Way to go, Kansas

Strell

Strell

CAGiversary!
Feedback
288 (100%)
I struggled on whether or not I should put this in the Classy Republicans thread. But I figure that would be seen as pure trolling. So let's talk about it here.

http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/29/1246609/marines-dad-ordered-to-pay-protesters.html

Westboro Church pickets a dead marine's funeral. Dead marine's dad sues them for their interference. Judge orders the dad to PAY WESTBORO'S COURT FEES. 16.5 large.

So someone tell me - what's a good country to move to? This makes me sick and I'm willing to bet we're going to continue down this path.
 
brutal.

one of the comments on the story pretty much states what i would have posted in this thread.

Horatio_Alger wrote on 3/30/2010 3:52:48 PM:
I despise the Phelps clan just as much as everyone else. But the issues in this article are mostly irrelevant. The court does not and should not care who is suing who. The court system should not and does not consider how bad and act is perceived by the public if that act is considered to be within their rights.

The bottom line is suing someone carries plenty of risk. This is one of them. If you lose you may be forced to pay for their attorney fees/costs.


I hope the Supreme Court finds Phelps acted outside of the protection of the Constitution.


Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/29/1246609/marines-dad-ordered-to-pay-protesters.html#ixzz0jhGq9eOM
Click to expand...
 
So, instead, you figured you'd troll the entire forum instead of just your own classy thread.

I'd personally like to line up to punch Phelps directly in the teeth, but I'm curious as to what exactly your beef is with this situation? Are you against the legal system as a whole, just against free speech, or do you just hate people from Kansas?
 
Yeah, reluctantly (due to how much I despise Phelps and his ilk and their actions), I'd have to agree with the comment RAM posted.

Free speech is free speech, so it was a risky law suit. Any time you sue some one you risk getting stuck paying the other side's legal fees if you lose. And that's a risk that needs to be there as we have FAR too many frivolous law suits already. If there was no risk on part of the plaintiffs, it would be even worse.
 
And all of that implies that the judge isn't siding with the WBC. How do we know that?

[quote name='bmulligan']So, instead, you figured you'd troll the entire forum instead of just your own classy thread. [/quote]

I know. I'm pretty liberal minded that way.

I'd personally like to line up to punch Phelps directly in the teeth, but I'm curious as to what exactly your beef is with this situation?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know how this is differently classified as not hate speech. Is it because it purely isn't? Is it because they hide behind the banner of being a religious institution? What's the reasoning? Help me out here, if you don't die of high blood pressure first.

Are you against the legal system as a whole, just against free speech, or do you just hate people from Kansas?
Click to expand...

I pretty much think the legal system is ripe for exploitation, yes.

I'm not against free speech, but I'm not stupid enough to assume that means I can say absolutely anything.

I pretty much hate everybody. Are you suggesting I not include Kansas in everybody? How un-PC of you, facist.
 
Part of freedom of speech includes speech that people find offensive. It's regrettable but at least it's consistent and we're loyal to principles as opposed to people. We can't apply freedom of speech selectively. I'll note that the ACLU has defended groups like the KKK, so at least they're somewhat consistent.
 
Fair enough then, I'll put that aside, and ask how we are so sure the judge/jury in this case aren't the sort of rabid idiots that would support the WBC.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Part of freedom of speech includes speech that people find offensive. It's regrettable but at least it's consistent and we're loyal to principles as opposed to people. We can't apply freedom of speech selectively. I'll note that the ACLU has defended groups like the KKK, so at least they're somewhat consistent.[/QUOTE]

You know, I think I can live without the freedom of speech to disrespect and interrupt a soldier's funeral. I know the federal and state governments are on a supermarket sweep of taking away our freedoms lately, but this is actually one I can support.
 
[quote name='Strell']Fair enough then, I'll put that aside, and ask how we are so sure the judge/jury in this case aren't the sort of rabid idiots that would support the WBC.[/QUOTE]

we dont. but why would you assume that? just because the dad lost his suit?
 
[quote name='Strell']Fair enough then, I'll put that aside, and ask how we are so sure the judge/jury in this case aren't the sort of rabid idiots that would support the WBC.[/QUOTE]

We're not. But it's silly to make assumptions one way or the other without knowing the details of the case and decision.

On it's surface it seems like the WBC's despicable actions weren't anything to sue over given our free speech rights, so if I had to make an assumption I'd have to say the decision was right.

Even if they were biased, free speech is free speech, so the decision was right even if the motivation behind it was not. The problem is when bias leads to a decision that is wrong legally, and on the surface that's not what happened here.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']we dont. but why would you assume that? just because the dad lost his suit?[/QUOTE]

Is there a reason I can't assume that any more than I can?

Edit: At least dmaul can give an answer.

