# Westboro Baptist Church being sued **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 26, 2007, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107 "2007-10-26T14:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/61 "2007-10-28T22:44:24Z")
If a lawsuit can win against the WBC for them being obnoxious, a lot of Dopers have something to worry about. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/62 "2007-10-28T23:01:25Z")
[QUOTE=Mama Tiger] I just wonder if there’s a level of abusive behavior shielded by it that perhaps bears exposing to the light and questioning and limiting when it tramples on the rights of others. [/quote] Might you enumerate, specifically, the “rights of others” that are being wantonly trampled underfoot? > [@](#): > > …witness **Diosa Bellissima** ’s friend’s experience. At what point does their right to do so conflict with the general public’s right not to be so exposed, and particularly the families of dead soldiers? Again, from whence does this “right not to be so exposed” come? In **Diosa Bellissima** ’s friend’s case, I’m down with charges of harassment, if warranted. And I truly feel for her friend and think it’s horrible that the Phelps’ believe what they do. Yet, the reactionary anti-protest is _exactly_ the appropriate course of action. Furthermore, it might even have been a situation that _did_ qualify as “incitement”. But probably not: assuming the Phelps coven obtained the proper permits and followed the rules, it would be the _anti-protestors_ who would be endangering public safety. > [@](#): > > …my personal wish would be that someone could find a way to use such limits to stop the Phelps from the public exercise of their own personal brand of emotional torture of innocents. And that is exactly why **DtC** railed against your post. If you truly are a proponent of the first amendment, your wish would be that no one _held_, nor _expressed_ such foul ideology, not that they should be forcibly muzzled. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/63 "2007-10-28T23:14:44Z")
[QUOTE=Mama Tiger] Considering the anger raised by the Phelps’ demonstrations, I think a reasonable person could also conclude that public safety standards might safely be applied to their demonstrations, however. [/quote] How so? > [@](#): > > As I said initially, however, I’m a strong proponent of the First Amendment. Obviously not, since you seem to want to repeal it. I just wonder if there’s a level of abusive behavior shielded by it that perhaps bears exposing to the light and questioning and limiting when it tramples on the rights of others. The Phelps are a prime example of this. IMO, they’re abusing free speech and exercise of religion in order to cause severe emotional pain and exacerbate the grief of already devastated people – witness **Diosa Bellissima** ’s friend’s experience. At what point does their right to do so conflict with the general public’s right not to be so exposed, and particularly the families of dead soldiers? [/quote] This is rhetorical gibberish. There is no such thing as “abuse” of free speech or religious practice. The only exceptions (which you seem to have a poor grasp of) are when expression infringes on the rights of other or endangers the public. Phelps calling people fags does not endanger anybody. You have no right to not be offended. You are not being “abused” by hearing an opinion you don’t like. > [@](#): > > I think this is a murky area of the law On the contrary, it’s a very CLEAR area. Congress shall make NO LAW. > [@](#): > > because there is no clear right or wrong that applies under all circumstances, and it’s extremely naive to say that a literal reading of the First Amendment should be all that’s needed. It’s the only reading possible. > [@](#): > > There are a lot of other considerations to take into account, as courts have been doing for many, many years now. No one is suggesting the Phelps can’t believe what they want to, especially me. No, you just think they shouldn’t be allowed to say it in public. > [@](#): > > I just wonder where their right to inflict pain on others is overridden by the needs of the community. You’re using the phrase “inflict pain” as if it actually means something with regards to free speech. It doesn’t. Being offended is not being harmed. You are not injured by hearing an opinion you disagree with. > [@](#): > > Which is why I’m not a judge or a First Amendment scholar. I have a personal opinion, and I recognize that not everyone agrees with me. That’s fine. But I don’t want the fact that legislative bodies and courts can and do impose limits on First Amendment behavior under certain circumstances – not _beliefs_, behavior – No, they really don’t. Not for speech alone. > [@](#): > > and my personal wish would be that someone could find a way to use such limits to stop the Phelps from the public exercise of their own personal brand of emotional torture of innocents. Might I suggest you move to a country like Saudi Arabia? I don’t think the US sounds like a good fit for you. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/64 "2007-10-29T00:08:46Z")
