TorilMUD Forums

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/01/e ... arine.dad/
The family of a fallen soldier was ordered to pay $16,000 in legal fees for the group that protested their son's funeral.

Protesting at a funeral is not speech, it's harassment. If Nancy Pelosi can have the Federal government put a gun to the head of a man that is harassing her on the phone, why can't a veteran's family have their son or daughter's funeral protected by a grateful nation?

I have a challenge for you, Teflor.

From now on, you can't use the words 'freedom', 'liberty', 'slavery', or the phrase 'put a gun to the head'. For extra points, don't use any other phrases that we might see repeated endlessly on Fox News.

I'm curious as to how you'd still be able to communicate.

I wonder if we could sue Kiryan and Teffie for $11 million due to the mental anguish they've caused with their trolling?

In this thread, Teflor declares his opposition to the First Amendment to the Constitution, and announces his support for a government plan to silence individuals practicing non-violent dissent by putting a gun to their head and depriving them of freedom and liberty.

I think ordering the father to pay the protestor's court costs is ridiculous. This happens all the time in divorce cases and I think its pretty ridiculous there too. a friend of mine wanted to do a $1,500 child custody study, his ex wanted a $9,000. Judge went with the ex's request and ordered him to pay for it because she didn't have the money. The report was glowing and he got full custody and everything else, but the principle is rotten. She wanted to incur the extra expense, he had to pay for it. I think the judge at the end of the case awarded him some costs, but he'll never see it... and that was easily knowable and predictable at the time the judge ordered him to cover the costs.

I think the protest should be covered under 1st amendment, despite its despicable nature.

Let's be fair.

The guy was not ordered to pay for the cost of the protest. The guy sued Westboro, and the judge found that Westboro was within their 1st amendment right to protest. The guy was responsible for paying the court costs of the protestors for the failed suit he brought against them. It's no different from any other failed lawsuit... you bring someone to court, decision goes against you, you pay their lawyer fees.

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with what happened in this case, not that divorce cases even begin to touch upon the terrible things that happened to an innocent and grieving family.

Todrael wrote:I have a challenge for you, Teflor.

From now on, you can't use the words 'freedom', 'liberty', 'slavery', or the phrase 'put a gun to the head'. For extra points, don't use any other phrases that we might see repeated endlessly on Fox News.

I'm curious as to how you'd still be able to communicate.

/ignore. Unfortunately, liberty is the primary concept around which my ideology and advocacy are based, specifically your liberty, as well as mine. While the other words and phrase are more easily avoided, liberty is simply one that I cannot ignore.

It's a part of the english language and a vital component of liberalism. It's not something that can or should be ignored.

Absolutely, I believe it should be illegal to protest a funeral within visual or audio distance. I furthermore believe that appropriate punishments should include fines and the possibility of a small amount of jail time for repeat offenders. I think protest would be fine, so long as it is not done within sight or earshot of a reasonable funeral procession. I believe this protects free speech completely and the families that have sacrificed so much to help pay for our way of life and furthermore, our tolerance of homosexuals and other people that the Westboro Baptist Chruch considers 'sinners.'

Ragorn wrote:In this thread, Teflor declares his opposition to the First Amendment to the Constitution, and announces his support for a government plan to silence individuals practicing non-violent dissent by putting a gun to their head and depriving them of freedom and liberty.

And Ragorn declares that his best argument is grossly exaggerated hyperbole, so enormous, it is only matched by the shame of this nation that protects the blatant harassment of its veteran's families.

Is there anything other than trolling that requires the same person to make four posts in a row?

The thing is there isn't even anything to discuss here. Westboro are assholes. The family had no reasonable basis for suing, and was just trying to cash in. The judge made a decision completely in line with the constitution, and normal practice for the plaintiff is to pay the defendant's legal fees.

I really, really wish there was a valid reason to sue the Westboro Baptist Church... and I think when I first heard about this suit I cheered. The reality though, is that they DO have the right to speak even when it's in poor taste.

That's the freedom Lance Cpl. Ellsworth died to defend.

Sarvis wrote:Is there anything other than trolling that requires the same person to make four posts in a row?

Yes, responding to four people because I don't spend anywhere near as much time refreshing this site like you do, dumbass.