Edit 2: I guess my point is that I don't trust a ruling when the area is widely known to be strongly biased in some form or fashion. We're assuming this was a clear cut sort of thing, which I can only hope is true, since that removes part of the shitty nature of it. But I can't help but think that bias is playing a part.
 
[quote name='Chuplayer']You know, I think I can live without the freedom of speech to disrespect and interrupt a soldier's funeral. I know the federal and state governments are on a supermarket sweep of taking away our freedoms lately, but this is actually one I can support.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm never much for any limits on freedom of speech, assembly etc.

But I wouldn't have much issue with a ban on protests etc. within a set distance of funeral proceedings.
 
Before we get into this can we just establish that the people who are defending free speech in this thread are NOT condoning the behavior of these people? These people from Westboro Church who are protesting at these funerals are assholes who can fornicate themselves with an iron stick.

I know the federal and state governments are on a supermarket sweep of taking away our freedoms lately, but this is actually one I can support.
Click to expand...

orly? orly taitz? which freedoms are you talking about?
 
[quote name='Strell']Is there a reason I can't assume that any more than I can?

Edit: At least dmaul can give an answer.

Edit 2: I guess my point is that I don't trust a ruling when the area is widely known to be strongly biased in some form or fashion. We're assuming this was a clear cut sort of thing, which I can only hope is true, since that removes part of the shitty nature of it. But I can't help but think that bias is playing a part.[/QUOTE]

theres no reason. i was just asking. i just wanted to know if there was a specific reason why you thought that, because when i read the story thats not what popped in my head.
 
[quote name='IRHari']orly? orly taitz? which freedoms are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

The ones we don't have anymore.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Were the protesters protesting on private or public property?[/QUOTE]

I'd presume public. My roommate before I moved watched a documentary about Phelp's church, I caught part of it and seem to recall that they were well versed in staying on public property etc.
 
I got an idea.

Wait for one of the Judges relatives to kick the bucket, picket the funeral with hateful signs.

Ask him if he still feels the same way.
 
maybe the title of this thread should be "Way to go, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Maryland"



here Strell I will troll for you

Democratic Party
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.

Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser at his home in Topeka and was a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention


OMG It's a fuckING LIBERAL PLOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd presume public. My roommate before I moved watched a documentary about Phelp's church, I caught part of it and seem to recall that they were well versed in staying on public property etc.[/QUOTE]

You're allowed to be a dick on public property until somebody claims you're disturbing the peace or a cop instructs you to disperse.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']We're not. But it's silly to make assumptions one way or the other without knowing the details of the case and decision.

On it's surface it seems like the WBC's despicable actions weren't anything to sue over given our free speech rights, so if I had to make an assumption I'd have to say the decision was right.

Even if they were biased, free speech is free speech, so the decision was right even if the motivation behind it was not. The problem is when bias leads to a decision that is wrong legally, and on the surface that's not what happened here.[/QUOTE]

No, the problem is that when it comes to settling up the judges are not applying any common fucking sense.

I'll say it up front - it was probably the wrong thing to sue Phelps over and I can see a panel of judges ruling the way they did. It's best to protect free speech, especially when you could get the cops to charge the cult with crimes like inciting violence or disturbing the peace (which I believe can include jail time). However the judges could have charged court fees of a dollar and called it a day. The guy lost his son and IMO his case had merit - way to put the screws to an American who has sacrificed too much already. Do these goddamn judges really want to give the tea baggers more ammunition?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're allowed to be a dick on public property until somebody claims you're disturbing the peace or a cop instructs you to disperse.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

I believe the documentary showed that most Police Departments just provided security etc. and didn't try to get them to disperse or cite them for disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace for fear of law suits over free speech, freedom of assembly etc.
 
If they win in the Supreme Court does that mean we can protest Fred Phelps' funeral when he dies?
(He's 80, so it's only a matter of time.)
 
[quote name='Strell']I struggled on whether or not I should put this in the Classy Republicans thread. But I figure that would be seen as pure trolling. So let's talk about it here.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't have fit in that thread anyways seeing as Fred Phelps considers himself a Democrat. ;)

[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd presume public. My roommate before I moved watched a documentary about Phelp's church, I caught part of it and seem to recall that they were well versed in staying on public property etc.[/QUOTE]

The Phelpses are very knowledgeable when it comes to these sorts of laws. After all, Fred Phelps started as a lawyer, and his daugher still is. The reason that are so familiar with these sorts of laws is that they want people to attack them. A large part of what they are doing is trying to push people's buttons to the point of incitement, that way, when someone attacks them, they can sue for assault.
 
A true display of how the right to freedom of speech/assembly is a legal double edged sword. Like most, on the one hand it sickens me but on the other it's a decision that upholds our rights. The judge was kinda of screwed either way, if he rules in favor of Snyder he seemingly violates someone's rights if not he seems like an evil villain facilitating some asshat like Phelps. As for the money I can also see why that was so, it's always been the case that the loser in an civil appeals case like this pays the other party's court fees and any fees incurred for bonds and the like, that happens 99.9% of the time. Again I'm not saying I personally agree with it on any level, but it is standard legal precedent.
 
