On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:41:31 -0700, Junior Mints
Post by Junior MintsPost by ModemacI can't say I agree with this judgement, as it seems like the same
tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center: use the legal system to
force your opponent into bankruptcy, because he says things you don't
like. The case itself was not a free-speech issue; rather, the
argument that won in court was that Phelps and his crew had
intentionally inflicted emotional distress and invaded privacy of the
family of a soldier killed in Iraq. However, if they had indeed caused
emotional distress to the father and his family (and they certainly
did), then you would think that a fair and impartial judge would award
enough damages to genuinely slap Phelps and make him remember
this...not crush him financially in such a manner that the Westboro
Baptist Church would have to sell their homes, all of their worldly
possessions, and all income they make for the rest of their lives to
pay it.
Is $11 million a fair payback for insults from a bunch of wackos no
one is going to believe anyway?
This seems more like the actions of a judge who wanted to stop Phelps
once and for all, rather than simply handle this one single incident.
It's the same way that Morris Dees stopped White Aryan Resistance,
Aryan Nations, and other hate groups.
The WBC's pickets and protests were legal, but the hurt they inflicted
on the soldier's family wasn't. They should be punished for their
hurtful actions, not for their legal ones.
Besides, Phelps' family manage their own law firm, and they know how
to use the legal system. There's no doubt this case will be appealed,
and we can only see what happens when other judges look at this case.
Remember how a fair, honest, and impartial judge handled Magdalen's
case, too.
--
The High Weirdness Project
http://www.modemac.com
The core legal problem is far simpler than you suggest. If you want
to protest a newspaper, for instance, then go to the side walk in
front of the paper and go to it. No one will disturb you. However if
you go to the residence of the editor your looking at a whole nother
situation. Here you have the same thing, intruding into the privacy
of the family and friends, there are more appropriate place to
protest. Its the yelling fire in a crowded theatre bit, you just
can't do that 1rst amendment or not.
Also doing this crap at a cemetary is just going to piss people off.
This is the kind of case were rules, laws and everything else will be
bent to get the evil doers.
you know while I get that it's important that the legal implications
of this could have far-reaching consequences, and that an impingement
of first-amendment rights, whatever the target, is dangerous ... I
mean, at another level, Fred Phelps and his people are basically DUMB
DUMBASSES.
At one level this is a legal case with very specific ramifications,
but on another level too this is people looking at a situation, and a
dumbass, and trying to deal with it the best way they can.
On that level, I have to give them a standing ovation.
Granted, that is in a way a dangerous attitude to take. If you're
going to allow the appeal to common sense that Fred Phelps is a
dumbass and FUCK HIM, then what's to stop some tightass from saying
"well, the Church of the SubGenius is just as offensive, OBVIOUSLY, as
Fred Phelps, and they should be sued for 11 million dollars!"
The problem with that though, is the person who said that would also
be a DUMB DUMBASS. He could SAY it, but I don't think even he would
really believe it, at least outside of some fever of dumbassedness.
Like Mikey Alcandor, I think he kind of believes some of what he says,
but only by virtue of a feverish dumbassery.
But so granted, you can't base laws on common sense and reality, but
rather have to base them on very subtle and precisely thought through
legalese verbiage.
But the fact that you do just goes to show there are way way too many
dumb dumbasses in the world.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Children of the future Age
Reading this indignant page,
Know that in a former time
Love! sweet Love! was thought a crime.
- William Blake
X-Face: AXw.*iC'22cn|l>bQbG=***@fxebas;>^R9g^6)*;!xN#EI8GK8ghN{eO)%)]"`Wd7YGYw^Q
85q5vv{]~4E4O.;m>rWXkR2}lz\EIm}CDO=0C\I/uB11n"R<Fo\K#=`BYXMJu_l&^Ee0lx39(*q;ik
~K