Sarvis wrote:The thing is there isn't even anything to discuss here. Westboro are assholes. The family had no reasonable basis for suing, and was just trying to cash in. The judge made a decision completely in line with the constitution, and normal practice for the plaintiff is to pay the defendant's legal fees.

Which part of the constitution protects harassment?

Sarvis wrote:The reality though, is that they DO have the right to speak even when it's in poor taste.

If you read my post you would have read that they have the right to protest somewhere else. Not in a manner that harasses a mourning family.

I might be wrong, but I could have sworn O'reily said the other day that the father didn't even know there were protesters present until later that evening when he saw it on the news.

Botef wrote:I might be wrong, but I could have sworn O'reily said the other day that the father didn't even know there were protesters present until later that evening when he saw it on the news.

Dunno, I'll look into it. I sympathize with the family and share their outrage even if the protest was staged in a manner that I prescribed as being their right (out of sight, out of earshot, yes, I believe they have the right to say what they want to say).

Botef wrote:I might be wrong, but I could have sworn O'reily said the other day that the father didn't even know there were protesters present until later that evening when he saw it on the news.

The group was protesting about 30 feet from the church’s main entrance, and Mr. Snyder had to enter through a separate entrance, Mr. Summers says.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100331/ts_csm/291560

That's harassment. I'm also fairly certain that the Supreme Court agrees with me, seeing as how they declined to hear the appeal when the $5 million judgement was awarded to the Snyders, but agreed to hear the case upon another court reversed the original ruling.

teflor the ranger wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/01/ellsworth.marine.dad/
The family of a fallen soldier was ordered to pay $16,000 in legal fees for the group that protested their son's funeral.

Protesting at a funeral is not speech, it's harassment. If Nancy Pelosi can have the Federal government put a gun to the head of a man that is harassing her on the phone, why can't a veteran's family have their son or daughter's funeral protected by a grateful nation?

The obvious logical fallacy here is that had the protesters threated the lives of the funeral attendees they would have been arrested too.

avak wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/01/ellsworth.marine.dad/
The family of a fallen soldier was ordered to pay $16,000 in legal fees for the group that protested their son's funeral.

Protesting at a funeral is not speech, it's harassment. If Nancy Pelosi can have the Federal government put a gun to the head of a man that is harassing her on the phone, why can't a veteran's family have their son or daughter's funeral protected by a grateful nation?

The obvious logical fallacy here is that had the protesters threated the lives of the funeral attendees they would have been arrested too.

Or you could look up harassment instead of bullshitting.

i didn't realize the latest appeal sided with the protestors. I didn't read that particular article, but had read some others on it. when you sue someone and lose, you should cover their costs to defend themselves. I thought the father was ordered to pay for the appeal that the protesting group had filed which I thought was ridiculous... until they won that is.

kiryan wrote:i didn't realize the latest appeal sided with the protestors. I didn't read that particular article, but had read some others on it. when you sue someone and lose, you should cover their costs to defend themselves. I thought the father was ordered to pay for the appeal that the protesting group had filed which I thought was ridiculous... until they won that is.

Ah. Yes, that would be ridiculous, yes.

My guess is that the supreme court will not side with the harassers. I don't believe most Americans side with them either. $5 million may be too harsh a judgement, but certainly, no one should be allowed to protest 30 feet in front of your son's funeral.

teflor the ranger wrote:no one should be allowed to protest 30 feet in front of your son's funeral.

Why?

Sarvis wrote:

teflor the ranger wrote:no one should be allowed to protest 30 feet in front of your son's funeral.

Why?

If you don't care about it, I suppose you could let people do that to you and your son. Otherwise, people have a right to remain unharassed.

I've always prescribed to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Allowing people to justify retalitory action on the basis of offensive speech (hate / fighting words included) encourages rationalization and a lack of self discipline.

kiryan wrote:I've always prescribed to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Allowing people to justify retalitory action on the basis of offensive speech (hate / fighting words included) encourages rationalization and a lack of self discipline.

Should it then be ok for protesters to gather 30 feet in front of your house and denounce your children as being hated by god? Or is that harassment?

Or is it free speech and liberty?

It's harassment. People have a right to an opinion, but not a right to be standing next to you while shouting into your ear.

