A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[Errata]

The individuals you describe here are getting themselves into a state of distress on behalf of others they perceive to be suffering in some way. And it's one thing to work yourself up into a lather about your own suffering, or the suffering of others, and directing your protests at the people you believe are causing it, or are supposed to be preventing it - but quite another to deliberately target people who are doing you no harm whatsoever and are doing nobody else any harm either.

But legal definitions can only be subject to so much interpretation before they are worthless. If Westboro's activities are banned because they cause emotional distress to someone, that is a HUGE hole. If we are only allowed to protest if no one becomes emotionally distressed, no one will ever be allowed to protest. Do you have any idea how upsetting a lot of people find the average Gay Pride parade? How personally threatening they find it? So how do you write a law that makes writing an article of faith on a placard illegal, but protect a gold painted man in a thong?

We certainly do not consider these dead kids to have harmed Westboro in any way. But these guys do. They think we are at war because God is punishing us for our acceptance of homosexuals, Jews, really any other religious faction, having anything to do with other countries, etc. And that by participating in the War makes soldiers defenders of homosexuals, therefor homosexuals. Are they batsh!t? Yes. Can we prove they are wrong? No. So they perceive themselves to injured parties. And injured parties have always had the right to protest.

Look, these guys are after me. Two or three times over. I am a whole lot of things they despise. Every sign I have ever seen them hold up is an attack on me personally. I do not feel abused by these people. In order for me to be emotionally assaulted by them, I have to give a crap what they think. And I don't. I think they are all certifiable.

Nobody wants to hear people saying horrible things about their dead child. It's heartbreaking. And some states have put limits on how close to cemeteries protesters can get. But we think of a knot of people chanting and holding these signs, and for the most part it's not. It's two or three people. Last time they were here it was two women with about 10 signs. It's disrespectful, and it's unnecessary. And they are really really easy to mess with. But they are for the most part, ignorable. What they say is not true. These families have more important things to bend their attention to. I think these lawsuits are a result of far more anger than these idiots deserve. And quite frankly, I think it's harmful to the families to pursue this.

I don't think that we should let 80 people in the whole nation define the limits of free speech. Most people were horrified by the Mapplethorpe exhibit, but in the end didn't allow it to define the boundaries of art. In my mind these guys have to recruit a whole lot more people in order to justify the legal nightmare of trying to define why it should be banned.

[caz]

But abuse is against the law. The question is whether or not this is abuse.

Anyone here seriously think this one is not a clear, unambiguous case of abuse? At the very least these scum are abusing and making a mockery of a right that the law has seen fit to give them and has not yet seen fit to take away.

We do - surely - have the wit to differentiate between lawful protest about one group's perceived mistreatment of another (eg women who choose to have abortions and the people who enable them) and the wilful victimisation of people who are just being themselves, minding their own business and mistreating nobody.

The individuals you describe here are getting themselves into a state of distress on behalf of others they perceive to be suffering in some way. And it's one thing to work yourself up into a lather about your own suffering, or the suffering of others, and directing your protests at the people you believe are causing it, or are supposed to be preventing it - but quite another to deliberately target people who are doing you no harm whatsoever and are doing nobody else any harm either.

What legitimate 'cause' is being aired at these funerals? Whose cause is it, and who is suffering - apart from the mourners? The protesters don't seem to be suffering, more's the pity. They're having a ball. So what are the mourners meant to have done to them, or to anyone else for that matter?

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

My mind goes back to the early 19th century in Britain, where the law had been allowed to get in such a mess that if you dug up a body in a cemetery and took it away, you hadn't broken any law - unless it was wrapped in a shroud. Then you could be charged with theft of the shroud. It looks like you guys have the same useless twerps running your country.

[Errata]

But abuse is against the law. The question is whether or not this is abuse. I would not in the least be surprised if these idiots have in fact committed acts of abuse. But holding up offensive signs in a protest isn't it. Legally, emotional/psychological abuse is only a prosecutable crime when it's against children. In adults it's either part of a divorce petition or a civil suit. Husbands don't get put in jail for ridiculing and insulting their wives. They do go to jail for hitting them. I'm pretty sure this is based on the idea that adults have options that children don't. And they should exercise them.

