[wallinbl]

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest - CNN.com

Looks like the concept of "I completely disagree with you, but I defend your right to say it" is no longer around. I think that church is completely wrong, but how can you sue someone for holding up signs with their opinion on them? Worse, how can you win?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest - CNN.com

Looks like the concept of "I completely disagree with you, but I defend your right to say it" is no longer around. I think that church is completely wrong, but how can you sue someone for holding up signs with their opinion on them? Worse, how can you win?

Do you also disagree with rulings which limit how people can protest at abortion clinics?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you also disagree with rulings which limit how people can protest at abortion clinics?

I disagree with the idea that holding up a sign can be considered "intentional infliction of emotional distress". That's the slippery slope to a scary world.

I don't like what these people had to say - I wish they would not say it. I think they are giving the world the wrong impressions of Christianity. Their words cause me pain as well, not just those that sued them, as they are portraying my God as hateful, and subjecting me to further denigration from the people that believe that what they read in the news is what Christianity is all about. Believe me, I hear from these people on a regular basis. I don't push my beliefs on them in any way, the mere fact that I believe in Christ seems to make them feel licensed to blast me when they read articles about people like this. So, my life is directly impacted by these signs. I'm not just some uninterested party blindly defending free speech. Their speech is affecting me personally. I stand by their right to say it. I stand by the fact that we shouldn't be coming up with ways and excuses to shut up people we don't like.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

I disagree with the idea that holding up a sign can be considered "intentional infliction of emotional distress". That's the slippery slope to a scary world.

I don't like what these people had to say - I wish they would not say it. I think they are giving the world the wrong impressions of Christianity. Their words cause me pain as well, not just those that sued them, as they are portraying my God as hateful, and subjecting me to further denigration from the people that believe that what they read in the news is what Christianity is all about. Believe me, I hear from these people on a regular basis. I don't push my beliefs on them in any way, the mere fact that I believe in Christ seems to make them feel licensed to blast me when they read articles about people like this. So, my life is directly impacted by these signs. I'm not just some uninterested party blindly defending free speech. Their speech is affecting me personally. I stand by their right to say it. I stand by the fact that we shouldn't be coming up with ways and excuses to shut up people we don't like.

You didn't answer my question.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You didn't answer my question.

Point me to the rulings you'd like to know about. I'm not going to answer an open ended question just so that you can go find some case where someone went way across the line and protested with his/her fist.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Point me to the rulings you'd like to know about. I'm not going to answer an open ended question just so that you can go find some case where someone went way across the line and protested with his/her fist.

I"m talking about holding signs.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I"m talking about holding signs.

I have no issue with protesting abortion clinics by holding signs. I'm honestly not certain where you're heading with this.

[Cold Warrior]

free speech doesn't necessarily include intruding on a private citizen's ceremony or event. It can, but courts should balance one group's free speech against another's free speech (the ability to carry out a lawful, scheduled event on a small reserved plot of land, free from intimidation and harassment). There's a careful balance when two rights meet and in many cases bleed over one another.

I think this loser church group crosses the line, and I'm glad they lost. I hope this guy takes all their property and bankrupts them.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

I have no issue with protesting abortion clinics by holding signs. I'm honestly not certain where you're heading with this.

They've previously placed limits on where you can protest (even without violence) in regards to abortion clinics. This is the same sort of thing. If you are opposed to restrictions place on free speech in front of abortion clinics AND what the WBC is doing then you are being consistent. I appreciate consistency in an argument. Some people would suggest that you should be able to harass the military, but not people going for abortions...or vice versa.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

free speech doesn't necessarily include intruding on a private citizen's ceremony or event. It can, but courts should balance one group's free speech against another's free speech (the ability to carry out a lawful, scheduled event on a small reserved plot of land, free from intimidation and harassment). There's a careful balance when two rights meet and in many cases bleed over one another.

