Fred Phelps Trial

[Acid King]

The Supreme Court had hearings today about the God Hates Fags guy's protests at military funerals. I haven't gotten a chance to read the briefs yet, but I figured I'd atleast open the thread up. What do you think?

Snyder v Phelps @ SCOTUSblog

[ncp]

What do you think?

That the existence of groups that exist solely to piss people off (probably in an attempt to sue people who attack them) should be exempt from police protection against assault and battery.

But a more serious response:

(1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;

Probably not.

(2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly;

This is kind of weird. Not sure what to think of this.

(3) whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

I think this is where the douchebags will hopefully lose. What is the family going to do, pack up and move their funeral somewhere else? These people are protesting and intentionally ruining an important *private* (and expensive as hell) ceremony for the families of the dead.

[Acid King]

Once I got to the phrase "epic poem" in the Petitioner's brief I couldn't help but laugh. Seriously, an epic poem? Are you fucking kidding me? I thought the dude's signs were over the top and assholish, but that is just straight insanity.

[drauch]

Ohhhhhhhhh, Fred Phelps. I almost took an hour trip from where I live to watch one of his little gatherings once. Regrets, indeed.

[BulletMagnet]

(2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly

These days it seems you can pass off just about anything as "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression", and that the question of "where do my rights end and yours begin" ends up largely answered by "whoever's more obnoxiously aggressive wins", so something tells me Phelps will take this point pretty much by default. I vaguely recall reading about some group or other arguing that the first amendment guaranteed them the right to openly and knowingly lie to further their agenda, though heaven knows if I could ever find it again (EDIT: related story).

[GaijinPunch]

Is there a taunting law, where you can legally get your pussy handed to you if you verbally bate someone? There should be.

[CMoon]

Is there a taunting law, where you can legally get your pussy handed to you if you verbally bate someone? There should be.

This.

Common sense should prevail. I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to say whatever they want, but I don't want the police or the law to have to waste their time (or my tax dollars) protecting/defending these clowns. Maybe a big Phelps family beat-em-up would bring this country together.

[Lordstar]

Any thought to picket there church?

i can see the signs now!

GOD HATES
CHURCHES
WHO HATE!

HATE MAKES
YOU A FAG!

[ROBOTRON]

its in poor taste to bother family members at a funeral after their loss.

[Udderdude]

It was really only a matter of time before someone up on top got really fed up with his hate mongering/attention whoring bullshit. I hope he gets his ass kicked.

[Acid King]

After reading more on it, I'm not sure the father has much to stand on. They concede that the protest was hundreds of feet away from the entrance to to the church, and if Phelps' statement that they were a thousand feet away is true, that means they were over 300 yards away from the church. Based on that alone it's hard to make the argument that they disrupted the funeral or interfered with his practice of religion or to peaceably assemble. The father didn't even see what their signs said until after the funeral when footage aired on television and exposure to the "epic" written about his son was by his own choosing, which I can't understand because the father knew what the contents likely were. The argument that they are a "captive audience" because they are at a funeral is a tough sell as well, because that would likely affect protests at other places where audiences are captive, such as abortion clinics, government buildings and corporate headquarters.

These days it seems you can pass off just about anything as "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression", and that the question of "where do my rights end and yours begin" ends up largely answered by "whoever's more obnoxiously aggressive wins", so something tells me Phelps will take this point pretty much by default.

A lot of your rights end when you go out in to public.

Is there a taunting law, where you can legally get your pussy handed to you if you verbally bate someone? There should be.

So-called "fightin' words" can be restricted, but because their language is attached to a political message and it's part of an approved public protest, it's hard to classify their speech as fighting words.

It was really only a matter of time before someone up on top got really fed up with his hate mongering/attention whoring bullshit.

[BulletMagnet]

A lot of your rights end when you go out in to public.

In this particular case, then, the follow-up question would be whether an outdoor funeral is a "public" event or not.

[Acid King]

In this particular case, then, the follow-up question would be whether an outdoor funeral is a "public" event or not.

The father had the option to not publicly release details of the event and officially opt for a private funeral but did not. Phelps' argument is that the funeral is a public event because the details were released to the public despite the father having the option to withhold those details to keep it private and the event is paid for with government money. But even if ignore those issues and consider it a private event, the protest itself took place on public property, which would make it public speech that the petitioner didn't even see at the event itself.

[BulletMagnet]

Phelps' argument is that the funeral is a public event because the details were released to the public despite the father having the option to withhold those details to keep it private and the event is paid for with government money.

That's an interesting angle to take...just for the heck of it, to take it a step further I'd be curious to ask (not of you specifically, but in general):

1) If the father hadn't released the funeral-related info but the church group somehow found out about it and showed up anyway, would that change the situation? Would the church's means of having obtained the info (i.e. did they actively dig for it or just happen upon it by chance, etc.) have any effect?

2) If the fact that something is paid for with public funds automatically means that pretty much anyone has the right to "participate" in it to some extent, then should business decisions made at the banks and auto companies which were bailed out with taxpayer dollars be subject to a public vote or some such thing?

