Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I hate what the Phelps family and this abomination of a church does, but they must not be shut down. Without them freely showing their complete "bat-shit-f*cked-up-crazy-hatred" views, the rest of us would not know about them. By allowing them to continue, we have others that step up to the plate like the Patriot Guard.

This thing is going to the Supreme Court, and when they rule in favor of the Phelps (as I believe they will), we, as decent patriots have each other. What do the Phelps have?

This is the heavy responsibility to having a First Amendment.

Surely the judge could have upheld the 1st Amendment by awarding the Phelpses, say, $1.

OK, now that I've worked on my reading comprehension and re-read your post carefully this time :

The short answer is: since the Snyders were the plaintiffs, and the Phelpses were the defendants, the only way to award compensatory damages to a defendant at trial is if (a) the defendant (Phelps) filed a counter-claim against the plaintiff (Snyder), and (b) the jury finds in favor of the defendants on the defendants' counter-claim at trial. As a matter of procedural law, there's simply no other way to award compensatory damages to a defendant in a lawsuit. Even if the judge had dismissed the case on First Amendment grounds instead of allowing the case to go to the jury, he probably would not legally have been able to award the Phelpses anything, except possibly a small amount of their trial expenses (although not their legal fees).

I thought the award that the Phelps were given was at the Appeal.

Different. That was not at the trial level, and it was not an award of compensatory damages. It was at the appellate level, and it was simply essentially a reimbursement of the some of the expenses, like legal fees, that the Phelpses incurred in conjunction with their pursuit of their appeal; the Phelpses got that because they prevailed in the appellate court. Fairly common at the appellate level.

Now if one were to ask: "Couldn't the Court of Appeals [which is actually a 3-judge panel], when it granted the Phelpses' appeal, have awarded them a nominal $1 in expenses, rather than $16,000, because of the Phelpses' moral repugnancy?", the proper answer would be: "No, that's solely the trial jury's function. Generally speaking, the sole legal function of an appellate court is to decide whether an error of law was made by the trial court, and usually nothing more."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I hate what the Phelps family and this abomination of a church does, but they must not be shut down. Without them freely showing their complete "bat-shit-f*cked-up-crazy-hatred" views, the rest of us would not know about them. By allowing them to continue, we have others that step up to the plate like the Patriot Guard.

This thing is going to the Supreme Court, and when they rule in favor of the Phelps (as I believe they will), we, as decent patriots have each other. What do the Phelps have?

This is the heavy responsibility to having a First Amendment.

I am not a religious man. But I pray that people uphold our Constitutional right to be assholes. These cocksuckers are some of the lowest of the low, and are the kooky, religious, hating ugly types. Exactly the type that can bring scorn. And exactly the type whom I believe the first amendmnt was set for.

On another point, however, IIED is a tough thing. This is not a federal issue because IIED is a common law tort. My personal opinion is that this group should be treated like the Aryan Brotherhood. Don't prevent their speech. Sue the living shit out of them for the damage that they cause.

Finally, if Fred Phelps kicks the bucket, then we'll know from his teachings that he looks for dicks to take up his ass. I'm sure his funeral will be highly celebrated, with "God hates Fred Phelps - a fag" or "Ken Pinyan learned it from Fred Phelps, only Fred Phelps could take it all."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I am not a religious man. But I pray that people uphold our Constitutional right to be assholes. These cocksuckers are some of the lowest of the low, and are the kooky, religious, hating ugly types. Exactly the type that can bring scorn. And exactly the type whom I believe the first amendment was set for.

That's exactly how I, too, argue it: popular, non-"dangerous" speech needs no vigorous protection. It is the vilest, most offensive speech that the the US's First Amendment - unlike even most other Western democracies - is designed to protect.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

It is the vilest, most offensive speech that the the US's First Amendment - unlike even most other Western democracies - is designed to protect.

I fail to see the benefit of protecting extremely vile and offensive speech. I fail to see the benefit of the right of the WBC to spew what they spew.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

It is the vilest, most offensive speech that the the US's First Amendment - unlike even most other Western democracies - is designed to protect.

I fail to see the benefit of protecting extremely vile and offensive speech. I fail to see the benefit of the right of the WBC to spew what they spew.

The benefit is that nobody gets to criminalize speech by controlling the definition of "vile and offensive". Such definitions really cannot be established objectively; they must always be matters of subjective opinion. What's objectionable to one person is not objectionable to another. Some people will want to criminalize what they deem to be "profanity". Others will want to criminalize what they deem to be "blasphemy". Still others - and this is done by many governments in many countries - will want to criminalize "slander against the state" as "sedition". If you allow some "objectionable" speech to be criminalized, you open the door for ANY so-called "objectionable" speech to be criminalized. And the result is there's no longer any freedom of speech.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

I understand thr standard spiel about it, however so far this doesn't appear to be the case. We have mostly free speech in Canada. Some items are considered hate speech. Don't think people have an issue with it here, unless off course you speak to the people who do the hating....