I think this loser church group crosses the line, and I'm glad they lost. I hope this guy takes all their property and bankrupts them.

I agree with this stand. When "free speech" is designed to attempt to stop someone else's rights via harassment, I think that crosses that threshold. That's sort of what the current laws in regards to abortion clinics enforces.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

free speech doesn't necessarily include intruding on a private citizen's ceremony or event. It can, but courts should balance one group's free speech against another's free speech (the ability to carry out a lawful, scheduled event on a small reserved plot of land, free from intimidation and harassment). There's a careful balance when two rights meet and in many cases bleed over one another.

I think this loser church group crosses the line, and I'm glad they lost. I hope this guy takes all their property and bankrupts them.

I agree as well. This church did more than exercise their rights to free speech - they imposed on the rights of the family to have a peaceful ceremony to put their loved one to rest. Since there are rights at odds here, I guess it has to be up to the courts to weigh those rights.

There are lots of ways for the church to get their message across without imposing on the rights of others. $10.6 million would buy a lot of infomercials. Instead, they chose to disrupt others' private affairs. They deserve what's coming to them.

[nonhuman]

I'm pretty sure that the right to a peaceful ceremony isn't protected by the Constitution or any other document. Which doesn't mean that it exists, but the right to free speech should take legal precedence. That, of course, is only in public places. On private property people can set whatever rules they want and restrict freedom of speech however they want.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm pretty sure that the right to a peaceful ceremony isn't protected by the Constitution or any other document. Which doesn't mean that it exists, but the right to free speech should take legal precedence. That, of course, is only in public places. On private property people can set whatever rules they want and restrict freedom of speech however they want.

Agree. I gathered from the linked article that they disrupted the ceremony at a private cemetery. If it was indeed public, then the family could have taken steps to prevent the situation by taking it private.

[Cold Warrior]

I'm sure it was a private ceremony, but I'm not sure if it was on public land (a veterans cemetery) or private. Either way, it doesn't matter, because even the Nazi freaks here can get permits to march, and the police will protect their march from disruptions.

[Big Mac]

The Constitution guarantees that Congress will not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. This wasn't an act of Congress.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

free speech doesn't necessarily include intruding on a private citizen's ceremony or event.

The story fails to make mention of any real details of the picketing. It describes it as picketing and says it took place at the funeral. When I read that, I see it as being in front of the building with signs, not as going into the building or the service. Had they entered the building, they could be charged criminally with trespassing. Since that does not appear to have occurred, I am left to believe they were outside. If this is the case, I cannot agree with the results of the decision. If they entered the building, I would agree with the decision.

This church did more than exercise their rights to free speech - they imposed on the rights of the family to have a peaceful ceremony to put their loved one to rest.

There is no "right of the family to have a peaceful ceremony in the absence of sign age in the front of the building." I'd like to walk around downtown without being harassed by all of the people with their agendas, fliers, petitions and whatnot. The fact that you feel some emotional issue because it's a funeral isn't relevant. If they're on the sidewalk, there's no difference between the sidewalk in front of a funeral parlor and the one in Times Square (legally, I'd say there is a different as far as decency is concerned).

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Constitution guarantees that Congress will not make a law abridging the freedom of speech. This wasn't an act of Congress.

So it's okay for your state, county or city government to tell you what you can and can't say? Can my city pass a law saying that you can't criticize the mayor?

[Big Mac]

True - I should have clarified my point - the First Amendment has been extended to state and local governments. This was not an act of government.

[lpkmckenna]

This church of hate had it coming. Picketing a funeral is the worst possible form of verbal harassment.

[peeb]

I'm a huge fan of free speech, but courts have regularly ruled on 'time and place' restrictions. This is not the equivalent of of saying you can't criticize the major, it's like saying you can't picket the mayor's wife's funeral to make a point. I think private funerals are a reasonable place to ban protests. There is no real loss of ability to communicate our message through this, and the real freedom to be able to hold a ceremony is preserved.