Right, so Clinton's so-called "Free Speech Zones" are perfectly acceptable. Wouldn't want 'protesters' mucking up political rallies, after all.

Todrael wrote:Right, so Clinton's so-called "Free Speech Zones" are perfectly acceptable. Wouldn't want 'protesters' mucking up political rallies, after all.

Funny, that weak and disconnected argument doesn't make harassment any less illegal.

Todrael wrote:Right, so Clinton's so-called "Free Speech Zones" are perfectly acceptable. Wouldn't want 'protesters' mucking up political rallies, after all.

Wasn't that a Bush thing?

The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.[3] Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded.[4]

From the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Republican/Teffish Ideal Free Speech Zone:

Arthur: You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to the free speech zone had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'

Teflor: But the zone was there.'

Arthur: There? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it.'

Teflor: `That's the free speech department.'

Arthur: `With a torch.'

Teflor: `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'

Arthur: `So had the stairs.'

Teflor: `But look you found the free speech zone didn't you?'

Arthur:`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'"

teflor the ranger wrote:

kiryan wrote:I've always prescribed to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Allowing people to justify retalitory action on the basis of offensive speech (hate / fighting words included) encourages rationalization and a lack of self discipline.

Should it then be ok for protesters to gather 30 feet in front of your house and denounce your children as being hated by god? Or is that harassment?

Its words. When we started criminalizing this stuff, it got ridiculous. I'll make some exceptions for noise / gathering type ordinances and authority type situations like with sexual harrassment and your boss, but basically get some thicker skin. Its disgusting behavior to protest a funeral, but it reminds me of that quote, "i'm willing to die for your right/freedom to say that".

When you limit free speech, its an affront to liberty and freedom. It was one of the core issues of citizens vs united imo, when the state tried to say we can limit "election speech" not only when its an official campaign ad, but even if its a tv documentary, movie, book ect... For the government to be able to control speech by couching it in election terms was a road the conservative justices felt was not inline with the 1st amendment.

I just read the 1st post, and the article. Then I wondered how it could ever get that far.

Then I read all the other posts, and got enlightened in why it could get that far.

This is extremly powerful insight you have just given me with the seemingly childish debate culture. Thank you.

The problem is that it's not just words. It's about proximity and an intent to demean, disturb, and deprive others of their quiet dignity. The funeral of a veteran is not a redress of grievances against the government any more than a protest 30 feet outside of a veteran's hospital room.

Harassment is the key to this case. So far none of you have been able to deny that this was harassment. So far none of you are excited by the fact that someone could do this to you and your son.

Sarvis wrote:Republican/Teffish Ideal Free Speech Zone:

Arthur: You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to the free speech zone had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'

Teflor: But the zone was there.'

Arthur: There? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it.'

Teflor: `That's the free speech department.'

Arthur: `With a torch.'

Teflor: `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'

Arthur: `So had the stairs.'

Teflor: `But look you found the free speech zone didn't you?'

Arthur:`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'"

So, you back up a weak, disconnected argument, with a ridiculous, unrelated narrative that has nothing to do with the victimized veteran's family, free speech, or harassment, while leaving the entire argument of harassment, the question about how you would feel about people thanking god for your son's death 30 feet from your doorstep, and I'm the troll?

A friend of mine made an excellent point that I feel needs to be shared. She didn't like the idea of outright banning close proximity protests of funerals because of the precedent set by allowing neo-nazis to march through jewish neighborhoods.

I think this is where the finer distinction lies and where harassment enters the picture. It's reasonable to expect that a family attending a private funeral of their son would be significantly less able to deal with or handle loud, angry protesters picking on the dead at a time of mourning and loss. I think this is the difference between that and expecting conscious people in regular situations to deal with people marching to promote their identity despite the offense that people might take.

The affront to the basic human right to maintain their quiet, private dignity is more important than allowing angry assholes to harass, demean, debase, and dehumanize the dead, particularly of a family that has so recently paid so dear a price for our freedom.

I think its the family's rights have been abused, not the Westboro Baptist Church.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... s_040510w/

I was surprised by the quality of this article. Unfortunately, I also have conflicting information. One article says the group was protesting 30 feet from the church's main entrance (see above news article). This article says they were 1,000 feet from the church's main doors. I'm not sure what either means. (Are the main doors on the other side of the church? Is the main entrance somewhere you have to enter the facility?)

