+1

+2

Have to agree for +3.

Yay, my first greenlit, evar, finally !

/ now I'm send judge two thank you notes

nobozo: Yay, my first greenlit, evar, finally !

/ now I'm send judge two thank you notes

You deserve it.
/+1

This is truly a great day for non-douchebags

kind thanks strangeguitar

( oh f.. - sending )

Obligatory

+4

/Subby owes me a new keyboard for work.

-1 for free speech and the principles governing our democracy

/obligatory
//i'm from maryland and getting a kick out of these replies.

"But Phelps-Roper, an attorney, called that meaningless. She said the only property she and Phelps-Davis own are their homes and courts are forbidden from confiscating a person's home.

"I have nothing at risk," she said.

You can believe that and still pass the bar exam? WTF?

Ron Paul Revere: Am I the only one that thinks the judgment is quite excessive and will be greatly reduced on appeal?

No. I hate the WBC, but they have a right to assmongrels.

oh please, oh please oh please

YixilTesiphon: Ron Paul Revere: Am I the only one that thinks the judgment is quite excessive and will be greatly reduced on appeal?

No. I hate the WBC, but they have a right to be assmongrels.

FTFM

Sure you're allowed to picket funerals, but there are consequences. That is the free speech deigned by the US Constitution, just how free speech is "limited" by libel laws.

So, what shaneo785 thinks is preferable in society is to convince Mr. Phelps that he's wrong in thinking that God is punishing the US for not publicly flogging gays. But that might involve having to talk to him. I'd rather the $5,000,000 lawsuit.

acronym: oh please, oh please oh please

Its true, unlike the Scientologists one well-placed incendary round on the Phelps estate could take out all their lawyers at once.

Ron Paul Revere Am I the only one that thinks the judgment is quite excessive . . . yes.

Ron Paul Revere: That may well be the law in their state. A lien can be placed upon it, and the profits seized in the even they sell it, but it's very likely the home itself can't be taken outright.

There's the small part about it being a federal, not state, case.

If I could +1, I would.

/For as much as I hate them, they have every right to say what they want

TMBGfreak: If I could +1, I would.

/For as much as I hate them, they have every right to say what they want

I +1'd for you.

She said that came from a humorous answering machine message that said, "This is the Phelps family summer home - some are home and some are not."

Haw! Them fagbashing fascists are a hoot, ain't they?

Raiden333: I +1'd for you.

*bow of appreciation*

shaneo785: -1 for free speech and the principles governing our democracy

Ditto. Sets a bad precedent and may be used for nefarious purposes, keeping a church congregation for collectively owning property as such unless it complies with state mandates.

Also, make no mistake, whatever meager amount that comes from foreclosing on the church building will be completely eaten up by lawyer's fees.

evilboyevil: Sure you're allowed to picket funerals, but there are consequences. That is the free speech deigned by the US Constitution, just how free speech is "limited" by libel laws.

So, what shaneo785 thinks is preferable in society is to convince Mr. Phelps that he's wrong in thinking that God is punishing the US for not publicly flogging gays. But that might involve having to talk to him. I'd rather the $5,000,000 lawsuit.

I wouldn't bother talking with him. His frame is distorted by a really odd form of dogmatism - is there anything you could possibly say that would open his mind to the legitimacy of the relevant objections to his stance? Of course not! So I won't talk to him. News orgs. shouldn't either, and the people whose funeral they protest shouldn't either, so on and so forth. [The Simpsons: "Just Don't Look"] The Phelps' ability to engage discourse in a reasonable fashion is broken. But does that mean they don't have the right to stand on public property and speak? I don't think so, and I think that's the price we have to pay for living in a society with freedoms from government intervention in speech issues.

I'm never one to wish ill on people...but a small part of my wants to see those whack jobs get taken to the cleaners.

/And by "small part" I mean "entire being"

A lot of people miss the point on Free Speech. It is not a get out of jail free card giving you the right to say whatever the hell pops into your mind regardless of who you hurt. It has limitations that should be governed with common decency and morality.

If the founding fathers who penned the rights that these self-righteous attention whores are so quick to quote were around today they would take these people behind the courthouse and hang'em high.

Shame on them and shame on anyone who supports them.