This is not restricting content - they can still tell people they hate gays, they just can't do it at funerals.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest - CNN.com

Looks like the concept of "I completely disagree with you, but I defend your right to say it" is no longer around. I think that church is completely wrong, but how can you sue someone for holding up signs with their opinion on them? Worse, how can you win?

This has nothing to do with "free speech." This was a lawsuit between private individuals. You can sue anyone for just about anything (including $52 million for pants).

[finboy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm pretty sure that the right to a peaceful ceremony isn't protected by the Constitution or any other document. Which doesn't mean that it exists, but the right to free speech should take legal precedence. That, of course, is only in public places. On private property people can set whatever rules they want and restrict freedom of speech however they want.

The right to free speech doesn't really supercede the right to harass people personally, does it?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by finboy 

The right to free speech doesn't really supercede the right to harass people personally, does it?

I think it does. You should be able to say whatever you want. But if that harassment goes beyond the verbal and becomes physical, that's a different matter.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think it does. You should be able to say whatever you want. But if that harassment goes beyond the verbal and becomes physical, that's a different matter.

That's insane. You'd have protesters shouting down town hall meetings, speeches, events -- and under your rules, that'd be perfectly okay.

That's called anarchy, and it doesn't work in a civilized society.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

That's insane. You'd have protesters shouting down town hall meetings, speeches, events -- and under your rules, that'd be perfectly okay.

That's called anarchy, and it doesn't work in a civilized society.

Not if they happen on private propety... Then the property owners can kick the protesters to the curb. In the case of town hall meetings, obviously that's not really going to work as town halls are public property. But what town do you live in where people actually show up to town hall meetings, much less shout down the speakers at every turn?

[CreepDogg]

There are also slander and libel laws that make people liable for what they say that may defame someone's character.

Just because you have a right to say it doesn't mean you're free of the consequences. If you exercise your free speech, and that somehow infringes upon the rights of others, and they can show you could've taken reasonable measures to avoid that, then they have a case.

There's more than free speech going on in this case - in one way or another, the church group disrupted this family's funeral and caused them a loss. And it's fair to say they have other avenues available to them to convey their message - so the court found them liable for the loss they caused. I'm OK with that.

I'd feel different if they were just picketing on the street - but that's not the case. They targeted a specific event and specific group, and apparantly did something that was overly disruptive. That's where they crossed the line.

'Free speech' does not mean 'Consequence-free speech'. You're free to say what you want and not be thrown in jail for it, but you're still liable for collateral damage extending from what you say. The extreme example of that is the old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy.

[Cold Warrior]

You've seen it in larger forums -- candidate speaking, Bill Clinton recently, sometimes in the House or Senate hearings. People will just get up and shout down everyone else. You can't have that kind of anarchy in public forums on public/government land. A couple of people with the complete right to shout down and prevent a larger group from conducting government business or ceremonies is not a given right in US law or the Constitution. You're deviating from over 200 years of tradition and legal precedent.

[peeb]

Right, time and place restrictions make sense. In many places I can shout through a bullhorn that Bill Clinton is a dick, I can't do it constantly, in his face, at a debate so he can't talk. Now, the fact that the Bush administration has taken this to the extreme, making it virtually impossible for anyone to protest anywhere near them, worries me.

[BadKosh]

Why not take 50,000 folks with signs to their stupid church every sunday for the next decade? Obviously free speech is OK, and protected. Perhaps go to their homes too?

[Cold Warrior]

they're not home, they're busy traveling the country to desecrate funerals.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Right, time and place restrictions make sense. In many places I can shout through a bullhorn that Bill Clinton is a dick, I can't do it constantly, in his face, at a debate so he can't talk. Now, the fact that the Bush administration has taken this to the extreme, making it virtually impossible for anyone to protest anywhere near them, worries me.