You may see people not being allowed to yell "blacks are fucking stupid niggers" as a serious erosion of rights. I see it as an improvement.

The slippery slope theory just doesn't work. If people are scared enough they will allow people to be persecuted for what they say or believe in. McCarthyism is a prime example IMHO. The actions of the SACB are another.

[Andy9o8 0]

You and I will never agree on this. It's one of the strongest legal principles in which I believe. And I hold such principles as a result of serious personal thought, study and analysis, not because it's somebody else's "standard spiel". I stand very firmly by my post.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

It is the vilest, most offensive speech that the the US's First Amendment - unlike even most other Western democracies - is designed to protect.

I fail to see the benefit of protecting extremely vile and offensive speech. I fail to see the benefit of the right of the WBC to spew what they spew.

What's the benefit to suppressing them? It incites curiosity, maybe they're on to something. Why are they being censored?

By preserving their rights, the rest of us can plainly see how out-of-whack-f*cked-up that whole clan is. Their credibility is eradicated. Whereas, once suppressed, they have a case just to be heard...regardless of the message.

I can't stand them, but we, as a society are far better suited to countering their movements than some bureaucrat. A far better solution than I would compare in Canada...rules against hate speech? What the hell is that? Who dictates what is hate speech, it's subjective down the line, right down to whatever assertions of whomever is doing the speaking. I'm amazed it manages to work at all.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,122]

I am just wondering which western country had their free speech elliminated in the last 60 years, after introduction of laws against hate speech?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I am just wondering which western country had their free speech elliminated in the last 60 years, after introduction of laws against hate speech?

That completely misses the point. A foundation is what it is; and its dangers are what they are.

By the way, re: your use of "eliminated": nice rhetorical (if simplistic) flair; but not all curtailment needs to rise to the absolute level of "elimination" to be unacceptable.

[okalb 78]

Quote

I am just wondering which western country had their free speech elliminated in the last 60 years, after introduction of laws against hate speech?

The real problem is where do you draw the line and who decides where that line is drawn. What some consider vile hate speak others don't. While I think these are disgusting horrible people, I do strongly support their right to speak. As long as they don't take action, they should be allowed to say whatever they want.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I suggest you watch this video. It is Ezra Levant facing the government of Alberta grand inquisitor after publishing cartoons deemed offensive to a dead profit. This is why the Canadian limits on free speech are inherently evil.
Personally I think Levant is a bit of a dink, but he is my hero over this incident. His defense is brilliant.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

What's the benefit to suppressing them?

The well being of the weak, downtrodden and innocent. Like the father who just buried his son.

Quote

It incites curiosity, maybe they're on to something. Why are they being censored?

You think the WBC would have gained as much notoriety if they would not be allowed to do what they do?

Quote

rules against hate speech? What the hell is that? Who dictates what is hate speech, it's subjective down the line, right down to whatever assertions of whomever is doing the speaking. I'm amazed it manages to work at all.

Why wouldn't it work? It works just as well as other laws work. Yes, we like to bitch and moan about many laws, but in general the system works well.

And it wouldn't be some bureaucrat, these law suits tend to end up in our supreme court. I am happy that the society I live in has decided to protect the father of the marine more than the Phelps and their like.

I am convinced more Canadians know about the Phelps and their "church" than any Canadian counter part there may be. Mostly because they are not allowed to stand on a street corner and spew their hate, and we don't have a legal system that funds them.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

By the way, re: your use of "eliminated": nice rhetorical (if simplistic) flair; but not all curtailment needs to rise to the absolute level of "elimination" to be unacceptable.

Andy, you ended your first post on this subject with the line quoted below. I have a hard time reading that any other way than a fear of complete "elimination".

Quote

And the result is there's no longer any freedom of speech.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

It is Ezra Levant facing the government of Alberta grand inquisitor after publishing cartoons deemed offensive to a dead profit. This is why the Canadian limits on free speech are inherently evil.

No, the case is a good indication that the system works. All charges were either withdrawn or dismissed.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

... A far better solution than I would compare in Canada...rules against hate speech? What the hell is that? Who dictates what is hate speech, it's subjective down the line, right down to whatever assertions of whomever is doing the speaking. I'm amazed it manages to work at all.