The abortion issue is an incredibly important and incredibly complex one. As a pro-choice person, I can understand the objections, I really do. But I don't think health care should be limited by the government. It seems a logical non offensive stance to take, but I can assure you that people get incredibly upset at the notion. People honestly believe I am advocating murder. People honestly are overcome, sobbing and heartbroken, furious, hysterics. I have seen people hyperventilate, I have see them throw up, I have seen them dig their nails into their palms until they are bleeding. One man had a heart attack. Clearly this is highly distressing, and I hate that for them. I really do. I don't want to hurt people. But this is a series of laws that affects me too, and I have the right to express my opinion, and if I want to call attention to the argument, I have the right to do it in public.

So are the Phelpsians the same as Pro-Choice protesters? God I hope not. But limiting the westboro idiots based on it being hurtful and offensive is going to wipe out any number of other groups. Anti Death Penalty. Pro Choice. Anti Censorship. Gay Pride parades. And I am not real fond of the notion that these people should not be able to express themselves in a public forum.

[Robert]

Caz, I suspect that the same situation obtains in the USA that obtains here : so-called Rolls Royce brains in politics and the law being paid ridiculous money in return for sod all.

[caz]

Hi All,

Why is it necessary for lawyers to chew this over for months before reaching a decision? If the law dictates that "thou shall not suffer a scumbag to lose his freedom of speech under any circumstances" comes above "thou shall not wilfully invade privacy or inflict distress upon anyone who is simply minding their own damned business and doing you no harm", then it may be an ass, but it's a cut and dried ass and there's nothing to consider. If a grey area exists then this case provides an opportunity to sort it out and get it right for the future.

Surely it's not beyond the wit of man (or the lawyers) to word the law so it works for the people and not the other way round? If 99.9% of thinking people (and okay, more like 51% of lawyers) would sooner have the right not to be abused by scumbags who refuse to mind their own business, than to keep the right to do the same to others, then why can't the law be made to reflect that? If Abby and I can easily differentiate between the airing of sincerely held but unpopular or controversial views, and the malicious and sustained victimisation of people who are harming nobody, then is the law such an ass that it can't differentiate on our behalf?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mrs. E. Nigma]

Sorry if this has already been posted. The charges that have been brought against the "church" are: defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The docket can be found at http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf.

If I remember correctly, it's more about what happened after the protest. I think they went as far as posting some pretty horrible things about Al Snyder and his family on their website as well. It wouldn't surprise me is Westboro baptist wins this. Our judicial system is so flawed that it lets dirt bags like these people slide through unscathed. Anybody else ever checked out their website? They're pretty loony.

Again, my apologies if this has already been posted.

Best Wishes,
Erynn

[Errata]

Fair enough but let me continue with the analogy I used with my job. There is a sidewalk in front of our parking lot that technically the city owns. If some people showed up on that walk with signs I shouldn't be able to ask them to leave? I think I should
Jordan

You can ask, but you can't compel. There's sort of varying levels of demonstration, and maybe laws vary depending on the state. I know that here, if I was holding a picket sign on the sidewalk in front of a wal-mart, they would call the cops. Who would come, and if they were feeling professional that day, would ask me if I had a permit. Now if I'm an old pro, I have one. If I don't have one, they tell me to get one. And they probably helpfully tell me where to get one. If they weren't feeling terribly professional they would just see if I was a threat to public safety, and if I wasn't they would leave me alone.

Strikers might have different rules. Every union strike I have ever seen has been right outside the gates to the factory or whatever, but still on the property. I don't know if that a negotiated thing between companies and unions, or if it's due to this being a remarkably sidewalk-free city.

Protesters of any kind are less offensive to me than religious door to door types. I didn't invite them on my property. They ring the bell, and I have to get up from whatever I'm doing to interrupt some stranger's speech on the glory of whatever religion their pushing to tell them to leave. And they do, but I have been inconvenienced. If I don't like what a protester is saying or has written on a sign, I can just not pay attention. Like I don't pay attention to baseball games that are on in an Applebees. But someone knocking on the door could be important. It could be angry cops. So I have to run out of the shower or drop my cooking even get up from the couch. I have to make an effort to reject them. And I feel bad, because this is obviously important to them, but I was watching something. And this is evidently one of the last cities in the US where having a mezzuzah on the door means NOTHING to these people.

