[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I share you concerns, but it's not the speech that I want to limit (they should be able to say offensive things), but the venue - they don't have the right to say that (or much else, for that matter) at a private funeral.

But where do you draw the line? You say it was a private funeral, and let's just assume that it was. Let's assume the funeral was on private property and that the property owners didn't allow the protesters onto the cemetery grounds. So they stayed on the sidewalks by the cemetery which are public property. Are they not free to exercise their right to free speech when on public property? Can striking workers not picket on the public property outside their place of business?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But where do you draw the line? You say it was a private funeral, and let's just assume that it was. Let's assume the funeral was on private property and that the property owners didn't allow the protesters onto the cemetery grounds. So they stayed on the sidewalks by the cemetery which are public property. Are they not free to exercise their right to free speech when on public property? Can striking workers not picket on the public property outside their place of business?

I can see your point, but should they be able to stand just outside the line and be disruptive to the private service? (Just wondering where you draw the line.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

I can see your point, but should they be able to stand just outside the line and be disruptive to the private service? (Just wondering where you draw the line.)

Honestly, I'm not sure. I don't like them doing it, but I'm not convinced that they don't and shouldn't have the right to do it. I'm still on the fence on this one. I do, however, get plenty of satisfaction from the penalties that have been levied against them.

[peeb]

I see your point too - I think one thing is that political speech should be given more protection. Union workers picketing a business is a political act in a way that protesting a private funeral is not. I would say that protesting the state funeral of a politician should be protected more.

[OldManMac]

Sign Up

Apparently, some think this ruling will get overturned, as it should be. These people are getting exactly what they want - free publicity for their cause, because we're all giving it to them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Honestly, I'm not sure. I don't like them doing it, but I'm not convinced that they don't and shouldn't have the right to do it. I'm still on the fence on this one. I do, however, get plenty of satisfaction from the penalties that have been levied against them.

That's kind of where I'm at with this. I haven't really seen this church in action. My gut tells me you should not have the right to protest at funerals in this way, but I understand the "grey" in denying them the right to do so. What makes it hard to be purely objective in this is the fact that I too am getting a LOT of satisfaction in the notion of bankrupting this hate-group through litigation.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's kind of where I'm at with this. I haven't really seen this church in action. My gut tells me you should not have the right to protest at funerals in this way, but I understand the "grey" in denying them the right to do so. What makes it hard to be purely objective in this is the fact that I too am getting a LOT of satisfaction in the notion of bankrupting this hate-group through litigation.

I understand there's some grey here too. But they weren't 'denied' the right to express themselves in this way. No one is being detained by the government or convicted of any crime. They were simply held liable for the disruption they caused in conveying their message. I get that due to the amount, it's kind of a slippery slope in that it can be a deterrent to other people expressing in this way. I'm OK with that and also get some satisfaction in seeing this group get some comeuppance.

In a way - they're being asked to compensate the 'owners' of a venue for using that venue for their message. If they wanted to broadcast their message on TV through an ad, they would have had to pay the TV station/network for that right. People were trying to hold a funeral, they disrupted that funeral, and found out the price of disrupting a funeral in the way they did. The difference is there was no up-front contract or expectation of pricing involved, but that doesn't mean the group isn't liable for taking 'airtime' from the funeral.

[CreepDogg]

One more thing - there's nothing stopping this group from going out and doing this again, as long as they can afford the lawsuit. They're not going to get arrested if they hijack another funeral - they just may get sued again. Obviously that's a deterrent, but this steers away from being a free speech issue because no one is being accused or convicted of any crime.

[nonhuman]

Being held liable for it is a legal recognition that what they did is wrong. If what they did wasn't considered wrong then the courts wouldn't have held them liable for it.

That's the way the law works. If a punishment is prescribed for a particular action then that means that the law is attempting to stop people from doing that thing.

[CreepDogg]

Absolutely - it sets a precedent for recourse if another party has a loss in the same or similar fashion. It is an acknowledgement that the did something wrong, but it's different than a criminal conviction.

And I agree with the court that they're liable. If they had created their own venue by getting a permit and demonstrating in a more 'general' fashion, then they can have a reasonable expectation that even if they offend someone, they won't be liable because they took reasonable steps to create their own venue. People who didn't want to listen to their crap would have a reasonable ability to walk away - so they're not liable.

In this case, they didn't do that, and their targets did not have a reasonable ability to walk away - they held their audience 'captive'. Not a crime - but liable.

[nonhuman]

I absolutely do not approve of the idea that people need a permit to protest. The idea that people need government permission to voice their opinions is, frankly, despicable.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I absolutely do not approve of the idea that people need a permit to protest. The idea that people need government permission to voice their opinions is, frankly, despicable.

You don't need a permit to protest. You only need a permit to use public land for a protest. You can protest all you like on private property.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You don't need a permit to protest. You only need a permit to use public land for a protest. You can protest all you like on private property.

I would consider that a limitation of free speech. Public property is there for the use of the people in the exercising of their freedoms including, but not limited to, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly.

[CreepDogg]

The permit thing wasn't really my point and was just an example. There are times when it would be appropriate and other times when not. If you wanted to protest/demonstrate and show that you were doing so in good faith and show that you were taking steps not to be negligent in the creation of a public or private disturbance, it might be a good idea. I don't think all public places even require them. But some do depending on the nature of the use of the property.

So, if you know your message is controversial and could create issues, it would be good to get a permit to ensure proper law enforcement was in place. Let's say you had an impromptu demonstration on public property, it got violent, and someone else in the vicinity, not involved either way (a passer-by, for example) got hurt. You could be shown to be negligent if you knew the possibility of violence existed and that there were channels available to minimize the risk, and you did not take those steps. You've done more than excerise your right to free speech. You've created a public disturbance (which is not protected).