If the protesters were indeed that far away from the funeral, then I understand why the award to the Snyder family was reversed, but I disagree with the order to pay legal fees.

Let me elaborate my standpoint.

Those protesters are idiots as I see it.

I find it tragic that you actually have to make a rule about something as incencitive that noone would do it.

But since some morons actually do it. Then I agree law has to be made about it.

##

As I see it, those protestors should stand infront of the hill, or other political important places.

To stand in the tragedy of a family that may even themselves didn't want their child to leave it nuts.

Its a fine line between protesting and harrassing. I don't think its very fair to make it a subjective evaluation and try and pull a sympathy vote based on someone's kid dieing. Would it be harassing if I went up to the father and said gee I'm sorry your kid had to die because the US government is immoral? On the other hand, if I sat outside your house every single day, that could start to become harassment.

Either way, if you are in a space open to the public, you have to accept that everyone has the right to say whatever they want. Thats not harassment if you don't like what they are saying, its free speech, its protest. Isn't protest almost the same as harassment? action that hopes to change a result? Are millions of phone calls and letters we send to our congressional representatives protest or harassment? Is it harrassment if I let my congressman know every day that I disagree with his decisions and that I want him to vote a different way or is that exercising my rights as a constituent, as free speech, as an american?

we need to get thicker skin. they had it right in the old days when you were taught that words can never hurt me. instead we run around making sure no one ever offends anyone else.

Well said, Kiryan. It is so convenient to cry foul when the speech offends you, but that is exactly why it is protected by the Constitution.

Harassment is definitely illegal, and it robs the rights of others, however, having reviewed the facts presented in the case, I'm unfortunately going to have to reserve opinion on this specific case and allow the supreme court to decide whether or not it qualifies as harassment.

I'll put it bluntly, the whole thing is moronic and I place the blame squarely on the WBC.

teflor the ranger wrote:I'll put it bluntly, the whole thing is moronic and I place the blame squarely on the WBC.

Yes.

should hecklers and loud protesters be banned from public events because they are interfering with the presenters right to speak? They are going there specifically to harass the speaker, speciifically to disrupt and prevent them from getting their message across. Like the healthcare town halls? can we start arresting union protestors who make scabs and other employees uncomfortable when they go to work?

protest and harrassment seem very very similar to me.

I agree that it's a fine line, but like the preservation of all rights that could potentially conflict with someone else's, we should be highly aware of where the best place would be to ensure that the most rights are preserved for all and equally.

It's not only a personal responsibility, but a governmental one as well. As long as they don't spend too much money to figure it out, damnit.

kiryan wrote:should hecklers and loud protesters be banned from public events because they are interfering with the presenters right to speak? They are going there specifically to harass the speaker, speciifically to disrupt and prevent them from getting their message across. Like the healthcare town halls? can we start arresting union protestors who make scabs and other employees uncomfortable when they go to work?

protest and harrassment seem very very similar to me.

Actually, many states carry a number of laws specifically regulating union picketing behaviors. I've read in one state that they can delay people from crossing for a short period of time and in other states that picketing union members cannot harass or delay replacement workers. Of course, these laws may no longer be valid, but I'm not up to date at all on union/labor law.

the best place in my opinion is movement away from speech possibly ever being harassment. Whether its a sign or whether its shouting. Once you open it up, you can then use the legal system to intimidate people. Like this guy is doing, suing the guys who protested at his son's funeral. Next it could be politicians / public speakers suing people / taking out restraining orders based on "harrassment" thereby silencing the opposition.

Certainly, the government should never be used to intimidate and silence (ahem, Nancy Pelosi).

There are certain limits, however.

so how about when a private individual / company decides to sue every person who criticizes them in public? Enron tried to sue / silence the shorts. maybe oil companies should silence environmentalists with lawsuits?

Teflor, you do realize that if anyone made a death threat on you the government would silence them.. right?

Protecting citizenry, even politicians, is one of the fundamental jobs of government.

People have, but the point is, Sarvis, that I haven't asked the government to put a gun to their head like Nancy Pelosi.