Originally posted by PinkFloydThe trouble is that the Phelps' clan protested on public property, and they notified police in advance that they were going to protest, so that the beatdowns could be avoided.
I concur. You have changed my mind on this issue. Rather than resort to courts, the family of the slain soldier should have simply grabbed Phelps, his wife and kids, and that other crazy woman with them, and beat the livin' s@#t out of 'em. That will stop this behavior even better than 11 milion dollar judegements.
1 edit
Originally posted by SMSBear716We did just fine without God on either one. The Declaration of Independence was finalized in 1776. The US Dollar was declared the official US monetary unit by Congress in 1875. The pledge of allegiance wasn't written until 1892. God wasn't put on money until 1864, and wasn't put in the pledge of allegiance until 1954.
Oh get over yourself ATY, you don't even believe in God. Hell, if you had your way we'd take the word God off US currency and out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
You shame yourself by appearing to be so outraged.
That means we had:
79 years with no God on our money
116 years with no Pledge of Allegiance
62 years with no God in the PoA
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw: @field(DOCID+@lit(jc0295)) --remove space between ":" and "@" for link to work [smiley avoidance]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou can't be serious. Of course, the content was the issue with the family; as I said if the same amount of people had been in the same place from the American Legion lauding their son's sacrifice, do you seriously expect that they would have been sued?
The fact of the matter remains, content wasn't the issue for the family. Appropriateness, however, was. Is it appropriate to have protestors in the court room? If not, why not?
The protest was on public property and there was no claim that it actually disrupted the ceremony. The comparison is apples and oranges.
1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeDon't be ridiculous. The fact that someone's political/religious beliefs offend me is not a sufficient reason for them to pay me money (though I'd be filthy rich just from this forum if this principle was followed).
Nah. They should be free to speak but they should be prepared to accept that they cause grave offence and that that they should pay restitution if they cause offence
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou'd also be sued into bankruptcy...
Don't be ridiculous. The fact that someone's political/religious beliefs offend me is not a sufficient reason for them to pay me money (though I'd be filthy rich just from this forum if this principle was followed).
I don't really see what the debate here is. Obviously, this has to be overturned -- they were on
public land expressing their opinion. Irrespective of the content of their opinion, they have a
right to express it: that's what 'Free Speech' means.
In order to judge this case, one has to be blind to the content (otherwise it wouldn't be free).
And whatever 22 States that have laws restricting speech like this, those laws, too, ought to be
struck down.
Everyone here with an objection cannot get over the fact that it was Phelps and his crew and his
hateful remarks. There hasn't been one legitimate legal objection to this case yet. And, as
appalling as they are and as much as I would like to see his 'church' bankrupted, there is no
legal basis for this suit.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderAs usual, you didn't answer the question.
You can't be serious. Of course, the content was the issue with the family; as I said if the same amount of people had been in the same place from the American Legion lauding their son's sacrifice, do you seriously expect that they would have been sued?
The protest was on public property and there was no claim that it actually disrupted the ceremony. The comparison is apples and oranges.
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy guess is that the police, if present, would not have stopped the family from pummeling the Westboro nutjobs; they probably would have been happy to help.
The trouble is that the Phelps' clan protested on public property, and they notified police in advance that they were going to protest, so that the beatdowns could be avoided.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's a hoot for Mr. Secret Decoder Ring to accuse someone else of not answering a question; I'm still waiting for that analysis of Matthew 25:31-46.
As usual, you didn't answer the question.
In any event, I answered the question indirectly; protesters would be allowed in a courtroom if they did not disrupt the proceedings. And protesters are certainly allowed 300-1000 feet away from a courtroom proceeding on public property and no one can sue them for the content of their protests under those circumstances.
Originally posted by no1marauder... protesters would be allowed in a courtroom if they did not disrupt the proceedings.
It's a hoot for Mr. Secret Decoder Ring to accuse someone else of not answering a question; I'm still waiting for that analysis of Matthew 25:31-46.
In any event, I answered the question indirectly; protesters would be allowed in a courtroom if they did not disrupt the proceedings. And protesters are certainly allowed 300-1000 feet away fr ...[text shortened]... property and no one can sue them for the content of their protests under those circumstances.
Who determines what constitutes a disruption?
I'm still waiting for that analysis of Matthew 25:31-46.
You'll be waiting for quite some time, I'm afraid. Just run with yours as long as you're able.