[Ed Oscuro]

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a
verdict of $5 million (remitted from $10.9 million)
against a small church, her pastor, and two of her
members (respondents), which was rendered on
theories of intentional infliction of emotional distress
and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion,
because respondents held some picket signs over
1,000 feet away from a church where a funeral was
held, before the funeral started, which none of the
funeral goers saw, addressing issues of vital public
importance. Now petitioner - the father of the
soldier being buried - wants this Court to review that
decision and set aside well-settled First Amendment
law, because the father did not like the words.

dang son

[Acid King]

That's an interesting angle to take...just for the heck of it, to take it a step further I'd be curious to ask (not of you specifically, but in general):

1) If the father hadn't released the funeral-related info but the church group somehow found out about it and showed up anyway, would that change the situation? Would the church's means of having obtained the info (i.e. did they actively dig for it or just happen upon it by chance, etc.) have any effect?

2) If the fact that something is paid for with public funds automatically means that pretty much anyone has the right to "participate" in it to some extent, then should business decisions made at the banks and auto companies which were bailed out with taxpayer dollars be subject to a public vote or some such thing?

I don't know how much not having it published would affect it because the protest would still take place in public and be public speech. It'll be interesting to see how the public/private thing plays in the decision though.

The banks and auto companies wouldn't be subject to that kind of public decision making process because they would be controlled by publicly owned bureaucracy, which the public famously has very little power over.

[GaijinPunch]

2) If the fact that something is paid for with public funds automatically means that pretty much anyone has the right to "participate" in it to some extent, then should business decisions made at the banks and auto companies which were bailed out with taxpayer dollars be subject to a public vote or some such thing?

Definitely doesn't work like that. I showed up at a Chief of Staffs meeting at the White House once. Definitely paid for with public funds, and I was rejected at the door.

[BulletMagnet]

I don't know how much not having it published would affect it because the protest would still take place in public and be public speech.

By that logic, though, would anyone who happens by, say, a wedding ceremony in a public park have the right to crash it (especially if the bride and groom made an internet webpage containing information for guests or something like that)? As you say, I wonder what kind of implications a decision based on how strictly one defines "privacy" might have...

The banks and auto companies wouldn't be subject to that kind of public decision making process because they would be controlled by publicly owned bureaucracy, which the public famously has very little power over.

Yeah, I guess that's a whole other issue, considering how said bureaucracy attached basically no strings to the gobs of money they threw at those companies, despite public outcry demanding them...of course, the constant and deliberate infusions of corporate money and personnel into said bureaucracies certainly don't help, but I'm getting off-topic here.

Definitely doesn't work like that. I showed up at a Chief of Staffs meeting at the White House once. Definitely paid for with public funds, and I was rejected at the door.

Forgot to bring the weed, huh?

[GaijinPunch]

Forgot to bring the weed, huh?

Oh, definitely not.

[Acid King]

By that logic, though, would anyone who happens by, say, a wedding ceremony in a public park have the right to crash it (especially if the bride and groom made an internet webpage containing information for guests or something like that)? As you say, I wonder what kind of implications a decision based on how strictly one defines "privacy" might have...

I'd think it depends on what you mean by crash and by how the wedding was set up, but it definitely wouldn't prohibit watching from a distance.

Yeah, I guess that's a whole other issue, considering how said bureaucracy attached basically no strings to the gobs of money they threw at those companies, despite public outcry demanding them...of course, the constant and deliberate infusions of corporate money and personnel into said bureaucracies certainly don't help, but I'm getting off-topic here.

There used to be a question of whether or not Congress could constitutionally delegate authority to bureaucracy like that since bureaucratic decisions and rules do have the force of law, but not so much anymore.

[Ed Oscuro]

2) If the fact that something is paid for with public funds automatically means that pretty much anyone has the right to "participate" in it to some extent, then should business decisions made at the banks and auto companies which were bailed out with taxpayer dollars be subject to a public vote or some such thing?

That public vote is called "the midterm elections."

[BulletMagnet]

That public vote is called "the midterm elections."

Thanks to the Citizens United decision (another handy example of the "any damn fool thing you want can be defined as free speech" mindset I referred to earlier) those have pretty much been privatized too.

[Acid King]

"any damn fool thing you want can be defined as free speech"

So it's turning into the commerce clause? ::rimshot::

[Ed Oscuro]

That public vote is called "the midterm elections."

Thanks to the Citizens United decision (another handy example of the "any damn fool thing you want can be defined as free speech" mindset I referred to earlier) those have pretty much been privatized too.

Yeah well. Hopefully after people have finished enjoying out-of-state interests flooding their airwaves this election season Congress will get pushed to redraft some campaign finance laws that wont' get overturned this time.

[BulletMagnet]

Yeah well. Hopefully after people have finished enjoying out-of-state interests flooding their airwaves this election season Congress will get pushed to HITLER COMMUNIST BIG BROTHER SHARIA ANTI-COLONIAL REVERSE RACISM

Fixed.