It doesn't work. The Levant case shows it doesn't work. Mark Steyn/McLean's magazine is another example.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

By the way, re: your use of "eliminated": nice rhetorical (if simplistic) flair; but not all curtailment needs to rise to the absolute level of "elimination" to be unacceptable.

Andy, you ended your first post on this subject with the line quoted below. I have a hard time reading that any other way than a fear of complete "elimination".

Quote

And the result is there's no longer any freedom of speech.

Yeah; when I typed it I figured you'd hang your hat on exactly that response. Bravo for being so predictable. But at the end of the proverbial day, I really don't give two shits about the semantics of the debate; I care about the ultimate substantive issue.

By the way, I just watched the Ezra Levant video, where he tells the Canadian fascistette to blow it out her ass because he has the lawful right to be as offensive as he godddamn well chooses, for any reason that he chooses, no matter how ignoble. And that, my friend, is what true freedom of speech is all about. I urge you to watch it, too.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

No other publication in the country was willing to publish the cartoons. Many because they didn't see it as part of their mission. Many more because they were afraid of the repercussions. This little event caused Levant many tens of thousands of dollars. You think the lawyer sitting beside him in that room was free? For most Canadians the idea of being hauled into a inquisition like that is enough for them to forego their rights. We know about this case because Levant had the courage (and the resources) to fight it. Not everyone does win, you just don't hear about those cases.
What is really sad is that the government will not change the human rights law because Levant's own people, the B'nai B'rith, is pressuring the Tories to leave it alone. Intolerant Islam buttressed by intolerant Judaism; wonderful.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

The Levant case shows it doesn't work.

Already addressed.

Quote

Mark Steyn/McLean's magazine is another example.

Another great example how the system works perfectly. The Human Rights complaint was dismissed and never heard. It resulted in a nice war of words in the media (which some might say falls under the benefits of free speech).

You have now twice highlighted cases in which Islamic groups tried to limit free speech and in both cases this did not succeed. Thank you for showing Max the system works well.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Yeah; when I typed it I figured you'd hang your hat on exactly that response. Bravo for being so predictable.

Nice try. If you already knew that, you would have been smart enough to not post it.

Quote

By the way, I just watched the Ezra Levant video, where he tells the Canadian fascistette to blow it out her ass because he has the lawful right to be as offensive as he godddamn well chooses, for any reason that he chooses, no matter how ignoble. And that, my friend, is what true freedom of speech is all about. I urge you to watch it, too.

I have. I agree with much of what he says. Nothing in Canadian law has prevented him from doing exactly what he did.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I am just wondering which western country had their free speech elliminated in the last 60 years, after introduction of laws against hate speech?

As an example, just think about the "words" that are considered offensive and should not be spoken. Being politically correct is a curtailment of free speech

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

No other publication in the country was willing to publish the cartoons. Many because they didn't see it as part of their mission. Many more because they were afraid of the repercussions. This little event caused Levant many tens of thousands of dollars. You think the lawyer sitting beside him in that room was free? For most Canadians the idea of being hauled into a inquisition like that is enough for them to forego their rights. We know about this case because Levant had the courage (and the resources) to fight it. Not everyone does win, you just don't hear about those cases.

This is not a free speech issue. How many main stream publications do you think would offer employment to or purchase the writings of Phelps?

You do understand that the argument you make against Canadian Law is exactly the same as what happened to protect the American Law. Phelps just didn't have to pay for his daughter to represent him.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

As an example, just think about the "words" that are considered offensive and should not be spoken. Being politically correct is a curtailment of free speech

Sorry, your example doesn't make sense to me. Political Correctness is just as much an issue in the US as it is in other Western Countries.

Furthermore, in canada there certainly isn't a list of words that are not allowed to be spoken. Inciting hatred is where the differing issue is. (And as previously been indicated in this tread, offensive speech is just fine)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

As an example, just think about the "words" that are considered offensive and should not be spoken. Being politically correct is a curtailment of free speech

Sorry, your example doesn't make sense to me. Political Correctness is just as much an issue in the US as it is in other Western Countries.

Furthermore, in canada there certainly isn't a list of words that are not allowed to be spoken. Inciting hatred is where the differing issue is. (And as previously been indicated in this tread, offensive speech is just fine)

PC pushers are trying hard to stop free speech. That is the point. And it is the most disgusting way of doing it there is


Nothing is ofically banned but, the attacks that come are a good indication of limiting free speech by the thought police

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,122]

I know fear mongering got a war started, but it didn't prevent HC reform and I don't buy the link between PC and laws limiting free speech.

(Its probably a lot more related to the growth in multi-ethnic populations than a significant shift in thought.)