1 edit
apparently the lawsuit against the Westboro church was for "invasion of privacy and intent to inflect emotional distress," which I suppose the lawyers argued was not a free-speech issue.
edit: so the questions should be: (1) is this an invasion of privacy? (2) was the intent to inflict emotional distress?
welcome to the gray area
Originally posted by Darth SpongeCorrect, another tort you can't use the first amendment to hide behind.
apparently the lawsuit against the Westboro church was for "invasion of privacy and intent to inflect emotional distress," which I suppose the lawyers argued was not a free-speech issue.
Originally posted by darthmixWha? Why aren't they protesting at the White House or Pentagon? And, yes, they did claim that the soldiers were gay. What kind of religion is this? When they don't pay the fine they'll go to jail and get it from behind.
They weren't claiming that the dead soldiers themselves were gay. They were claiming that God allowed the soldiers to be killed to punish America, the country, for tolerating homosexuality. Nothing the Westboro folks did comes anywhere close to the legal standard of slander or defamation. It's a religious belief, the expression of which is very clearly protected by the constitution.
Granny.
1 edit
Originally posted by darthmixIt doesn't matter whether they claimed the soldiers were gay or not. By protesting outside a funeral in progress with anti-gay signs saying "burn in hell fag", etc., they implied to anyone seeing it that the person being buried was gay.
They weren't claiming that the dead soldiers themselves were gay. They were claiming that God allowed the soldiers to be killed to punish America, the country, for tolerating homosexuality. Nothing the Westboro folks did comes anywhere close to the legal standard of slander or defamation. It's a religious belief, the expression of which is very clearly protected by the constitution.
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNot according to the law they didn't. If you're going to prosecute someobdy for slander, libel, or defamation, you have to show that they actually made an assertion which is factually untrue. If they never actually say that the soldier is gay - and they don't - then there's no case for defamation. The legal requriements for prosecuting defamation are very, very narrow; you're not liable if someone misconstrues your statement to mean something you didn't actually say.
It doesn't matter whether they claimed the soldiers were gay or not. By protesting outside a funeral in progress with anti-gay signs saying "burn in hell fag", etc., they implied to anyone seeing it that the person being buried was gay.
Note that this decision had nothing to do with any allegation that the Westboro folks were making defamatory statements. If their crime was defamation, they should've been charged with defamation and found liable on that basis. They weren't.
Originally posted by smw6869They'd be within their rights for protesting at the White House or the Pentagon, but they're also within their rights protesting outside a cemetary where a funueral is taking place. No, they did not claim that the soldiers were gay, which is why they weren't brought up on charges of slander. What kind of religion it is doesn't matter; it is a religion, and its free expression is protected by the first amendment.
Wha? Why aren't they protesting at the White House or Pentagon? And, yes, they did claim that the soldiers were gay. What kind of religion is this? When they don't pay the fine they'll go to jail and get it from behind.
Granny.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamStill woefully short of the legal standard for defamation, as I [in the other thread], and now others, have repeatedly pointed out.
It doesn't matter whether they claimed the soldiers were gay or not. By protesting outside a funeral in progress with anti-gay signs saying "burn in hell fag", etc., they implied to anyone seeing it that the person being buried was gay.
Originally posted by darthmixSlander may be spoken or implied, by words, actions, or gestures. Look it up. But we're getting off track here anyway, since it wasn't part of the case to begin with.
Not according to the law they didn't. If you're going to prosecute someobdy for slander, libel, or defamation, you have to show that they actually made an assertion which is factually untrue. If they never actually say that the soldier is gay - and they don't - then there's no case for defamation. The legal requriements for prosecuting defamation are very, ...[text shortened]... thing to do with any allegation that the Westboro folks were making defamatory statements.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNope.
Slander may be spoken or implied, by words, actions, or gestures.
Legal definition of slander:
"Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community."
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/85BAB88B-0660-4AB6-A2F5C32E716A6D52
Untruthful, and oral.
You can't prosecute them just because you thought they were implying that the soldier was gay; to prove defamation, you have to show that they actually intended for people to believe that the soldier was gay. Westboro baptist makes their actual position - that God is punishing the soldiers for representing the US, which is a country that tolerates homosexuality - pretty clear. They're certainly not legally responsible if you take their signs to mean something those signs don't actually say, especially since they're always passing out pamphlets and making statements detailing their actual position.
Yes, we're getting off track. The problem is that if we stay on-track, there's no legal basis for this decision that doesn't outright violate the first amendment. Violating privacy? Even if there was a privacy right in the constitution, the Westboro folks are on public streets where there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. Intend to inflict emotional distress? You might as well try to sue every religious group who posts it outside rock concernts and tells me I'm going to hell, or any abortion protester who tells my I'm murdering my baby. I might find those things pretty distressing.
Yeah, no. You're allowed to make religious statements in a public place, and the fact that I find them distressing doesn't give me legal grounds to stop you. This decision will be reversed, and that'll be a good thing.
2 edits
Originally posted by darthmixYou need a better dictionary, one that's more comprhensive:
[b]Nope.
Legal definition of slander:
"Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community."
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/85BAB88B-0660-4AB6-A2F5C32E716A6D52
Untruthful, and oral.
Try a legal dictionary.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm
Give up?
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNolo, which I cited, is a legal dictionary.
You need a better dictionary, one that's more comprhensive:
Try a legal dictionary.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm
Your dictionary affirms what I said; the statement must be first actually be false. It can be made via gestures, as in sign language, but it cannot consist simply of a passer-by misconstruing a written sign to mean something the sign doesn't actually say.
Originally posted by shavixmirI can't bend Amendments. My governmental representatives can more clearly define the fine points of Amendments or change them if necessary thrpugh a carefully designed codified process.
It seems to me if you can bend one amendment, you can bend another as well...
And if one way of bending is fine, then surely another way of bending is just as favourable?
Originally posted by no1marauderI suppose cemetaries should wall themselves off to avoid this sort of thing.
Why? Their "argument" is that God is punishing the US by killing off our soldiers because our laws are too lenient towards homosexuals. This is certainly a political and religious message. I have never heard that political and/or religious messages were banned from a city while a funeral was going on. As I pointed out, they were protesting a 1000 feet away on public property. How is this "invading the family's private time"?
Originally posted by darthmixNo, it doesn't affirm what you said. You made a big deal out of slander neing ORAL only and called me on it when I said slander can be spoken or implied by gesture or sign.
Nolo, which I cited, is a legal dictionary.
Your dictionary affirms what I said; the statement must be first actually be false. It can be made via gestures, as in sign language, but it cannot consist simply of a passer-by misconstruing a written sign to mean something the sign doesn't actually say.
Try admitting you're wrong, just once. I promise it'll make you feel better.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamOh, please. Your own link shows that there's no basis for comparing what the Westboro folks did to slander or libel. The definition in that link deals entirely with slander in its spoken form; It says that the key legal elements of slander are falsity and malice - the intent to propagate a factually untrue statement - neither of which are demonstrably present in this example. You were the one who suggested that defamation was a relevant issue in this case; Can you admit you're wrong in the way that matters to this thread? Because you yourself have proven that your are.
No, it doesn't affirm what you said. You made a big deal out of slander neing ORAL only and called me on it when I said slander can be spoken or implied by gesture or sign.