+1

If these "people" were picketing your child's funeral the verdict wouldn't seem excessive.

/free speech my ass.

Headline is very funny. ### would read again.

EvelFarknievel: If these "people" were picketing your child's funeral the verdict wouldn't seem excessive.

/free speech my ass.

So speech you don't like is speech that isn't free?

I'm from Maryland and I moved after 21 years to Canada because of how society is becoming in Maryland. It's like a redneck, hate mongering, and just plain ignorant cesspool.

shaneo785: EvelFarknievel: If these "people" were picketing your child's funeral the verdict wouldn't seem excessive.

/free speech my ass.

So speech you don't like is speech that isn't free?


Speech that is malicious to others isn't free speech. It is hate mongering.

+1 for the headline subby
+2 for the verdict judge

And in re the right to free speech: Sure, those fag-bashing hatemongers have the right to say any nasty evil thing they please, which they did. And the people that speech is directed at have the right to claim it is slander and/or libel and file suit against the fag-bashing hatemongers in court, which they did. And a duly sworn and impartial judge has the right to either declare a verdict for the plaintiffs or the defendants in the civil case, and impose a judgment against the defendants if he so rules, which he did. Which, in this case, meant that he imposed a great big lien on the property of the fag-bashing hatemongers, but it was completely legal.

So why is everyone complaining? That's how the courts work in this country. Duh.

I fully support WBC's right to speak whatever is on their minds or in their hearts. I also fully support anyone who will put a bullet through each and every one of WBC members heads.

Ron Paul Revere: cookiemama: Speech that is malicious to others isn't free speech. It is hate mongering.

So you should be able to sue me because I say "Your mom sucked my c*ck and swallowed my load, then I shared her with my buddies and she loved every minute of it?"

How do we define this line? Where in the 1st Amendment do we get guidance for such a decision?

Hate Mongering instills a view that engages a group of people to express hatred. I can ignore your comment, but when you get a group of people together to instill fear and hatred, then we have a problem. Just like the noose hung from the back of the pickup. It was meant to instill fear and hate.

btw, I lol'd at your comment.

They have to be getting money somewhere. They're not traveling for free.

Ron Paul Revere: So you should be able to sue me because I say "Your mom sucked my c*ck and swallowed my load, then I shared her with my buddies and she loved every minute of it?"

If you say it repeatedly, publish it, try to invoke some form of authority about it and put it on picket signs to publicize this falsehood, yeah.
Yeah, I guess you could get sued.

If you say it once, trash talking during a heated basketball game, probably not so much.

Ron Paul Revere: Seriously, when the f*ck did this country go off the deep end and decide free speech no longer included vile and unpopular speech? I don't get it.

THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT IS TO LET ASSHOLES BE ASSHOLES.

Jesus Christ, you people need to read your history.


That is like saying bullying is okay in school and defaming someone's house with graffiti is okay as well? I don't think our forefathers knew how society would be in 2008. That is why there are AMENDMENTS to the constitution. To adjust it to meet the needs of society. To prevent assholes from being assholes.

I belive that the judgement and these leins are both excessive. I also belive that if you want you should be allowed to burn a US flag, but I also belive that when I come over and beat the crap out of you for doing it that I should be let off with a stern warning as the asshats in question could be arrested and charged with inciting a riot. Any other judgement is an infringement on the freedom of speech. The first amendment protects all speech equally, not just the spech you like, but also the speech that you might not like.

/I hope Phelps goes broke fighting it though.

st.theresa: Ron Paul Revere: So you should be able to sue me because I say "Your mom sucked my c*ck and swallowed my load, then I shared her with my buddies and she loved every minute of it?"

If you say it repeatedly, publish it, try to invoke some form of authority about it and put it on picket signs to publicize this falsehood, yeah.
Yeah, I guess you could get sued.

If you say it once, trash talking during a heated basketball game, probably not so much.

Depends. Did you say it once to a bunch of drunken bar buddies? Then it's just a drunken comment made by a drunken asshole, and is probably okay. Is it true, and can you prove it? Then you're okay.

Or is it a deliberate lie? Did you say it repeatedly, in various public venues? Was your intent to defame my mother, or myself? Was it to harm her reputation, or my reputation? Was it to deliberately inflict emotional or psychological harm on either of us? Had you been asked to cease and desist by the courts?

