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

[DrewEckhardt 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.

There are plenty of things we accept now that were once offensive. Some things will become more or less offensive with changing political power. You can't draw a line that would always be correct and anything left to interpretation is open to abuse by whoever takes power.

God made Earth the center of the universe. People who think otherwise should be put to the question and burned at the stake when convicted.

A women's place is in the home, baking pies and babies not at the voting both. Women's suffrage is offensive.

Blacks and whites interbreeding are an abomination. No one should be endorsing the crime of miscegenation.

[Andy9o8 0]

100 years ago, if a kid said the words "jazz" or "golly" at the dinner table, he'd have been likely to get his face slapped. At the same table, the word "nigger" might have been a simple descriptor to which nobody would have given a second thought.

[champu 1]

Quote

I don't think 'the argument that he gave' had any bearing on the complainant dropping the issue. Nor would it have had any bearing on what the Commissioner ruled.

That's entirely possible.

Quote

No matter how offensive Levant wanted to be, (in my opinion) it would have not meet the criteria for Section 13. Republishing those cartoons had nothing to do with hate or hate messages.

Also, it's my opinion that this whole process would not have made it out of the discovery phase (which is what Levant was taping). I honestly believe the investigators would not have enough to continue the complaint.

And it's my opinion that the differences between Levant's case and a case where investigators would have enough to continue the complaint are ill-defined. This is based on what I read at the link SkyDekker provided where the laws call out a number of indications and contraindications that make the whole thing a mess.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

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.

This is the subjective. When the people in power believe that "blacks are fucking stupid niggers" they may then institute a ban on hate speech - hate being contrary to what they believe. South Park did an episode where "nigger guy" was banned because it was hate speech. "Nigger" wasn't banned.

Hate speech is ALWAYS based on the subjective interpretations of the hearer. What happens if radical Christians take over and view "bible thumper" as hate speech? They ban it, thus ensuring continuation of their view of an orderly society - until they are usurped by another group, who ban the term "secularist" because it is hateful.

So let's just make sure people can say all they want. If it causes damage, then make the person pay for it. But I'd like to see the free exchange of ideas - even those I find revolting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,120]

Quote

Quote

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.

This is the subjective. When the people in power believe that "blacks are fucking stupid niggers" they may then institute a ban on hate speech - hate being contrary to what they believe. South Park did an episode where "nigger guy" was banned because it was hate speech. "Nigger" wasn't banned.

Hate speech is ALWAYS based on the subjective interpretations of the hearer. What happens if radical Christians take over and view "bible thumper" as hate speech? They ban it, thus ensuring continuation of their view of an orderly society - until they are usurped by another group, who ban the term "secularist" because it is hateful.

So let's just make sure people can say all they want. If it causes damage, then make the person pay for it. But I'd like to see the free exchange of ideas - even those I find revolting.

Lot of silly what ifs. I especially like the invoking of South Park as a clear example of what could happen. Maybe Britney Spears has an opinion on the matter as well, we could ask Perez Hilton what he thinks....

Fact remains that in practice, as long as it has been in Canada, it works in a way that I prefer over the US system, where those who are hurt by speech have to pay to have it continue.

Your second last sentence clearly does not work in practice. Those who cause the damage are not made to pay for it, they are rewarded.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Lot of silly what ifs. I especially like the invoking of South Park as a clear example of what could happen. Maybe Britney Spears has an opinion on the matter as well, we could ask Perez Hilton what he thinks....

Fact remains that in practice, as long as it has been in Canada, it works in a way that I prefer over the US system, where those who are hurt by speech have to pay to have it continue.

Your second last sentence clearly does not work in practice. Those who cause the damage are not made to pay for it, they are rewarded.

First of all, you're mischaracterizing what happened in the case. The Phelpses didn't get any of their trial-level attorney's fees paid, nor did they get any "counter-damages" awarded to them. They got their appellate-level fees and costs reimbursed to them, under a court rule that provides that the party who prevails on appeal is entitled to such reimbursement of their appellate expenses. So on paper at least, there's no "reward", as you characterize it, merely a reimbursement of expenses. Plus, even had the Phelpses' attorney not been a member of the family, but just a privately-retained attorney, the Phelpses would still not have been able to have any of their trial-level fees or costs reimbursed, win or lose.

What I find a little ironic is how many people, especially outside the US, scoff at the American litigation system, in which, unlike many other countries, the loser (even a losing plaintiff) does NOT have to pay the winner's legal fees. "Let plaintiffs bear the financial risk of losing; that would be de facto 'tort reform', and would discourage the Americans from being so sue-happy," they say. Well, this appellate expense-reimbursement rule is actually a certain form of "loser pays" rule. But the problem is, rules ideally apply to everyone. Well, that's easy, when it benefits a "good guy". But now, when it happens to benefit some rotten son of a bitch, everybody cries about it.

Just a little perspective.