I resent your slander. I am not and never have been sane!
Well, first, i’ve seen no indication whatsoever that the protest was on private property. The lawyer for the church (who is also a member of WBC) claims that the group were 1000 feet away from the funeral at all times. It’s possible she’s wrong or lying about that, but i’ve not yet found any rebuttal of that claim in any online articles. So your hypothetical becomes irrelevant.
As one law professor noted:
Second, this is not about firing an employee; it’s about suing someone for infliction of emotional distress. Two quite different things. If you need the difference between the two concepts explained to you, just say so.
Not only that, but the judge in the case specifically ruled that the WBC people did not defame the Snyders, nor invade their privacy:
Fair enough. Carry on.
OK! (Goes back to hitting himself on the head with the ballpeen hammer while dreaming of Shirley Phelps-Roper and the Cheez Whiz.)
I keep coming back to thinking of it like the protected zone around a polling place where campaigning is prohibited. A funeral/memorial service is a time when religious flavor (or absence of flavor) is likely to be present, a polling place of sorts, if you will, where the grieving are behind their individual curtains regarding death and loss, be they secular or non-secular curtains. Phred and his phollowers campaign long and hard for an allegedly supernatural candidate, and they should not be able to do so within x feet of any funeral/memorial service.
Of course this analogy loses appeal when it comes to reigning in what funeral protests might come to pass that were non-secular in nature, and then there’s the whole matter of how the applicable laws would define what exactly a funeral/memorial service would be as protected by said laws, but I digress.
I don’t think so at all. Freedom of speech, assembly and religion apply to the funeralgoers and protesters alike, and the government must be sensitive to the rights of all.
No, it wouldn’t be. Perhaps “my” house isn’t the best example? 
If I lived over there, though, yes, I think it would. This seems more of an emotional plea than an argument - if your point it just to try and get others to understand what the funeral-goers must be going through, that experience had crossed my mind.
I seem to recall that in law there are in fact seperate laws dealing with disruption of schools (in fact I think it was brought up by someone in another thread debating this). I don’t really know, though, but I would say that I would like it to be protected.
Mhendo, do you understand what a question is? I was asking a question. I’m not familiar with everything about the case which is why I asked a question. Sometimes, a question is actually just a question where the person asking is trying to find out information and not using it to support any parties involved.
I’m well aware of the difference between firing an employee and suing for emotional distress. I just asked if owners of private property have the right to control speech/expression on their property like private companies can control to some extent what their employees say. Which is why I asked the question.
And amazingly, with all your quoting and citeing you never actually answered the question asked.
So let me rephrase it for the comprehensially impaired.
If (see if the word if? It means I don’t know or I do know but am asking about a hypothetical situation) the funeral was on private property, and the protesters were on the private property, does the owner of said property have the right to control what is said or expressed on their property like private companies can, to some extant, control what employees say?
Yes I’m being pissy, but I asked a question which really could have been answered yes or no instead of being responded to in a way that made it sound like I was coming down on one side or the other without answering the question I asked.
But your question was asked in the context of a response to Miller’s post. By asking it the way that you did, you made it sound as if you were taking issue with Miller’s interpretation of the case.
And if you weren’t doing that, then i don’t understand the point of the question at all, in the context of this thread. The people we’re talking about weren’t employees, nor were they on private property. It’s essentially a completely different topic.
Anyway, sure the owner of private property can restrict what people say on his or her property. After all, the owner always has the option of asking the offensive person to simply leave the property. He or she can say, essentially, “Don’t say stuff like that, or you have to leave,” and can then ask the person to leave if they don’t comply. And if they don’t leave, the property owner can call on law enforcement to remove them.
Like Weirddave said, this is a civil suit, and I don’t think freedom of speech is a defense against infliction of emotional distress claims.
I’m sure you’re right. In fact, the verdict in this case makes clear that you are (at least until the appeal).
But, IMO, freedom of speech should be a defense in cases like this. What good is a First Amendment right if someone can sue you into bankruptcy for exercising it on public property?
Well, there wasn’t anything that happened when they disrupted Phillips Exeter during a protest back in 2000 (or maybe 01). They were protesting the school changing its rules about allowing the cohabitation of same-sex faculty. The school’s response to the WBC showing up was to remove all of the students from the classroom areas and gather them in the gym (away from the protest). This was certainly a disruption of the normal school functioning.
Unless Exeter wasn’t protected by whatever laws you might remember because it’s a private school, I’m not sure there are laws like that (unless they just weren’t acted on, but that seems unlikely). I agree with you that I’d like schools to be protected as well.
I realise there are many things wrong - in terms of principle - with saying this, but I can’t think of another way to express it: If free speech is so great, why does it always seem that the high-profile notable examples of it consist of vile bollocks like Phred spews?
I mean, I do think free speech is great, it just seems like people generally aren’t making best use of it.
I’m surprised the court didn’t overturn the verdict immediately. Stifling protest that picks at one’s sensitivities is Bushesque in its conception.
And Mange, I think there are great usages of speech. That’s how Gore won his Nobel.
Wouldn’t Phelps use of “God Hates Fags” banners and the like constitute “fighting words” which are clearly not protected by freedom of speech?
What’s that about? If I recall, the shortest verse is “Jesus wept.” Is that Phelp’s slogan? Maybe it should be.
Much as I sympathize with the dead Marine’s father, and much as I loathe the grotesque, insane freakshow comprising the Phelps family, I can’t bring myself to agree with a ruling that punishes people for the ideas they express.
Has anyone ever challenged Phreddy boy about his claim that God Hates Fags besides the usual AIDS/War/Random act of violence.
Would it be legally possible for someone in law who had the skill and loads of free time and if they had loads of free time they couldn’t be that good of a lawyer, but I digress., to do a legal battle with this douchebag, ala the Darwin vs Creationism argument back in the 20’s? 30’s?
Just curious.
Sure they are. Like the other night when I and friends sat around a table at a public restaurant and strongly criticized this administration and not a one of us was picked up by a goon squad later. Or anyone who expresses an opinion at any time and isn’t punished for it. It’s such an everyday freedom that most people don’t realize they’re using it when they are. I think that’s what it’s for as much as organized larger protests against (or for) whatever.
Just a bit of mpsims, but this case was even reported in my (Australian) daily broadsheet this morning, still pending the outcome though.
One of the many advantages of being a Doper of course is that you folks report it first!! 
Oh, and regardless of the *letter * of the law, the spirit of such rights as free speech are veritably shat upon by the likes of Phelps and his cronies. It is good to have our rights and responsibilites writ down in black and white, but the measure of our humanness is shown when we are able to appreciate the nuances of such codes. Phelps Inc is not speaking freely as much as it is attempting to drown out others with their fervent bile. If they were to petition and lobby like other special interest groups I would have no problem with their Anti Fag agenda. Under those circumstances, they can believe and say what they like, and they have every right to those beliefs and statements.
However, their craven demonstrations at funerals etc is beyond the pale…certainly morally, and I would maintain LEGALLY as well, if one can appeal to the notion of the spirit of the law as well as the letter.