There are no, and never should be, limits to free speech, no matter how vile and offensive it is - except for one single exception: inciting violence.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I got an idea.

Wait for one of the Judges relatives to kick the bucket, picket the funeral with hateful signs.

Ask him if he still feels the same way.[/QUOTE]

I usually don't like these types of arguements but I feel that sometimes they can be illuminating. This is one of those cases.

Like in the million dollar pants case, sometimes a strict literal adherence to the written law can result in taking a legal case to a real-life reductio ad absurdum.

If anyone charged Phelps with disturbing the peace at a funeral, any judge worth his salt would uphold the charge. Unfortunately the case was centered around free speech and I can see why the judges would rule as they did. But this is the .01 percent of cases where court fees should not be levied. If the judges can't see that then they don't deserve their robes.
 
[quote name='camoor']I usually don't like these types of arguements but I feel that sometimes they can be illuminating. This is one of those cases.

Like in the million dollar pants case, sometimes a strict literal adherence to the written law can result in taking a legal case to a real-life reductio ad absurdum.

If anyone charged Phelps with disturbing the peace at a funeral, any judge worth his salt would uphold the charge. Unfortunately the case was centered around free speech and I can see why the judges would rule as they did. But this is the .01 percent of cases where court fees should not be levied. If the judges can't see that then they don't deserve their robes.[/QUOTE]
I don't know specifically for this case, but all the articles I've read and the documentary I've seen, it seems the WBC people stay within site of, but far enough away from the funeral. Might be because they can not be charged with DTP? I dont know, I'm no lawyer. It just seems like the WBC people know to cross their t's and dot their i's on these things, they've been doing them for a while.

On a somewhat related, but side note, there is a special place in Hell for Fred Phelps and his "followers"(which is mostly his family)
 
I would have thought that the judge would have sensed what Phelps was doing, and since the funeral and the protest had nothing to do about either, that it should have been tossed out and both parties would pay their own fees.

I think there was a case,... in Kansas or maybe WI that had a similar issue... protest at funeral.

I think there was a bill passed that had to be so far away from it. Can't remember the details.
 
Apparently, Bill O has offered to step up and pay these fees for the father if the courts don't reverse this decision.

Wonder how much Krugman is going to donate.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Apparently, Bill O has offered to step up and pay these fees for the father if the courts don't reverse this decision.

Wonder how much Krugman is going to donate.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how much they get paid.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I wonder how much they get paid.[/QUOTE]

If Krugman gets paid 1% of what O gets paid, then I would say he could donate 1% of the legal fees (~$160). Think he's up for it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If Krugman gets paid 1% of what O gets paid, then I would say he could donate 1% of the legal fees (~$160). Think he's up for it?[/QUOTE]

I dunno, have you asked him? I guess you're paying part of it too?
 
Actually, when I first heard about this story, I started looking to see if there was a fund set up to donate for this guy's legal fees and such. That's where I read that Bill was offering to cover the costs.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I dunno, have you asked him? I guess you're paying part of it too?[/QUOTE]

Bob can handle $3.50.

EDIT: Where does Krugman play into this?
 
I'd imagine that somebody set one up. I dunno why you're asking about particular people though. Is Beck paying too? Olbermann? Oprah? Tom Cruise?
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] That's where I read that Bill was offering to cover the costs.[/QUOTE]

I foresee a Jack Thompson/Child's Play repeat.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What does Krugman have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]

Just wondering. So many people on here love to vilify Bill, but hold Paul up as a disciple of the light and all that is good and wonderful.

One can at least give Bill props for this, even if it's just an attention grabbing stunt.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What does Krugman have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]

Bob is on a Jihad against anyone with an IQ larger then their body temperature.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Just wondering. So many people on here love to vilify Bill, but hold Paul up as a disciple of the light and all that is good and wonderful.

One can at least give Bill props for this, even if it's just an attention grabbing stunt.[/QUOTE]

I think O'Reilly is generally an idiot (politically) and Krugman generally isn't. How far you want to run with that is up to you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Bob, once again, you got nothin'.[/QUOTE]

Funny - Bill supports private charity and giving. Krugman supports taking by force of government.
Here's a great example of someone giving via private charity. Weird.

Here's Snyder's FaceBook page with information on donating to the family's legal fund, for those interested (and where I read that Bill is offering to foot the tab)...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=355406162379&ref=ts
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Just wondering. So many people on here love to vilify Bill, but hold Paul up as a disciple of the light and all that is good and wonderful.

One can at least give Bill props for this, even if it's just an attention grabbing stunt.[/QUOTE]
Taking advantage of a bad situation to make yourself look good?

Yeah mad props for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top