Whoa! That group is sick. Thanks for clarification, I was only reading the exchange between MadMax and Rocketsjudoka, the rest of that story is really perverted. What in the world in happening in the world? I am feeling really mad now about this.
"...when a religion is created on the subtle premise that God withholds his love and you must submit to the system to earn that love, I consider it the worst of corruptions." - Erwin McManus, Pastor of Mosaic (Los Angeles)
If I could talk about Jesus and Christianity to everyone in the world but I didn't love others, I would only be making meaningless noise. If God gave me the gift to tell people how to solve their problems and if I knew all the mysteries of science and knew the answer to every question, and if I had the gift of faith so that I could do miracles, But if I don't have God's gracious love, if I don't have His longsuffering, compassion and mercy for people- then I am really nothing at all. Zero! If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my own life, I could boast about it; but if I didn't love others, it would be worthless. God's love is always patient and kind. His love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love is not self promoting or self centered. Love won't respond with anger, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth is revealed. Love never gives up on others, never loses faith in God, is always hopeful, and endures through every difficulty. God's love will last forever, all men's great gifts will pass away. Now we know only a little about God's love, but in the end when we see God, we will see how we didn't need so many things on earth. It's like this: When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child does. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see life imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but in God's presence we will see life correctly. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then all my questions about God will be answered, just as God knows everything about me, He will be revealed clearly to me. There are three things that will endure in eternity-faith, hope, and love-and the greatest of these is love. Paul's thoughts, in my words.
I have to agree with you that it doesn't necessarily fly in the face of the letter of the law but it certainly flies in the face of the spirit. It also opens up the possibility of government taking a back door route to restricting speech through filing civil suits and /or individuals in government doing so. Again I have no idea of the case law on this but if the standards of lawsuits are loose then I don't see why Dick Cheney couldn't just sue protestors.
Sorry I had posted my last post before I saw this. While this makes me feel better, somewhat, I still wonder though could an individual in the government sue as an individual a critics speech on the basis of emotional harm? For that matter given that politician's families have frequently become fodder for political debate and campaign rhetoric could a politician sue a political opponent or critic over comments about a family member?
I would never judge Christians on the basis of this group. I'm not defending their message only their right to present that message in the public sphere. I totally agree their message is abhorrent and their choice of delivering it along the procession route of a funeral highly offensive. That said though free speech isn't usually tested on what is widely considered acceptable and popular. We live in a society with several divergent opinions and interests that rouse great passions. Sometimes the views of 49% of the people might be so opposed by 51% as to be considered offensive. What I don't like is the idea of the majority silencing the minority speech through legal means and I don't see much of a difference between passing laws or punishing them through lawsuits.
No, I understand you points- I never see you as judgmental, I was mixed up about what actually took place. I don't think it is good anytime anyone's public speech is legally oppressed (remember I don't mind giving a sermon in a public park), but if it is the govt. doing it, then I usually feel it is very wrong and very dangerous. In cases of civil suit it is more a matter of libel and slander or harrassment; and I think that is where it should be settled. I don't know if you are aware of this but as a pastor I face some real sticky stuff on this issue (not that I preach about politics or campaign for Ron Paul in church- I haven't once mentioned his name (so far )) But the IRS won't allow you to endorse a candidate or speak against the president, or do anything politically in your church without threatening to revoke you 501C 3 non profit status, which isn't really a big deal to me, except that they then can go back and audit all your members for their tax deductible donations and even file against them for taxes, penalties and interest. It is a huge club in the govt's hands to keep pastors from talking politics. I don't care to talk politics, but I do feel my free speech rights violated by this type action by the IRS. There are cases I understand where this is invoked. I was told that anyways in a pastor's training and they handed us all these examples and laws and stuff. Anyways if you know anything about that you probably know more than I do.
They can sue. Yes. That's as simple as going down to the courthouse, filing a petition and paying a filing fee. But they won't win. Did you see the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress in TX for example from that GTE case? It generally has to be something extraordinary. Such as someone showing up at your son's funeral with his picture with the words "He's In Hell Right Now." It's not as if they just sue and win. They have to prove their case meeting elements set out by courts. Just because you're hurt isn't gonna get it in these cases. The conduct has to be extreme.