The dots are still not joining for me… -I’m sure there are cases where fundamental rights other than freedom of speech are limited so as to prevent harm to innocent third parties -I’m sure there are cases where emotional distress or other non-physical effects are considered to be ‘harm’ But there is no legitimate argument for limiting freedom of speech in cases where it is very likely to cause emotional distress? Why is it different? It still doesn’t make sense to me. Is it a special case - distinct from all the other fundamental rights? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/65 "2007-10-29T00:22:29Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] The dots are still not joining for me… -I’m sure there are cases where fundamental rights other than freedom of speech are limited so as to prevent harm to innocent third parties -I’m sure there are cases where emotional distress or other non-physical effects are considered to be 'harm But there is no legitimate argument for limiting freedom of speech in cases where it is very likely to cause emotional distress? Why is it different? It still doesn’t make sense to me. Is it a special case - distinct from all the other fundamental rights? [/QUOTE] I don’t believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, is ever enough to claim civil damages. I know that damages can be awarded for emotional suffering if they occur as a result of something which is already a tort, but since speech is not tortiable (unless it’s libelous or defamatory), then the emotional damage is irrelevant. If you don’t want to hear free speech, stay off of public property. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/66 "2007-10-29T00:32:13Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I don’t believe that emotional distress, in and of itself, is ever enough to claim civil damages. I know that damages can be awarded for emotional suffering if they occur as a result of something which is already a tort, but since speech is not tortiable (unless it’s libelous or defamatory), then the emotional damage is irrelevant. [/quote] OK, this kinda makes sense to me (if indeed it is the case that emotional distress alone is never enough), but I’m not curious about why libellious and defamatory speech gets an exception - it’s just speech, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > If you don’t want to hear free speech, stay off of public property. If this was intended as some kind of advice to me personally, it’s really less than necessary. I’m just trying to understand how things fit together, not complaining about it. ---
**Author:** ![Mama\_Tiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Mama\_Tiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mama_Tiger)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/67 "2007-10-29T00:39:35Z")
So to offer an example of your argument in a different context, are you saying that because the Constitution as originally written doesn’t say an income tax can be imposed, therefore you shouldn’t have to pay taxes? Why are you insisting on sticking your head in the sand with regard to the hundreds of years of legal precedent _interpreting_ the Constitution – not just one amendment but the ENTIRE document – and insisting that it doesn’t apply because YOU don’t like it? Our system of jurisprudence isn’t just that one document, in case you didn’t learn that. The Constitution is only the _broad_ principles; the system of legal precedent is what defines and outlines the _scope of the application_ of those principles. I’m not saying throw the First Amendment out, and frankly, I regard your suggesting I I do and that I should just move to Saudi Arabia as a personal insult. I was discussing a very narrow interpretation of one aspect of the First Amendment, and not saying do what I would like; I’m saying look at what \*the courts \*are saying. The _courts_ are the ones who interpret the application of the First Amendment, and they may very well determine that the Phelps picketing a military funeral is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theater. My personal beliefs really ultimately don’t matter in this context, because apparently unlike you, I’m willing to accept that the courts have the final say in this discussion. That’s how the legal system in this country _works_. And again, you’re taking what I say and exaggerating it all out of recognition. I did NOT say the Phelps couldn’t say what they say in public, anywhere, ever. That’s YOUR broad brush, not mine. Unlike you, however, I do believe the legal system of this country has a right to limit where and when they can speak. There are certainly many other forums where they can say anything they want, and more power to them in those forums. I personally would like to see them restricted from this one public forum. Not all. ONE. You can put your broad brush away where I’m concerned, thank you very much. But all that being said, that still doesn’t stop me from thinking that people who go out of their way to be so hateful to total strangers at a private and supremely painful event shouldn’t be limited in _any legal way possible_. I am 100% behind the father in his lawsuit, and I hope he takes the Phelps to the cleaners. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/68 "2007-10-29T03:54:09Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] OK, this kinda makes sense to me (if indeed it is the case that emotional distress alone is never enough), but I’m not curious about why libellious and defamatory speech gets an exception - it’s just speech, isn’t it? [/QUOTE] I take it the “not” before “curious” isn’t supposed to be there, right? Rather than libel and defamation as exceptions, my guess is that it makes more sense to think of the guiding principle as: _one should not suffer a penalty for speaking the truth_. One might be considered tactless (or simply an asshole) for truth telling, but should not have the force of law brought down on one’s head. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/69 "2007-10-29T05:00:08Z")
[QUOTE=Baker] I think there will be a power struggle, but that they will(sort of) stay together, because their affairs are so tangle up together, and nobody will want to associate with them. Likely winners to be in charge? Margie Phelps, his second oldest daughter, or Charles Hockenbarger, Fred’s son-in-law, married to his daughter Rachel. Margie has the brains, but is handicapped by being a woman, and Phred doesn’t believe in female leaders. Charles is younger, more physically attractive, and thoroughly vicious. Despite her gender, I think Margie will win out. On their website she was once given a title as her byline for a report she wrote on one of their picketing shindigs. She was called “Most Favored Prophetess of the Lord High God, in these Last of the Last Days.” [/QUOTE] I would think that once he dies, that whole family is just going to blow up. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/70 "2007-10-29T06:00:25Z")