"(CNN) -- A federal jury in Baltimore, Maryland, Wednesday awarded $10.9 million to a father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by members of a fundamentalist church carrying signs blaming soldiers' deaths on America's tolerance of homosexuals."

So, when is a federal Jury in Baltimore "The Bush Administration"???

[peeb]

I think you misunderstand me. I'm talking about the BA's penchant for shutting down demonstrations against them.
Close reading the White House's Presidential Advance Manual. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

[BadKosh]

The clinton admin did the same, even to screening individuals.

[peeb]

Care to provide some evidence for that? Even if they did, which I don't think, all it means is that Clinton was as bad, not that it's less frightening that it is happening now.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not if they happen on private propety... Then the property owners can kick the protesters to the curb. In the case of town hall meetings, obviously that's not really going to work as town halls are public property. But what town do you live in where people actually show up to town hall meetings, much less shout down the speakers at every turn?

So if I decide to set up a loudspeaker outside your house shouting slander and accusing you of lewd acts with children 24 hours a day, you should have no recourse?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Care to provide some evidence for that? Even if they did, which I don't think, all it means is that Clinton was as bad, not that it's less frightening that it is happening now.

Don't YOU have google where you live?
That stuff went on all throughout his late first term and second term.

How soon they forget!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Don't YOU have google where you live?
That stuff went on all throughout his late first term and second term.

How soon they forget!

Clinton had Patricia Mendoza arrested at a Chicago festival after protesting due to the bombing deaths of 19 U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia.

After hearing her words, Clinton grabbed a Secret Service agent, pointed out Mrs. Mendoza, and the agent promptly arrested her. Initially she and her husband where subjected to 12 hours of interrogation and was charged with disorderly conduct. I think eventually all charges were dropped. Of course, Clinton got his point across that if you F' with him, he'll send in his goons. That is when he and his wife aren't illegally searching your secret FBI files for dirt in order to shut you up.

[peeb]

Well, I certainly don't approve of that, but it doesn't seem that it was Clinton's policy to do it everywhere. Regardless, that doesn't excuse it happening now.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So if I decide to set up a loudspeaker outside your house shouting slander and accusing you of lewd acts with children 24 hours a day, you should have no recourse?

There are other limits to free speech that I think should apply that I didn't bring up because I didn't think they were germane to the topic at hand...

Your rights in general end at the point where they interfere with my rights. Everyone has a right not only to free speech, but to other things as well; specifically everyone also has a right to be in control of their own life and well-being. Someone on a loudspeaker outside your house for 24 hours a day is interfering with your ability to maintain your own well-being (both mental and physical, people need sleep). It could be argued that having your loved one insulted and reviled during his funeral could also interfere with your well-being, but I'm reluctant to say that emotional distress is sufficient; far too many people are easily 'distressed' or 'offended' by such seemingly innocuous things that it seems like a dangerous direction to go in.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Someone on a loudspeaker outside your house for 24 hours a day is interfering with your ability to maintain your own well-being....

OK...

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm reluctant to say that emotional distress is sufficient; far too many people are easily 'distressed' or 'offended' by such seemingly innocuous things that it seems like a dangerous direction to go in.

You think someone who is offended by having the funeral of their son picketed by hate groups is 'easily distressed'? I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I would see the time and place restrictions that stop you standing outside someones house shouting all night being very much in the same ball-park as protesting at their funeral.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Your rights in general end at the point where they interfere with my rights. Everyone has a right not only to free speech, but to other things as well; specifically everyone also has a right to be in control of their own life and well-being.

Precisely. Harassment is not protected speech. What these people were doing was not a political protest, it was harassing a grieving family.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It could be argued that having your loved one insulted and reviled during his funeral could also interfere with your well-being, but I'm reluctant to say that emotional distress is sufficient; far too many people are easily 'distressed' or 'offended' by such seemingly innocuous things that it seems like a dangerous direction to go in.

I don't think so. Some people have diseases that cause them to be injured by innocuous things, but you don't worry about getting punished for those — if you had no reasonable way of predicting the outcome of your actions, you generally aren't considered to be responsible.

