Westboro Baptist Church being sued

Ahh, suicide bombing.

So, if a given example of speech pisses off a sufficient number of people, then it’s alright to curtail it? Because I’m having trouble figuring out a filter that catches Phelps’s brand of poison, but will still let through sentiments like, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,” or, “I should be able to sit in whatever bus seat I like, regardless of my skin color,” or even, “What the hell are we paying taxes to England for, anyway?”

I would say at the point where Phelps’s speech causes direct, immediate risk of physical harm to other people, or where it can be clearly discerned as a threat of violence against another person, or where it can be shown to be an objective falsehood that causes damage to the reputation of a person or institution. In other words, the same point that we apply to every other exercise of free speech in this country. I very much oppose carving out an exception for the Phelps clan, as A) it gives this toad far more credit than he deserves, and B) the very real danger that any such exception could be used to squash any other example of speech that does not meet broad social approval, regardless of the actual merits of the speech. As much as I sympathize with the families of his victims, no one has a right to not hear things that make them sad or angry, and it is precisely the possibility of this reaction being used to justify censorship that we have the first ammendment in the first place.

Actually, there are very few other considerations that need to be taken into account. There are very few limits placed on freedom of speech, and I think that we should be extraordinarily careful about adding new ones. In this case, we’re discussing creating an additional encroachment on the first ammendment to address the antics of one highly deranged individual and his horrifically abused family. Sorry, but that simply does not rise to the level of immediate need to justify new legislation in this area, particularly as time and the natural degeneration of the human body will solve this dilemma in another decade or two without any intervention from the authorities.

Standing outside a store with a placard stating ‘the owner is a thief’ is expressing an opinion, of course it is. We don’t always preface our opinions with 'I think… ’ or ‘I do believe…’. It might be mistaken for a fact, but that’s another matter.

Whaaaa…? :confused:

I didn’t redefine anything. I simply pointed out that each item in your list is more than simple hatred and then requoted myself.

Though I do have to cop to putting “solely” in italics. To clarify and emphasize my original point.

Sorry 'bout taking that there creative license; I’ll strive to be more opaque with my responses to you in the future.

And we don’t always stand outside a store with a placard proclaiming thievery either. At least, I don’t; I’m not really sure what you do for fun. :wink:

Levity aside: no, really, I don’t think it is. You say you would take it as an opinion. Really? If you saw someone standing outside a small business with such a sign, you wouldn’t at the very least consider that it was a factual assertion? Man, get out! I applaud your faith in the goodness of humanity, as it’s seemingly much higher than mine.

In the least favorable interpretation of my assertion, there’s at least an element of doubt that it’s a mere opinion. In actuality, I’m pretty sure the view I’ve put forward has some weight. Particularly if the business can show damages due to the mobile signage.

Perhaps I should’ve reitereated my “I’m hazarding a guess” disclaimer, but I thought it was understood. Sorry if my terse “No, it’s not.” bugged you out.

No, I might very well not perceive it as an opinion, but it is one nonetheless.

Fortunately, I don’t have to think about whether or not we should specially target Phelp’s clan: I am probably of the mind that if they were just loud protesters, on the balance of it it would be a bad thing.

I say fortunately because they have already shown themselves to be a violence-prone group. We should enforce the anti-violence laws already on the books.

Have they? I wasn’t aware that they’d started attacking people. I mean, other than Fred beating the shit out of his wife and children.

Mangetout, I don’t think an accusation of thievery can reasonably be called a matter of opinion. Either the storekeeper has taken something that doesn’t belong to him, or he hasn’t. I mean, in the above paragraph where I call Fred an abusive father and husband, that’s not me speaking my opinion, that’s me relaying a fact as reported by a couple of his kids who have managed to escape his influence. It’s my opinion that the kids’ accusations are reliable, of course, but the accusation itself is either a fact, or a lie. Not an opinion.

I think that even a libelous or defamatory statement is only tortiable if the plaintiff can show financial damages, isn’t it?

So… OJ… killer or not?

But in any case, that’s a far more specific example than some random guy standing outside some random store with a placard claiming the owner is a thief - there’s no way to tell what that is, for a whole range of reasons.

Look, this would be a lot easier if you’d just admit that I’m right, and stop asking all these pesky questions.

You’re right eh? Interesting opinion.

Paraphrasing something I say to my wife occasionally: “If only there was a globally connected repository of information that we could use to find the answer to this question…hmmm…”

GQ thread started: Legal Q, re: libel

Of course I’m right! I’m just… not entirely certain why, at the moment. But I’m definitly right!

Much as I despise Phelps, I’m not conflicted about this at all.

He and his crowd have the right to say anything they want when they are on their property or public property. Period.

If it’s slanderous, they can be sued for it. And personally, I can’t see how it can be construed as slanderous, since their speech doesn’t address the personal acts of the dead soldiers. It is a batshit crazy claim that God is killing soldiers because of our country’s moral deterioration. AFAIK the soldiers’ personal actions aren’t a factor at all.

I’m not familiar with U.S. law but isn’t there a case for sectioning these total scum?

Latest…judge awards $2.9 million to the family of the fallen Marine.

No link yet… “Developing” on Drudge right now.

I doubt they’ll see a penny…this will be tied up in appeals for decades to come.

There’s a few news reports now.

It’s up to 10.9M. And the church must open its financial records.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html