Church Ordered to Pay Millions

Parent Cafe
21

<p>ejr–I"m not a lawyer, nor a Constitutional scholar, but I think that fire in a crowded theater falls under the “clear and present danger” exxception carved out by the Supreme Court. Don’t know that this would.</p>

<p>The precedent would more likely be the ruling in favor of the Skokie Illinois Nazi march, which the SC agreed, on free speech issues, couldn’t be banned. Distasteful, but I think the right ruling.</p>

<p>but as others have said, this was a private suit, and i don’t know how that falls in respect to Constitutional issues.</p>

22

<p>While Phelps may not be yelling fire in a movie theatre, his intentions are the same. He is out to emotionally scar people. He is looking to incite people just as yelling fire in a movie theatre does. Then when he does, and someone responds, he sues them. From what I’ve been reading, this is his MO. When he sues, then wins, it’s money in his account. </p>

<p>I can’t believe with everything I’m reading about him that they can’t convict him on something… anything, just to put him away.</p>

23

<p>Hey, I am with you in spirit on this! But the fire thing is present danger, because it “incites” people to save themselves (possibly hurting someone in the process, but not because they want to) while he incites them to feel like retaliating, which is not equivalent.</p>

<p>I can’t but feel that his worst punishment–is being himself.</p>

24

<p>“can’t convict him on something…”</p>

<p>This was a civil matter, not criminal. If any police department is foolish enough to arrest these folks – which would bring the church immense publicity – that police department is going to wind up with egg on its face.</p>

<p>Even if he’d done something illegal like trespassing, that would almost certainly be a misdemeanor carrying a small fine or other slap on the wrist.</p>

<p>Intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy are torts, not crimes. And once again, there just isn’t any way that being insulted at your child’s funeral is a greater injury than the death of your child.</p>

25

<p>While I’m not a lawyer, I recall a Supreme Court ruling allowing anti-abortion protesters to keep a certain distance from the entrance of abortion clinics (as it turns out, 36 ft) See: Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 U.S. 753, 114 S. Ct. 2516, 129 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1994). This case upheld a Florida law that barred protesters from coming closer than 36 ft. from the entrance of a clinic. The Rehnquist Court ruled 7-1 that free speech was not unduly burdened by steering clear of private property. </p>

<p>If this decision is relevant and controlling, the protester’s free speech may be protected speech as long as they are separated from the group they hope to influence by some measure of distance. I believe cemeteries are considered public places. It remains to be seen if the various state laws placing limitations on this kind of activity will pass Constitutional muster…</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>If you read any of the source I cited earlier, you would see he has engaged in some criminal behavior, including child abuse, spousal abuse, etc. I doubt he has mended his ways when it comes to violence; I suspect he still engages in physical abuse - they just need to get someone (who is not brainwashed by him) who is willing to report it and follow through with testifying against him. This is more of what I was referring to… the criminal behavior.</p>

27

<p>The “Fire” analogy is interesting in the fact that you automatically incite people to respond. In other words, they usually WON’T just stand there like they would if you started yelling “PEANUT BUTTER”. Thus, you cause them to move and react. Possibly injuring themselves if a false alarm. THAT IS PERSONAL.</p>

<p>But, lets go with that premise for a second. NOTE OF CAUTION: Please read the words I am about to use in CONTEXT please. I won’t respond to ANYONE who tries to start a flame war or any other personal attack. Because of the words I used. If you are the type that gets ****ed at WORDS, then stop reading now and hit the BACK BUTTON. GOT IT? GOOD!</p>

<hr>

<p>Scenario #1: Phelps and his crowd stand across the street from a funeral, church, wedding, etc… on public ground. Yelling words and phrases like; “God Hates Gays”; “Gays will burn in Hell”; “Our military is losing because they are defending f@gots”. “Your son is dead because of the f@gots”; and so on. </p>

<p>Now; from the freedom of speech crowd; does he have this right? Some will say yes because he is on public ground and is not trying to incite a riot or overthrow the government. In some people’s eyes he is inciting reaction, harm, emotional distress, etc… Therefor there are some that will say no, he doesn’t have the right to say this. </p>

