3 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNo wonder why our educational system is such a mess. The article you cited says 1 (not "some"😉 state, Rhode Island, allows such a cause of action. And the Snyder funeral wasn't in little Rhody.
"You can't slander the dead".....you got that out of a Hollywood movie. Actually, some states do allow for it if it's shortly after their death , and all states allow recovery if the slander/defamation is such that it hurts the deceased's estate.
Once again, marauder, you are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/dead_person_slander.htm
Your second assertion is flat out wrong.
EDIT: Even the Rhode Island exception is very limited:
In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the deceased person was slandered or libelled in an obituary in any newspaper or on any radio or television station within three (3) months of his or her date of death.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderRead it again and get back to me, you obviously didn't understand it.
No wonder why our educational system is such a mess. The article you cited says 1 (not "some"😉 state, Rhode Island, allows such a cause of action. And the Snyder funeral wasn't in little Rhody.
Your second assertion is flat out wrong.
EDIT: Even the Rhode Island exception is very limited:
In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the ...[text shortened]... er or on any radio or television station within three (3) months of his or her date of death.
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI did read it but apparently, unlike you, I understand it.
OK perhaps you didn't read the entire article, so here's a direct quote
What it means is that in California and some other states a defamation suit already filed by a living person will not be dismissed because of his death but that the estate's representative will be able to continue it. That is certainly different than defaming someone who is already dead.
EDIT: I see you edited; good for you that you withdrew the specific claim though your edited post is again juvenile.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
1 edit
Originally posted by snowblazer12These people are idiots: poor ignorant, misguided fools; I hope I never have to meet anyone like them. But they are not criminals. You can't just punish people because of their views... however uncomfortable it may make you feel.
i like how in the picture it says god hates fags
and to hate someone is a sin
1 edit
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/10/judge-properly-orders-case-to-trial-in.php
here's a sum-up article on the judge's descision. Apparently, Westboro named the Snyder family directly on their wesbite, but the judge ruled it was not defamation. here's a quote from the article:
"Judge Bennett found the website language does not amount to defamation because no reasonable person would think that it was intended to be a statement of fact. Nor did the website language invade the family’s privacy since the declarations were merely a statement of the Church members’ general religious beliefs. When it came to signs carried outside of the funeral ceremony at St. John’s Roman Catholic Church, however, Judge Bennett struck the balance differently. He ordered to case to go to trial on claims that this intrusion amounted to tortuous invasion of the family’s expectation of privacy and constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress on the family."
so the case went against Westboro- but for invasion of privacy, not free speech.
2 edits
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThe case is a free speech one no matter what the judge called it. To allow a claim of "invasion of privacy" because someone voices political/religious opinions that you find offensive would be a severe restriction on speech. Of course, the judge and plaintiffs didn't call it a free speech case, but that's what it is.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/10/judge-properly-orders-case-to-trial-in.php
here's a sum-up article on the judge's descision. Apparently, Westboro named the Snyder family directly on their wesbite, but the judge ruled it was not defamation. here's a quote from the article:
"Judge Bennett found the website language does not amount to de ...[text shortened]... amily."
so the case went against Westboro- but for invasion of privacy, not free speech.
EDIT: Considering that Snyder admitted at trial that he never even saw the "offending" signs, the suit should have been dismissed even under the rationale of the judge's pre-trial ruling.
From my post on page 1:
"Snyder testified that he never saw the content of the signs as he entered and left St. John's on the day of his son's funeral," and recall that the signs were 1000 feet away from the church.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_04-2007_11_10.shtml#1194480175
So if he never even saw the signs, how could the messages on them even arguably "invade his privacy"?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudergood question. I think it's because the trial seems to be based on that "Intention to inflict emotional distress"- which would be easy to prove in this trial... but the Volokh.com link considers this tort to be unconstitutional, and I agree. It is, however, how this case was decided within the existing laws without making a 1st amendment ruling. Kinda sidestep to the tune of 2 million dollars.
So if he never even saw the signs, how could the messages on them even arguably "invade his privacy"?
edit: oh yeah, and if the argument is about the Westboro's "intent", then it's somewhat irrelevant if Snyder saw the signs.
2 edits
Originally posted by Darth SpongeThe factual argument is over whether they intentionally inflicted emotional distress. If he didn't actually see the signs, what was the mechanism for the infliction of the distress? The judge stated that the statements on the website were insufficient but that the statements on the signs might not be - apparently relying on their "close proximity" to the funeral itself. But their proximity doesn't matter if the plaintiff didn't see them.
good question. I think it's because the trial seems to be based on that "Intention to inflict emotional distress"- which would be easy to prove in this trial... but the Volokh.com link considers this tort to be unconstitutional, and I agree. It is, however, how this case was decided within the existing laws without making a 1st amendment ruling. Kin ...[text shortened]... is about the Westboro's "intent", then it's somewhat irrelevant if Snyder saw the signs.
Volokh does not say the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is unconstitutional; it is a well-recognized tort. He does say that to use this tort in the context of political/religious speech which a hearer finds offensive is an unconstitional restriction on speech.
A 1st Amendment ruling was made by the judge when he denied the defense motions to dismiss based on the 1st Amendment arguments. That legal ruling will be at the core of the appeal.
BTW, the jury found for the plaintiffs on BOTH the invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
Originally posted by no1marauderI wonder if these God fearing, loving, protestors realize how big the bullseye is on their foreheads.
The factual argument is over whether they intentionally inflicted emotional distress. If he didn't actually see the signs, what was the mechanism for the infliction of the distress? The judge stated that the statements on the website were insufficient but that the statements on the signs might not be - apparently relying on their "close proximity" to the ...[text shortened]... fs on BOTH the invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by HumeAA funeral like a marriage is fundamentally a private gathering regardless of where it is held. Attending a funeral and saying something disparaging about the deceased raises indecency to new heights.
These people are idiots: poor ignorant, misguided fools; I hope I never have to meet anyone like them. But they are not criminals. You can't just punish people because of their views... however uncomfortable it may make you feel.
Probably there needs to be a law moving the protests "away" in time as well as space -- say not within +/- 7 days of a funeral.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if you are trying to prove that the Westboro Church "Intended" to inflict emotional distress, then it's irrelevant whether or not Snyder saw the signs. Westboro may not have successfully inflicted emotional distress, but that's beside the point if it can be proven that they Intended to do so.
The factual argument is over whether they intentionally inflicted emotional distress. If he didn't actually see the signs, what was the mechanism for the infliction of the distress?
Originally posted by Darth SpongeI dont like the notion that merely "inflicting emotional distress" is punishable. Lots of things one has to do might inflict emotional distress. Like telling someone their order might not be ready in time for Christmas or that their cancer is inoperable or that their kid is using drugs at school.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if you are trying to prove that the Westboro Church "Intended" to inflict emotional distress, then it's irrelevant whether or not Snyder saw the signs. Westboro may not have successfully inflicted emotional distress, but that's beside the point if it can be proven that they Intended to do so.
What bugs me is the notion that one can't hold a funeral without some crackpot hijacking the occasion to make a political statement.