Seriously. Let the Klan march. But please keep the Jehovah's Witnesses off my front porch. Unless they need to use the restroom. Or get some water. That's okay.

[ChainzCooper]

That's why I said in front of private property. Not on it.

Fair enough but let me continue with the analogy I used with my job. There is a sidewalk in front of our parking lot that technically the city owns. If some people showed up on that walk with signs I shouldn't be able to ask them to leave? I think I should
Jordan

[Errata]

Uh not really private businesses have the right to ask people to leave if they so wish. That is if someone is creating a disturbance, harassing customers, panhandling, etc. You don't have the right to go into or in front of a store and hold up signs protesting them. I work for my family's floral business and if some people showed up in the parking lot or came inside holding up signs saying they didn't like our prices, that we used flowers from a country that used child labor or whatever I would ask them to leave. If they did not the police would be called. If they still stayed they would be arrested. This isn't a difficult issue to understand here
Jordan

That's why I said in front of private property. Not on it.

[ChainzCooper]

It's limited in front of schools as far as distance goes. You have to get a permit to demonstrate, and there is a certain zone around public schools that are considered "no-fly" zones for any number of things, from having a weapon to having a beer.(depending on the state) My hometown was somewhat notorious for having a huge strip joint in the parking lot of a middle/high school. As the strip club was there first (it was in fact one of the oldest in the country) there was nothing the school could do about it. There are many states that would have forced them to move. And people can in fact hurl abuse from the sidewalks at a private residence all day long if they like, as long as they don't tresspass or break other laws.

The problem with limiting it in front of schools is pretty basic. The student protests in the late sixties on college campuses were some of the most productive and positive examples of civil disobedience in our history. If they were barred either because it took place at a public school, or on a private institution's grounds, that would have been a tremendous loss. The problem with limiting it in front of private property is that businesses are on provate property. If you want to protest wal-mart using child labor, you should be able to do it in front of wal mart. And wal-mart shouldnt get to decide how close to their property we as citizens are allowed to get.

Uh not really private businesses have the right to ask people to leave if they so wish. That is if someone is creating a disturbance, harassing customers, panhandling, etc. You don't have the right to go into or in front of a store and hold up signs protesting them. I work for my family's floral business and if some people showed up in the parking lot or came inside holding up signs saying they didn't like our prices, that we used flowers from a country that used child labor or whatever I would ask them to leave. If they did not the police would be called. If they still stayed they would be arrested. This isn't a difficult issue to understand here
Jordan

[Robert]

Hi Nats

I don't mind the idea of counter demonstration (although to do it during a funeral might just make the funeral even rowdier). I just don't like the language of "mobilising" people, or "organizing" them. Do you remember a few decades ago when the buzz phrase was "raising consciousness"? Students and other such folk were going to raise workers' consciousness. When you looked at the students, you wondered whether the dope they smoked had left them any consciousness of their own, never mind other people's.

[c.d.]

Thank you, Abby.

These are not easy questions and it is always a balancing act. One that even the courts and legal scholars find difficult.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Robert,

The problem is that if you keep on adding limitations to free speech then at some point free speech will no longer exist. Think of it as a piece of paper that your are holding in your hand. If you keep tearing off little pieces at some point you are going to be left with a little scrap of paper that you can hold in your hand.

The right to free speech is a great right. There are a lot of countries where it does not exist. But like anything of high value, it comes with a cost.

c.d.

Hi CD
That was actually quite eloquent. I don't neccessarily agree with you, but good analogy.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=caz;150281]Hi c.d., All,

I suppose, for me, it boils down to how much the 'victims' of someone else's free speech have to suffer, or are expected to suffer, before the law comes to their aid.

And suffering is of course relative when it goes beyond the directly physical kind.


Exactly Caz.However, although Robert I know is unhappy about the idea of counter-demonstration,it still seems the best way of dealing with the question of allowing free speech or not allowing free speech.
Brave posts Caz,
Best,
Norma