Did you print, publish or otherwise knowingly disseminate this lie in print, on the air or on the Internet? Did you organize others to further disseminate this lie, and did they also know it was a lie, or a statement designed to inflict emotional or other harm on those it was being shown to? Had you at any time ever been ordered in any way to stop publishing this lie?

If any of the above are true, then your statements are no longer protected by the free speech clause. They have become slander, libel, defamatory or malicious lies, and as such have entered criminal discourse and can be prosecuted as such. And no, just saying "God told me so," is not an automatic defense.

cookiemama: That is like saying bullying is okay in school and defaming someone's house with graffiti is okay as well? I don't think our forefathers knew how society would be in 2008. That is why there are AMENDMENTS to the constitution. To adjust it to meet the needs of society. To prevent assholes from being assholes.

1. Bullying is harassment. Picketing an event isn't harassment.

2. Graffiti is property damage, so that's completely irrelevant.

3. Amendments shouldn't completely subvert the original intent of the Constitution.

Ron Paul Revere: /I argue their side because I believe that we must let the most despicable people say what they want so that we may do the same, not because I even remotely agree with them

I agree that freedom of speech is very important - a cornerstone of our country - and I agree that even assholes should be allowed to say whatever they want, but there should be some specific protections we should all be afforded. Commercially, we restrict advertising of hard liquor from TV, or we used to. cigs, too. We also restrict political contributions despite their free speech component. The FCC restricts some forms of communication due to the media and audience they have. I dunno. On the one hand, I wish I could be stupid enough to just invoke "funerals" as one situation requiring protections, but then that'd probably come and bite me on the butt some day; we can't even claim "private funerals" because obviously, these service people have some public cache.

/either too much or not enough coffee.

Ron Paul Revere: Bottom line:

All of you in favor of this judgment and saying "Hell yeah, these guys suck!" don't understand a damn thing about free speech and simply see this as a means to an end.

You don't care about due process.

You don't care about the rule of law.

You simply care about getting what you want, how you want it, when you want it, everything else be damned.

No wonder Bush got re-elected. You're all like him.


I'm surprised at how passionate you are about laws, and yet you don't even fully understand how they are upheld. I do care about due process and the rule of law. I know enough that our government has allowed itself to be able to change it's rules and regulations to "check and balance" every situation as it sees fit. If our government is to survive, it needs to ebb and flow with majority rule. Hence elections and appointments of judges. If it wasn't for this, we would fall.

I'm going to Topeka on business in a couple of weeks, so I'm really getting a kick out of this thread.

/drove by the Phelps compound last year
//worth $400k my ass...maybe $150k

As much as I dislike WBC this set's a bad precedent for future holdings and authority figures. There is no need to protect popular speech, but only unpopular speech. What happens when your thoughts and ideals are considered unpopular?

Instead of going off in a rant about FDR, Lincoln, and Reagan I'm just going to say while this ruling may seem appropriate for WBC it has the potential to be abused for future cases which is the most troubling thought.

cookiemama:
That is like saying bullying is okay in school and defaming someone's house with graffiti is okay as well? I don't think our forefathers knew how society would be in 2008. That is why there are AMENDMENTS to the constitution. To adjust it to meet the needs of society. To prevent assholes from being assholes.

No it's not. It's not like saying that at all. One of your examples is assault, unless you're just talking about teasing. The other is defacing property. How is that anything like saying people should be able to say what they want?

Ron Paul Revere said everything I came in here to say. This judgement is ridiculous and should be thrown out.

On the other hand, support the Patriot Guard Riders (new window)

cookiemama: That is like saying bullying is okay in school and defaming someone's house with graffiti is okay as well? I don't think our forefathers knew how society would be in 2008. That is why there are AMENDMENTS to the constitution. To adjust it to meet the needs of society. To prevent assholes from being assholes.

Both of those cause physical harm to someone or something else, and have nothing to do with the first amendment. And when you say "prevent assholes from being assholes", whose definition do we use? If I don't like someone else's opinion, is the other person wrong? If he also doesn't like mine, are we both wrong?

Ron Paul Revere are you telling me that I have the right to stand in front of your home with a bullhorn at 2 am and yell at you for being a man every day for the rest of your life?