This is an informational question and not a rhetorical one: If I stood in a public park and called every passerby a _bitch_ or a _motherfucker_ and every other bad word or phrase I wanted to, would that be protected by freedom of speech? So, if I put it on a sign, _You’re a bitch!_ on one side and _You’re a motherfucker!_ on the other and waved it at every passerby, would that be protected by freedom of speech? The Phelps clan has signs that say Fag and depict (admittedly with stick figures) anal sex, isn’t that violating any laws about decency or infringing upon the rights of others? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/71 "2007-10-29T08:13:03Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] I take it the “not” before “curious” isn’t supposed to be there, right? [/quote] oops. Correct - I don’t know how that slipped in. > [@](#): > > Rather than libel and defamation as exceptions, my guess is that it makes more sense to think of the guiding principle as: _one should not suffer a penalty for speaking the truth_. > > One might be considered tactless (or simply an asshole) for truth telling, but should not have the force of law brought down on one’s head. I don’t really understand how this stops libel and defamation being exceptions - could you explain? Also, are you drawing a distinction between _telling the truth_ and _saying whatever you want to say_. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/72 "2007-10-29T16:01:58Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I don’t really understand how this stops libel and defamation being exceptions - could you explain? Also, are you drawing a distinction between _telling the truth_ and _saying whatever you want to say_. [/QUOTE] Well, again, I’m just hazarding a guess that may (or may not) make sense to you. Flip side of the coin, as it were; I think that you might well insist that they’re exceptions and be correct, but I’m just taking another perspective. Applying the same method, I’d draw the distinction between _saying whatever you want to say_ and _telling blatant (and injurious) falsehoods_. Thinking about it a bit more, I’d say that these opposing viewpoints aren’t quite opposite equivalents. That is, from my POV, we assume that the default position is to protect any and all speech; said protection is only removed once the speech has been proven to be false. ISTM that the POV you’ve given tends to leave matters in the grey areas (specifically, opinions) easier to restrict. Hence, the difference between protesting in front of a store with a sign that reads “The owner is a thief” vs. “I think the owner is a thief”. The first is an objective matter of law (was the owner convicted of stealing?); the second is explicitly stated as an opinion, which others may or may not accept. A bit of a historical note (according to my understanding): the notion of libel (specifically, _seditious libel_) was in play in pre-colonial England (_c.f. prior restraint_). A person was allowed to express opinions against the ruling class, but could be prosecuted and convicted _after the fact_ for sedition, even if _what they said was true_. Obviously not a good position for colonists just prior to the revolution. The case of [John Zenger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peter_Zenger) solidified the notion that truth can indeed be used as a defense and has colored all resultant freedom of expression. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/73 "2007-10-29T16:14:11Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] Well, again, I’m just hazarding a guess that may (or may not) make sense to you. Flip side of the coin, as it were; I think that you might well insist that they’re exceptions and be correct, but I’m just taking another perspective. Applying the same method, I’d draw the distinction between _saying whatever you want to say_ and _telling blatant (and injurious) falsehoods_. Thinking about it a bit more, I’d say that these opposing viewpoints aren’t quite opposite equivalents. That is, from my POV, we assume that the default position is to protect any and all speech; said protection is only removed once the speech has been proven to be false. ISTM that the POV you’ve given tends to leave matters in the grey areas (specifically, opinions) easier to restrict. Hence, the difference between protesting in front of a store with a sign that reads “The owner is a thief” vs. “I think the owner is a thief”. The first is an objective matter of law (was the owner convicted of stealing?); the second is explicitly stated as an opinion, which others may or may not accept. [/QUOTE] Thanks. “The owner is a thief” is still just an opinion though, isn’t it? It doesn’t really matter whether it’s clearly labelled as such - likewise “God hates fags” or for that matter, “The end is nigh” are just opinions, even if they’re printed on a placard. And who gets to decide whether a falsehood is injurious, and/or that the person promoting it realises that it is false? (and does that make a difference?) ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/74 "2007-10-29T18:13:25Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] “The owner is a thief” is still just an opinion though, isn’t it? It doesn’t really matter whether it’s clearly labelled as such - likewise “God hates fags” or for that matter, “The end is nigh” are just opinions, even if they’re printed on a placard. [/quote] No, it’s not. There is an objective standard by which to determine whether someone is a thief or not. No such standard exists for questions of god. And I base this on a case I read about recently (I have no idea how I’d go about searching for a cite) in which a person made a similar claim on their website. They were convicted for libel; if the person had included a disclaimer about it being their opinion, s/he would have been in the clear. > [@](#): > > And who gets to decide whether a falsehood is injurious, and/or that the person promoting it realises that it is false? (and does that make a difference?) And I think that this is where **Polycarp** ’s point about _actionable_ vs. _illegal_ comes in. The facts of a case can be determined and then analyzed (whether by judge or jury). To me, absence of fact indicates that the lawsuit is frivolous, and opinions are not facts. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/75 "2007-10-29T18:34:04Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] If it’s solely the “hatred” angle that’s getting you, you don’t actually believe speech should be free. [/QUOTE] I believe Congress should draft no law limiting the freedom of speech or the press, etc. Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court believes, as I do, that speech meant only to intimidate, frighten, cause strife or otherwise provoke without making a salient point isn’t really protected by the First Amendment. Certainly, Larry Flynt learned that when Jerry Falwell sued him, and rightly so. As recently as 2003, the State of Virginia was upheld in making cross burnings illegal. Yes, the hatred contained within speech makes it different from non-hateful, even offensive satirical speech. Words do count. No one knows that better than journalists. And no one wants to see the Phelpses successfully sued or prosecuted more than serious journalists. Whether we WANT ordinary citizens to seek to curtail our freedoms is irrelevant; time and time again, ordinary citizens have tried very hard to curtail constitutional freedomes because of the abuses wrought by lunatics. Better that the Phelpses suffer serious consequences within the legal system, and that the Constitution be left unchanged, than that attempts be made to rewrite the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/76 "2007-10-29T18:40:37Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor] I believe Congress should draft no law limiting the freedom of speech or the press, etc. Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court believes, as I do, that speech meant only to intimidate, frighten, cause strife or otherwise provoke without making a salient point isn’t really protected by the First Amendment. [/quote] Cite? > [@](#): > > Certainly, Larry Flynt learned that when Jerry Falwell sued him, and rightly so. The Supreme court ruled in favor of Larry Flynt, dude. [Falwell LOST.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell) ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/77 "2007-10-29T18:40:57Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] This is an informational question and not a rhetorical one: If I stood in a public park and called every passerby a _bitch_ or a _motherfucker_ and every other bad word or phrase I wanted to, would that be protected by freedom of speech? So, if I put it on a sign, _You’re a bitch!_ on one side and _You’re a motherfucker!_ on the other and waved it at every passerby, would that be protected by freedom of speech? The Phelps clan has signs that say Fag and depict (admittedly with stick figures) anal sex, isn’t that violating any laws about decency or infringing upon the rights of others? [/QUOTE] Just so you’re not totally ignored, I’ll venture a guess. Even though this seems like it might have a factual answer that I don’t have. And I note that these fringe cases are generally not comparable, in full, to what the Phelps do. Seeing as how it was an “informational” request, please take the following as neither fact nor argument. Yes, it would be free speech, but only for a limited time. At some point, it would qualify as a public nuisance or harassment. As far as decency goes, just change the wording; make it _You’re an idiot!_ instead. Or, require a permit. AFAIK, the Phelps have complied with all of these. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/78 "2007-10-29T18:56:33Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor] Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court believes, as I do, that speech meant only to intimidate, frighten, cause strife or otherwise provoke without making a salient point isn’t really protected by the First Amendment. [/quote] And each of those are more than just hatred. As I said, if it’s _solely_ the hatred angle that’s getting you, you don’t actually believe speech should be free. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/79 "2007-10-29T20:06:43Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] And each of those are more than just hatred. As I said, if it’s _solely_ the hatred angle that’s getting you, you don’t actually believe speech should be free. [/QUOTE] It’s very creative of you to re-define my words to give you the illusion I’m wrong about something. There are limits to free speech. The Phelps gang has overstepped those limits. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/80 "2007-10-29T20:17:53Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Cite? [/QUOTE] [Here](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wisvmitchell.html) and [here.](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/virginiavblack.html) The go to the point that there are limits to the First Amendment; none of these are about the Phelpses, which would have to be decided on the facts of that particular case. But there are limits. > [@](#): > > The Supreme court ruled in favor of Larry Flynt, dude. [Falwell LOST.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell) Yes, of course. :smack: I wasn’t paying attention, and that’s sloppy. My apologies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107.md?page=5)