems to imply that you can be punished for being offensive. Could gay groups now sue Pat Robertson for making claims that 9/11 was the fault of homosexuality? Can I sue TraderJorge for accusing me of being a traitor?
Again...there is no free speech analysis in this. If your words cause someone harm, you're not protected because of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is an obligation of the government to private citizens...not from private citizen to private citizen. The 2nd Amendment reads that you have a right to bear arms...but if "bearing arms" means you hurt someone, then a civil lawsuit can be kicked off so the person you harmed can be compensated. There is a ginormous distinction between you merely being offended...and you not being able to bury your son in peace. That's what this case is about. These cases are always fact-specific...always case-by-case. Punitive damages are calculated on a number of factors...including the wealth of the defendant and the egregiousness of the act. My understanding is that this jackass who runs this "church" is a lawyer who has done quite well for himself...and this is a jury sending him a message.
he was on tv last night and said that he didn't even know what was going on until he was at home and saw it on tv.
I know that and I'm hearing you. I suppose I'm just having a different conversation -- can and should we make a law to curb Phelps' behavior. The lawsuits may be sufficient (I don't expect it to be overturned, myself), but I've heard of suggestions of laws to keep people from protesting at cemetaries or similar things. Pornographic speech is regulated, not merely controlled by civil suits; maybe there are other forms that should also be regulated. That's the conversation I'm having.
People seem to think the law is static and not interpretive at all. It isn't. Juries draw the lines on what is and is not acceptable all the time. As Max seems to have finally gotten across this isn't a free speech issue. This group can go tomorrow and protest again at some other funeral. There is no ban of this action by the government. But he'll have to think twice about doing it again in light of this judgement. I don't think it is scary at all that a jury can find this way and I'm curious why the Appeals Court would consider overturning it. Juries are supposed to interpret these situations and make judgements. That is good, not bad.
Though are the courts part of the government? Who enforces the judgement? Its a false dichotomy that this is a civil case so the government isn't involved. The government is the arbiter and enforcer of this case and the ruling was based upon the civil liberties that this government is based on. It absolutely a free speech issue as you can't sue for just anything. You have to have standing and that is based upon legally defined civil liberties. If free speech wasn't an issue this wouldn't be a matter for the courts.
In case you haven't noticed I do give much more than a rat's ass. I agree with you but should civility be mandated by law? Civility and social mores are subjective, change with times and not universal. One could say that it was uncivil of the civil rights activists to shame and humiliate white Southernors. One could say it is very uncivil of war protestors to call politicians murders or for anti-abortion protestors to call doctors murderers also. The whole idea behind protest is to rouse passions and offense is a very strong passion. Let me ask you this. Should a woman who is making a painful and traumatic decision to have an abortion be subject to hearing anti-abortion protestors in the vicinity of the clinic?
There is a reason why though there is such a thing as "punitive damages" while no new law is being established the intent of this ruling is clearly meant as punishment. As I stated early I believe this is a false dichotomy to claim that this is not action by the government. The government is the one that has decided standing and enforces the decision.
The people in the form of the jury decided the case, not the government. The people decided the damages, not the government. There is no 'false dichotomy anyway since this isn't some nebulous principle of free speech but an enunciated amendment to the Constitution. That amendment clearly only talks about Congress inhibiting speech, not action by citizens as a result of speech.
