No, it ruled that no intentional emotional distress was dircted at the plaintiffs.
I don’t know why you think you can’t cut & paste from a PDF, by the way. Here’s a relevant bit I just C&Ped:
No, ypou’re misunderstanding again. The Court was ruling that Snyder copul;dn’t recover because there wasn’t any intentional infliction of distress. Nothing was directed at them. If it had been personal or “private,” then it could have conceivably been tortiable, but it wasn’t.
It was not impermissable because it was not harassment. You don’t understand what you’re reading.
ETA how the hell do you cut and paste from a pdf? I can never highlight anything. I should state up front, I am almost totally computer illiterate.
Dio, I’m going to drop the rope on the legal issue, partly because I am not a lawyer, partly because you are not a lawyer, but mostly because I don’t give a fig. But I will say that the legal definition of a term can differ from the vernacular, and I don’t know how anyone could see what the WBCers are doing and call it anything other than inflicting emotional distress. Hell, the odious daughter who is the spokeseman for the church has specifically said that her aimis to make people angry and full of hate and thus accelerate Judgment day.
I don’t know what you’re doing wrong on cutting & pasting from PDFs. I just pulled up one in Adobe and I was able to highlight easily and paste it here. The one you pulled up earlier I opened in Firefox, and I was about to cut & paste from it as well. I can only assume that you have offended Hephaestus and/or Hermes; to be safe you should sacrifice a virgin goat to both. And don’t try that silly trick of hiding the bones under the fat, either.
Yes. Yes, getting angry at deliberate purveyors of hatred for spreading anguish at bereaved people is exactly like hating me for being white. In Bizarro World.
Legally speaking, the difference is that they didn’t make it personal. It’s like how on this board, you can make general statements about groups ( D&D players are dorks"), but you can’t make it about a specific user (“DungeonMaster69 is a dork”).
The Phelps did not mention the Snyders by name or say anything specific about them. They made only general comments about the military. The Court said that was not enouygh to sustain a tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it was not directed in any specific or direct way against the plaintiffs, and did not disrupt their activities. The Phelps know exactly what they’re doing and know exactly how to keep themselves legally in the clear. They aren’t screaming profanities at the bereaved. They’re standing several blocks away saying stuff about the government.
I prefer to think that the Gods like me better than Dio.
Diogenes, which part of I was speaking of the vernacular meaning of inflicting emotional distress was unclear to you?
Also, you seem to be arguing in favor of the decision. Which is your privilege & all, but since I wrote upthread that I feel the decision, however personally irritating to me, was the correct one, I’m not sure whom you’re arguing with. It would be like me saying to Qadgop the Mercotan “Tolkien was a far greater writer than Lewis!” and QtC responding, “You fool! Lewis is far inferior to Tolkien as an author!”
Everyone remember A little less then a year ago when Constance McMillen was graduating High school and Westboro showed up to protest the lesbian student? Those hero’s in Mississippi assaulted Phelp’s followers and blocked their cars then too right?
In case anyone’s wondering no they didn’t, though some people did line the street in support of Constance to try and drown out the Westboro picket line. Most of them where not from Mississippi however.
Yep Mississippi is full of hero’s battling against the horrors of the Phelps clan, unless of course Phelps is targeting a girl who wanted to go to prom with her partner, then that bitch deserves what she gets.
But, yes, I do think that the idea that it’s okay to harass and intimidate people with the tacit approval, or even active involvement, or law enforcement officials, so long as a sufficient majority of the population finds the victims disagreeable, is entirely unacceptable, regardless of whether the victims are defined by the color of their skin, or the content of their character.
Seems what the Phelpses do could be taken as analogous to “fighting words” - that is, words that by their very nature are intended to create a breach of the peace, and are thus not worthy of constitutional protection.
Insulting the dead at their funeral is anmong those very rare and limited classes of speech that is pretty well understood by everyone to be so vile, so beyond the pale of human decency, that it is perfectly understandable that it would incite other people to violence. That is what other folks in this thread are reacting to, though they may not have the legal chops to express it.
I’d have agreed with the dissent in Snyder. IMO, the majority got this one wrong.
They were several blocks away - not that I think this matters all that much or is determinative - but they most certainly were insulting this person, personally.
Carrying signs that state:
… in deliberate conjuction with a dead Catholic soldier’s funeral is obviously an insult to their memory, and intended to be.
The majority decision is the worst sort of law-making: relying on distinctions that make no difference to anyone in the real world: “it was blocks away” - as if the family would thus not hear of it - and “it was of matters of public import” such as God’s hatred of dead soldiers and Catholics - as if the family, and everyone with a brain, would not be able to connect the dots and figure out that a particular dead Catholic soldier is the subject of this vomit.
Same with the “god hates fags” thing at a dead gay person’s funeral of course (or, to be exact, a few blocks from a dead gay person’s funeral).
It is exactly this sort of ‘neener neener we can do this - look how we can spit on your dead kid’s memory, as long as we do it over here, and there is fuck-all you can legally do about it!’ attitude which is making ordinary people sympathize with illegal and immoral actions against 'em (as in this thread, where several have said ‘I know that it would be wrong and all to see them beat up, but I just don’t care’).
This is what happens when you have form over substance in law - it brings law into disrepute and people start thinking extra-legal stuff is sorta okay.
Clearly, the British population of Mississippi, separated by a considerable distance from the mother country, has begun to evolve in a different direction, mixing previously separated people and classes in new and exciting ways.
You’ll have to clue me in to how William Hague fits into the discussion. I would have absolutely no idea who he is, except I was reading one time about how impressionist Jon Culshaw of Dead Ringers nailed his voice so well that he managed to bluff his way into a phone conversation with then-PM Tony Blair (who, even though he figured out the deception right away, had a sufficiently good sense of humor to indulge the call until a staffer cut things off).
It’s not society’s business to prevent people from spitting on other people’s memories.
As far as fighting words are concerned, the fact that so many people have shown that it is possible to restrain themselves during the many years that the Phelpses have been up to their antics that fighting words can’t be argued with a straight face. And, frankly, this shows that as a people we can be pretty damn civilized. This fantasy that people have that we should set aside our values just sonwe can make the Phelpses shut up is in my view a fantasy for a worse society than we have now.
It isn’t the business of the Constitution to protect such spitting in the name of freedom of speech.
“Fighting words” does not actually require words that literally cause others to uncontrollably break out in violence. If it did, the doctrine would never apply, since I’m reasonably certain no such words exist.
The “fantasy” is that, if the Phelps were shut down legally, this would by some inevitable slippery slope damage society. It would do no such thing.
As much as it chaps my ass to admit it, the assholes have every legal right (and given that practically the ENTIRE damnable clan is a lawyer, they DO have every legal right, and they damn sure know exactly where that line falls so they can dance around on top of it) to be total asshats during other people’s times of sorrow.
I hate that people can troll in real life, but sadly, as much as I want to light them on fire, I have to admit that the rules for dealing with trolls IRL remain much the same as they do online. Ignore ignore ignore, and pretend that they’re not accomplishing anything. The downside is that there are always going to be people who aren’t able to control their tempers, and with those people, trolls always get what they want - a reaction.