The ONLY part of this that can be characterized as punishment is the punitive damages aspect. You don't prove up damages in a civil case with punishment in mind. You have to prove them up based on something. Punishment is left to the government. Governments pass laws. If you break those laws you are punished. That's not what happened here. Congress made no law here. The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law..."
What still makes me uneasy is that "extreme" can be highly subjective. Many considered showing pictures of aborted fetuses as at anti-abortion protests to be extreme. Punitive damages though often end up being much more than other damages awarded as in this case. By definition "punitive" means punishment and I don't see how you can consider that not a matter then of punishment for speech.
I'm aware of that situation and I don't see it quite as a punishment unless you feel that tax free status is a right as a church. While not specifically enumerated in the Constitution I believe the separation of church and state has become a principle. In terms of that the government shouldn't interfere in church that goes both ways regarding church not interfering in government. If a church chooses to be involved in electoral politics I think they should but I don't see removing tax free status is a penalty as that was the government's to grant in the first place. In this case I'm not aware of Phelp's church having tax free status but as free speech is considered both a Constituational right and is culturally considered a key value of our society I am troubled by it. As Mad Max notes there might not be a Constitutional issue but clearly the principle of free speech is being challenged. I don't believe that is a privelage taht is granted by the courts but cultural value.
1. Everything we do in a courtroom is subjective on some level. What particular judge is hearing the case? What's the jury like? Is it in Texas or California? We use case law to say, "well, in this previous case we decided this was X...so given these facts in this case __________________." 2. Punitive damages are determined by looking at a few factors. Two off the top of my head are the egregiousness of the act and the financial condition of the defendant. Of course they're for punishment. But it's not merely what he said that he's being punished for here...it's where he said what he said...it's the context. It's how he caused the harm he caused. Again, even if this were the government behind all this, there's no such thing as unabridged free speech. There are always time/place restrictions that courts have held to be reasonable. Your right to free speech is not so strong that you can just say whatever you want and then walk away from the consequences of what your words did. 3. I'm not sure what you'd have us do otherwise. If I'm reading you right, libel/slander law would be gone....harassment (sexual and otherwise) in the form of words would be something no one could seek redress for...and intentional infliction of emotional distress with words would be gone as well. I don't think any of that is palatable. The government can't sue you for these things...but private citizens sure can. And in my mind they absolutely, positively should be able to.
I would not do away with them but see them more limited. Clearly if someone is harrassing someone sexually in terms of touching or using supervisor power to make sexual advances that is beyond mere speech. If it is a matter of cracking dirty jokes in their presence or even commenting on their appearance I would hesitate. As for libel and slander the standard should be if that hurts them financially or limits them in some way from leading their life. As noted in this case Phelps wasn't slandering the Marine or his family. While celebrating his death as an example of God's punishment I'm not aware of that speech proving a limitation to the family although it certainly caused emotional trauma. as I said before I don't deny there is emotional harm by speech but to met that is a risk but if the standard is someone peacefully protesting, especially in regard to the parties to the case a one time protests as I'm not aware of Phelps following / stalking this family strikes me as a very bad precedent. This wasn't a case of a boss trying to feel up a subordinate or threaten to fire them. This wasn't a case of calling someone a liar leading them to lose business. This was a one time political / religious protest. What it comes down to is that I believe we should err on the side of allowing more speech as long as it is done peacefully and publically even at the risks of causing pain. Given a pluralistic society there are many messages and forms of delivering that many will consider repellent. Let me ask you this and I will let the issue die afterwords. Would you support a woman getting an abortion suing an abortion protestor standing on public property outside of the abortion clinic holding a picture of an aborted fetus and yelling "Murder!" for causing emotional harm?
You know what's funny? That's already been done, albeit under completely different grounds. NOW (national organization for women) and Planned Parenthood sued under RICO (the legal logic is ridiculous and complex) and they won in the Supreme Court, essentially legalizing RICO suits on protesters. The Supreme Court reversed itself however a couple of years ago.
