So we'll send a throng of CFers to Karl Malone's mother's funeral to protest flopping in basketball and that is supposed to be okay...?
MadMax; As I'm not a lawyer I will have to concede that your legal knowledge is much greater than mine but I still disagree with you in regard to that this isn't about speech and also philosophically in regard to whether using the courts in this matter is a good thing. I will concede that yes there are limits that have been placed regarding the time and place of protest and your example of the protests at 2:30 AM is a good example. That said my understanding of that situation is one that can has been legally upheld by statute. I'm not aware of Phelps is violating any regulation regarding this protests in particular and the fact that this was a civil suit shows that no laws were being broken which you discuss below. That Clutch owns this site shows that this is Clutch property and as such we are here on the good graces of Clutch. I think that is a different matter than if we were in a public forum. For instance Clutch couldn't ban me from a sidewalk for saying "Rafer Alston is the greatest Rocket ever." (although he should as that is a highly offensive statement. ) You say that "the man isn't suing saying this guy can't protest. He's suing saying that at this specific time these words caused him injury." that is clearly regarding an issue of speech as there is no other action that he is suing for. While the man certainly may feel that that speech is causing him harm but given a pluralistic society with free speech anyone could argue that someone else's speech is causing them harm. Rafer Alston could argue that Clutch's criticism of him is causing harm. In the end this is a matter of using the courts to specifically punish speech and not any other action and in this case it seems to be a matter of punishing unpopular speech. My understanding would be that a funeral services company is engaged in a business transaction with a client and that them getting nailed in a courtroom has to do with failure to provide services that is far different than someone who has no business or any relationship with the family of the person being interred protesting on a public street. While that shows that as a society we take funerals seriously that strikes me as not very material to the Fred Phelps. But is there a counter harm when you are restricted in the free exercise of your rights? The problem I have with this whole situation and why I say its a false dichotomy to say "this is civil so your rights aren't being restricted" is that your rights are. As you have said yourself that almost anyone can sue anyone else under this system. Sharpton could sue Imus, Karl Malone could sue Clutchfans, Dick Cheney could sue Rimrocker, the government could sue the NY Times editorial page and so on if they felt that they were being harmed by their speech. All that matters is whether a judge or jury bought that argument. That strikes me as being subjective in the utmosts and leading to a situation of defacto suppression of speech if it is considered unpopular or offensive. Now my understanding of why we even value free speech in the first place is not to protect popular non-offensive speech but to protect that what most of society might find very unpopular and offensive. Consider that the speech of civil rights protestors was very offensive to the segregationists South and as it directly targeted their way of life did cause emotional harm and was meant to cause emotional harm as to shame them into change. If the standard is emotional harm then Southern Segregationists should've been well on standing to sue civil rights protestors and collect damages. I will agree with you that no laws are being passed in this case restricting speech but I don't see how this can see as anything but seeking to punish and chill free speech through the courts.
So all that matters then is how popular the speech is? People in the South didn't find what MLK was saying to be very popular and where publicly humiliated by MLK and other civil rights activists speeches. If your argument is how many people recognize the truth of what you say then there a many issues that should be silenced, pro-life, intelligent design, and these days supporting the war in Iraq since these are minority positions. Why not allow people the right to say what they want without the fear of laws or lawsuits and let the marketplace of ideas sort things out?
1. You can disagree with me all you want. I'm still telling you that the appellate courts will not be doing any First Amendment scrutiny with this case. They just won't. It's really not arguable. 2. Clutch doesn't have the authority to ban you from public spots. I'm not suggesting he does. The government can given certain time/place restrictions. But again, that's inconsequential because no one is banning the content or context of the speech here. 3. Speech can cause harm. Ever hear of slander? libel? There's no First Amendment scrutiny provided by courts in those matters. They're matters between private citizens. That's the key. 4. Again...private citizens owe no responsibility to other private citizens under the First Amendment. Don Imus can be sued by Sharpton in a civil suit...that garners no free speech scrutiny. When the government impedes your right to speak...that garners free speech scrutiny. It's that simple. That's how these issues are resolved. FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENS...NOT BETWEEN CITIZENS. 5. All these arguments about restraining speech...they're not relevant to THIS CASE. As much as you want them to be...they're simply not. I promise you, the First Amendment will not be a consideration for these judges in this case. I pinkie swear it. Scout's honor.
So in addition to throwing out cases like this one, we throw out hundereds of years or slander/libel caselaw as well, huh? How about we just leave it like it is? That way we don't have to amend the Constitution and get approval from every citizen in the country that we're all affording free speech to one another.
Because my dead son's funeral should not be considered a marketplace? I realize the imperfection of what I'm asserting. That's why I saw that we just have to make a stand somewhere (i.e. civility and decency). I'm more disturbed by some nutjob ruining a family's last goodbye than I am about requiring that same nutjob to move his protest somewhere else or STFU...
I am not familiar with this case at all. It sounds really sick by scanning this thread. Going to the debate here about free speech and the lawsuit- 1. I certainly understand the lawsuit being a civil suit that harm was caused by someones speech. (if it was just speech) 2. I understand verbal workplace harrassment, civil slander and libel suits. My question is are you aware of any other cases where someone's speech was held up in court as being harmful, causing damage, where it wasn't a slander or libel case? I could not think of one. But I thought you might have precedent. I agree this is not a free speech issue with regards to the constitution since one private individual is suing another. My question is are there other court cases that are precedents or is this setting one? If this is about words spoken, I cannot think of one case where words spoken were so harmful that it went to court and resulted in a judgment. (unless it was a slander, libel or harrassment case) I'm trying to come up with cases I can think of where people were hurt deeply by someones words and they won a court damage over it.
BTW- I don't see this at all from the little I read that this is a 1st admendment issue at all. I think I would like to know if the lawsuit was won simply on the basis of something that was spoken, speech.
Think of harassment cases. Think of harassment cases in the workplace. Now multiply that times about 1000 when you're trying to bury your son in peace. That it would cause harm is beyond question, in my opinion.
I deal with harrassment cases. So was this a harrassment case? Would it be harrassment of a protected class? I didn't read the whole story because it upset me that a pastor or christian would be involved with this junk. I am sickened by hate and hate speech.
Very familiar with that case. That case...and the fact that it's even a Texas case, where mental anguish damages are awarded pursuant to a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress are very difficult to get...was in my mind when I first read this particular case. the conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." I would argue that screaming down the dead and not allowing his family a peaceful funeral absolutely fits the bill.
he's neither a pastor nor a christian...even by the most liberal of definitions. honestly, i haven't seen the pleadings...and i don't know which state law's standards would be applied in this proceeding. but assuming it's as liberal as we are here in Texas .... then the GTE case that was cited above is an analagous.
thanks that helped me. quoting- "To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the resulting emotional distress was severe. Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. 1998). Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct "'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tex. 1993) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 46 cmt. d (1965)). It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether a defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous. GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 616 (Tex. 1999). But when reasonable minds may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the court's control, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability. Id." Her judgment was overturned in appeal, but it seemed to be tried as a harrassment case. thanks again.
Thanks MadMax, I just couldn't read much of it, I can't stand for the name Christian to be associated with this kind of stuff. It really hurts.
actually the case he was pointing you to wasn't the one he linked you to...it was cited within that case, though, with a nice synopsis...towards the bottom.
This church shames the Baptist Church in general, but it does seem that free speech is only "free speech" if you agree with the message.