I agree that we shouldn't force people to walk on eggshells, but in this case, it's pretty clear-cut. These people's actions had no goal other than to harass the poor family of this soldier. If they had wanted to, they could have got a parade permit or picketed outside a government building, but no, they effectively chose to crash a funeral and try to inflict as much emotional pain on the family as they could. While it's not a Constitutional right, I think people have a reasonable expectation not to be harassed at a funeral.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

While it's not a Constitutional right, I think people have a reasonable expectation not to be harassed at a funeral.

Exactly. Speech, and especially political speech, is a vital right that needs to be preserved, but a funeral you are not invited to is not an appropriate venue for it.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Exactly. Speech, and especially political speech, is a vital right that needs to be preserved, but a funeral you are not invited to is not an appropriate venue for it.

I agree. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of venue.

[BadKosh]

Or disturbing the peace...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You think someone who is offended by having the funeral of their son picketed by hate groups is 'easily distressed'? I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I would see the time and place restrictions that stop you standing outside someones house shouting all night being very much in the same ball-park as protesting at their funeral.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I agree that what these people have been doing at funerals is despicable. If there's any speech that could be considered injurious, this is it.

What I'm worried about is that by saying that it's possible for speech such as this to be injurious, then we may be opening the doors to further curtailing of speech. Anyone with a strong belief in anything could easily say that dissenting opinions are injurious. We already have Christians claiming that they're being attacked just because some people aren't Christian and don't follow Christian custom (saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, for example). We all know that there are tons of people out there who get offended at the drop of a hat. I absolutely will not recognize that people have a right not to be offended, and if the only way to prevent that 'right' from being enshrined into law is to protect the right of these assholes to protest funeral then that's what I'll do. I truly hope that this isn't the case, as I would very much like to see these people face some consequences. I'm just not convinced that those consequences should be legal or that we should in any way encourage the idea that government can regulate speech.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

I agree. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of venue.

Yes it does. Saying that people are free to say whatever they want so long as they do it elsewhere is restricting their freedom of speech.

Also, don't forget the right of the people to assemble peaceably (and petition their government for a redress of grievances...).

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes it does. Saying that people are free to say whatever they want so long as they do it elsewhere is restricting their freedom of speech.

It most certainly isn't. They can still have the freedom to say what they want. You don't have the right to any venue you want, whether it be public outcries, the internet, TV, radio, etc. Things are censored all the time in these venues, why should a private burial be any different?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Also, don't forget the right of the people to assemble peaceably (and petition their government for a redress of grievances...).

The government already limits this if the assembly is dissruptive.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's not what I'm saying at all. I agree that what these people have been doing at funerals is despicable. If there's any speech that could be considered injurious, this is it.

What I'm worried about is that by saying that it's possible for speech such as this to be injurious, then we may be opening the doors to further curtailing of speech. Anyone with a strong belief in anything could easily say that dissenting opinions are injurious. We already have Christians claiming that they're being attacked just because some people aren't Christian and don't follow Christian custom (saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, for example). We all know that there are tons of people out there who get offended at the drop of a hat. I absolutely will not recognize that people have a right not to be offended, and if the only way to prevent that 'right' from being enshrined into law is to protect the right of these assholes to protest funeral then that's what I'll do. I truly hope that this isn't the case, as I would very much like to see these people face some consequences. I'm just not convinced that those consequences should be legal or that we should in any way encourage the idea that government can regulate speech.

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.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

It most certainly isn't. They can still have the freedom to say what they want. You don't have the right to any venue you want, whether it be public outcries, the internet, TV, radio, etc. Things are censored all the time in these venues, why should a private burial be any different?

And I disagree with that censorship. In public places, your rights should be sacrosanct.

On private property (or private mediums such as cable or satellite), the owners are free to impose whatever restrictions they wish.