You're free to say what you want. It's not a crime. But you're responsible for what you say and how you say it.

[nonhuman]

I certainly agree to some extent. If you think or know that there's likely to be controversy surrounding what you plan to say, then arranging to have the police there is a good idea. And, in my view, this is one of the noblest pursuits that the police can engage in: actively protecting the rights of citizens. However I'm also a strong believer that no one is responsible for their actions but themselves.

If the KKK decides to have some sort of public gathering in public place, and proceeds to rail against black people, jews, whatever in full view and earshot of black people and jews the KKK is not responsible when those black people and jews decide to attack them. The people who made the conscious decision to attack them are responsible for their own actions.

Similarly, if I get up on a soap box and start railing against some public figure, it's not my fault if someone who hears me decides to act on my speech and kills that person. It's the fault of the person who actually made the decision to kill and carried through with it.

I know its not necessarily the most pleasant philosophy, but I strongly believe that it's the way things should be. My gut feeling is that there is probably some line where provocation becomes coercion, and that's the line where it stops being speech and starts being action. Again it's one of those very hard lines to draw because getting it wrong in either direction winds up causing major problems.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If the KKK decides to have some sort of public gathering in public place, and proceeds to rail against black people, jews, whatever in full view and earshot of black people and jews the KKK is not responsible when those black people and jews decide to attack them. The people who made the conscious decision to attack them are responsible for their own actions.

I agree that the attackers are responsible for their own actions. But if in a public place, what about an injured or killed passerby? It's very possible the KKK was negligent in protecting the rights of that passerby. They committed no crime, but if it can be shown that they had options to secure police protection and did not take that step, they could be shown to be negligent.

Similarly, if I get up on a soap box and start railing against some public figure, it's not my fault if someone who hears me decides to act on my speech and kills that person. It's the fault of the person who actually made the decision to kill and carried through with it.

I agree here as well - in this case there's no reasonable expectaton that someone else will break the law (unless you helped them plan it...), so you wouldn't be negligent.

I know its not necessarily the most pleasant philosophy, but I strongly believe that it's the way things should be. My gut feeling is that there is probably some line where provocation becomes coercion, and that's the line where it stops being speech and starts being action. Again it's one of those very hard lines to draw because getting it wrong in either direction winds up causing major problems.

And that is what the court is dealing with with this church in this case. The court has been asked to draw that line, and I can see how they can say the church negligently violated the rights of the family by conducting their protest in an inappropriate time and place.

[Captain Obvious]

Here you armchair JDs can play with this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0474_ZO.html

By extension that funeral party could be considered a captive audience unable to avoid the objectionable speech. What states need to do it pass laws concerning these types of demonstrations, which many have. But this 11mil isn't going to be upheld.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I agree that the attackers are responsible for their own actions. But if in a public place, what about an injured or killed passerby? It's very possible the KKK was negligent in protecting the rights of that passerby. They committed no crime, but if it can be shown that they had options to secure police protection and did not take that step, they could be shown to be negligent.

Hmm, that's an interesting argument. My gut reaction is to say that even still the KKK should still not be held accountable here (unfortunately...), but you do have a point. I'll have to think about that.

And that is what the court is dealing with with this church in this case. The court has been asked to draw that line, and I can see how they can say the church negligently violated the rights of the family by conducting their protest in an inappropriate time and place.

My problem with that line of reasoning is that 'appropriateness' is a completely subjective measure. To legislate that is basically to have the government tell you what is and isn't appropriate, what is an isn't offensive. I don't like that, and I think I like it even less than I like the disrespect shown to the mourners.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Here you armchair JDs can play with this:
Frisby v. Schultz

By extension that funeral party could be considered a captive audience unable to avoid the objectionable speech. What states need to do it pass laws concerning these types of demonstrations, which many have. But this 11mil isn't going to be upheld.

Now that's an interesting way to go about things, and one that I just might be able to get behind.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I would consider that a limitation of free speech. Public property is there for the use of the people in the exercising of their freedoms including, but not limited to, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly.

Foolishness. What happens when the KKK arrive to protest in the same public space that the NAACP is using to protest? Or when the unions show up to protest on public land already being used by a pro-business group? Violence, that's what.

BTW, public property does not exist for people to exercise their freedoms. They exist for particular purposes. Otherwise, I could show up on any public land I want to conduct any legal activity, including public school yards, national parks, national cemeteries for soldiers, homeless shelters, military bases, etc. Anyone wanna go camping at Camp David with me?

Give your opinions some thought, ok?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If the KKK decides to have some sort of public gathering in public place, and proceeds to rail against black people, jews, whatever in full view and earshot of black people and jews the KKK is not responsible when those black people and jews decide to attack them. The people who made the conscious decision to attack them are responsible for their own actions.

Similarly, if I get up on a soap box and start railing against some public figure, it's not my fault if someone who hears me decides to act on my speech and kills that person. It's the fault of the person who actually made the decision to kill and carried through with it.

Good luck arresting the right people when 5000 minorities get in a scuffle with a few hundred protesters.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

My problem with that line of reasoning is that 'appropriateness' is a completely subjective measure.

No more so than when you judged that my protest outside your house was inappropriate.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

To legislate that is basically to have the government tell you what is and isn't appropriate, what is an isn't offensive. I don't like that, and I think I like it even less than I like the disrespect shown to the mourners.

The government does this all the time already, and I don't think you would really like it if it didn't. For example, it's inappropriate to fondle your 10-year-old niece — this is a matter of opinion, but just try making that argument in court.