<p>Scenario #2: A car full of white skinheads drive down a PUBLIC street in a convertible; in Alabama, driving the 15mph residential limit; yelling; “Our country is failing because of the n!ggers, sp!cs, and jews; God hates all 3”.
(I actually experienced this outside of Heflin Alabama)</p>

<p>Now, does the 1st amendment protect this speech? This too could no doubt incite a riot or a reaction. The fact that those words are “Racially” motivated seems to lend more credence to it being “Unacceptable”. Some seem to “Tolerate” it more if it’s about gays than blacks.</p>

<p>I personally think that both scenarios are wrong and should be illegal. Mind you, I am NOT talking about “Political Correctness”. I am so against political correctness it isn’t funny. But this isn’t about this. This is about a person’s “RIGHTS” stopping (Or limited) where another person’s rights start. We can have a political debate, in an auditorium, where all the derogatory words imaginable can be used. It wouldn’t bother me. We, and I mean that to describe many different people, have called our ow n friends and family worse. So, in a forum setting like a debate, I could handle all the derogatory words; because of the context.</p>

<p>But, when they are screamed (Which includes visual signs, etc…) at individual people or groups on the street, in the cemetery, in front of a church or house; then it becomes “Personal”. That is where the rights have to be curbed and limited to balance the rights of the different individuals. I believe, from reading the reports, that this is how this finding had come about against the church. Their rights crossed the PERSONAL rights of the other people.</p>

<p>Had this been a protest in general about the war in Iraq and homosexuality in general, then they would have been within their rights. As soon as it was “Aimed” at a particular person, group, occasion, ceremony, etc… then it became personal. Remember, INDIVIDUALS have rights. NOT GROUPS.</p>

28

<p>Why isn’t this a case of hate speech? That isn’t protected under the law, is it?</p>

29

<p>I agree with you 100% sjmom. The moment it becomes “Specialized” speech, it becomes personal. Once it becomes personal, individual rights become violated. </p>

<p>I understand the fine line of freedom of speech. When talking about race, sex, etc… in a generic manner, and a person’s disapproval, thoughts, complaints, moral opinions, etc… I think that falls under freedom of speech and is acceptable. I don’t think it’s necessary to use derogatory remarks, although I would still consider it under the category of freedom of speech. It’s just not necessary. It shows a lack of education and a poor ignorant vocabulary. But, the moment it is directed to an individual(s) directly, it becomes personal. Therefor, the person is attacking individuals on a personal basis. At that point, their “Right” to free speech needs to be limited.</p>

30

<p>First, hate speech is protected. That’s why the Skokie march couldn’t be stopped.
In this case, the issue will be whether Phelps and his group invaded a zone of privacy or not. I think the courts will take a hard look at the actual facts, and will have to engage in difficult line-drawing. For example, if the people at the actual interment could see and hear the protesters, I think the verdict will hold up. If, however, they were on a public street and were only seen or heard as the funeral procession moved over the city streets, the verdict won’t hold up.</p>

31

<p>Hunt; you’re really accurate on your perception. But it will depend more on the judge. If a hate group or whatever goes to the capital, town hall, other public place, and preaches their hate, disapproval, convictions, etc… that is protected by free speech. It isn’t directly at a person or persons directly and personally. You as a bystander can choose to attend, drive by, stay home, etc… That is the difference.</p>

<p>At a wedding, funeral, church meeting, etc… these are established functions that REQUIRE the participants to be at a certain place at a certain time. If the hate group or whatever purposely schedule their picketing, speeches, etc… to coincide with these functions, in such a way that the participants of the function MUST somehow be exposed, then this group has indeed violated a “Zone of Privacy”. </p>

<p>If the court determines that this group met specifically at a certain place and time, knowing that another particular group (That their message was intended for) would in fact have to be exposed to their speech, then it can be upheld that it was a personal attack. If they were protesting at a specific public place such as a library, court house, city hall, capital, etc… and THAT location was instrumental in their protest, and OTHER groups just so happen to be passing by that location and became offended; then that won’t be supported. The group protesting/speaking does have that right.</p>