I recall that and I also recall that it was reversed to an extent. That said I disagreed then and disagree now with equating an obnoxious but otherwise peaceful group of protestors with gangsters. The ones killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics is another issue.
MadMax; I understand that you are on the pro-life side of this issue and I apologize if this comes off as a cheap shot. I'm not trying to debate the abortion issue again but do want to see where you stand on the question of free speech vs emotional harm from a personal standpoint vs a legal standpoint. If you find the question above board don't feel obligated to answer it and I won't hold it against you if you don't.
Not talking about Phelps here- but to my point It is not the tax free status that I am talking about, it is being able to take the donations as a tax deduction. It has nothing to do with our tax free status, that is granted by the state of Texas. That is not affected at all. A church does not have to file a 501C3 with the IRS for the donations to be tax deductible. You legally just have to meet the IRS definition of a church. However many contributors only feel comfortable giving to a church that has 501C3 approval. Our ministry was not 501C3 for years until some contributors talked to me and told me they did not feel comfortable that our ministry was not. So I decided it was no big deal and filed for the 501C3, it took 2 yrs to get approval. The problem I am addressing is that if I endorse a candidate in church or criticize a candidate or criticize politics or the administration etc etc in church during campaign years the IRS by law can revoke the 501C3. At that point what can happen is not that we just lose the 501C3. The IRS takes it a step further and then can file against the church decaring that since we lost our 501C3 none of the contributions should have been tax deductible contributions and then they go after the church members and all contributors to pay back taxes, penalties and interest on their previously filed contributions. It has been a real leverage to enforce the no speech rule they have on churches who endorse or promote candidates. Also if I got up in the church and told them what a sorry president Bush is for invading Iraq and I kept doing it, they could revoke our 501C3 for 'influencing' the members during a campaign. I DON'T DO THAT. But still my right to speak up on politics is severely limited when there are campaigns going on. It has to do with the IRS being able to force us through threat of reprisal to limit our free speech rights. "In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates. Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The IRS has published Fact Sheet 2006-17, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. " I think all of the above is wrong. To say that somehow political speech about a candidate should be connected to tax deductions allowed for contributions to charities and churches is wrong. The reason there are tax deductions for contributions is to encourage giving and remove a tax burden for those who give to charity and those who support their religion. It is a tax benefit to contributors. To somehow take that away because the church endorses a candidate or speaks against a candidate limits their free speech by threat of taxation, penalties and interest. All this law is stating is that churches shouldn't be allowed to have free speech with regard to politcal candidates. I think that is fundementally in conflict with the intention of constitutional protection of speech, using the same argurments you have already posted. What if you were told you can no longer deduct your mortgage interest as a tax deduction if you put up candidate signs in your yard or told your neighbors who you wanted people to vote for. And to add to that the IRS was going to audit your previous returns and you will have to pay taxes on those mortgage deductions with penalties and interest. I would be against that.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. We often do, but we also have our tax exempt status from the state of TX
1. Again, I think you're seeing this as some sort of ban. It's not. The government isn't condemning his speech. 12 jurors are saying it caused someone harm that he should be compensated for. That's not what the First Amendment is about. 2. As for your questions...I'd need more facts. I'd need to know how the woman was harmed. Did she have to seek counseling? Did she have to quit her job? Did it cause her to lose sleep or appetite? Those are the sorts of things we say are evidence of injury. It's not merely the words themselves...and I think that's where you're getting stuck in this analysis...because you're viewing it as if it just stops given the circumstances of the moment....it takes more than that to award damages for these sorts of cases. In this particular case...you only get one funeral for your son. Only one chance to say a final goodbye. When that's stolen from you, I don't think it's a stretch to think that family could have been injured. What we're discussing here, though, is all pretty well-settled law. We have many years of harassment and tons of years of libel/slander law out there. We have lots of cases interpreting the Constitution and the First Amendment, specifically. One last time: if there's not a state actor involved, then it's not a Constitutional issue. It's really that simple.
