High court: Does father's pain trump free speech?

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Pain
In summary, the case of high court has sparked a debate on whether a father's pain over the loss of his daughter due to a military funeral protest trumps the right to free speech. The court has ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to peaceful protest, even if it causes emotional distress to individuals. However, the issue remains controversial as some argue that empathy and respect should take priority over the exercise of free speech.
  • #106
Hurkyl said:
If it were true that counter-argument didn't hold water, then you shouldn't need to resort to significantly changing the scenario to support your own argument.
Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
How dig i significantly change the scenario.
They protested exactly as i described, the snyders heard about it from the news. They were affected by it.
 
  • #108
Gokul43201 said:
Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.
Maybe I've missed context, but it feels to be in the wrong direction. Exaggerating the harm done would be interesting to explore just how far one can push an argument that some harm must be permitted -- but it's not very useful for one trying to argue that the actual amount of harm done is too much.
 
  • #109
jarednjames said:
They protested exactly as i described, the snyders heard about it from the news.
These two statements contradict each other, given that you described someone who overheard a protest as it was happening during the funeral.
 
  • #110
Ah, I see the problem, when I wrote 'heard' I didnt mean directly overheard. I meant it 'found out somehow', perhaps people only say that in the Uk.

Example:
"Did you know Bob was arrested?"
"Yeah, I heard about it down the pub the other night."

As you can see, not directly, 'heard at the scene'. This is the way I was referring to it, not as in directly overheard.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
Gokul43201 said:
What I find more troubling than the protest itself is the seeming determination of the USSC to abandon all objectivity and try their darndest to find in favor of one particular side (as summarized in the quote below, from the link in the OP):
You don't search for a way to rationalize a predetermined judgment; you make a judgment based on an unbiased search.

it is troubling, especially when you consider the soldiers are not just private citizens, they ARE the government. what i really hate most of all about this is the sanctification of military as somehow sacred and above criticism. these guys weren't even drafted, they volunteered.
 
  • #113
The problem with the Westboro group is that they are running a pretty good scam.

Calling them a church is a stretch. It is a family of lawyers that came up with a perfect money scam, and it actually did work for a little.

They just don't show up to these things, they actually file for a permit to protest. And they actually want to be turned down, so they can sue.

And they did and won a few good settlements. Until eventually the Patriot riders got involved and started to cause riots.

But as a legal strategy they nailed it. They use church status and the gay angle so it falls under religion and not simply as free speech. On Free Speech they would not have a legal leg, but as a religious speech it becomes a little tougher and is protected a little better.

But it is a scam that got way out of hand.
 
  • #114
Gokul43201 said:
Shouldn't have to, with the right audience. But testing the strength of someone's argument by exploring its logical ends is a technique that, IMO, works well in many situations.

In a purely logical world, it shouldn't have to. In a world that's a combination of the rational and the irrational (with both being important to the quality of life), exploring how a line of logic works in various situations is a valid technique.

Except I see a different focal point in this situation. In a sense, the Westboro case is similar to Ground Zero Mosque. The emotion of the case tends to focus on the pain of a "victim" - a pain that wasn't caused by the "villain" in the scenario, but the "villain's" insensitivity amplified the "victim's" pain.

Similar, but not identical. It's easier to understand a family's pain at their son's funeral than it is to understand the pain of a city 9 years later.

I think the issue comes down to one question: Can pain suffered by a person or group of persons justify quashing others rights out of respect for the persons' suffering, how many and what type restrictions can you put on others' rights, and how long is it appropriate to do so?

Personally, I think the restrictions on where the Westboro Church can protest are adequate. They were not able to disrupt the funeral itself in any way. The only way the Snyder family had of even knowing the protest took place was the news media and the internet.
 
  • #115
I read through this whole thread, because I did not want to make the same argument as someone else, but I don't think I saw it. So here goes.

Some background to ground my response - personally I think the church's tactics and execution are horrible, cruel and despicable. I good thrashing would do them some good.

A favorite quote of mine is "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" (~Chomsky I believe). So, I hope that the court sides with freedom of speech in this instance.

But my main point, is the irony- namely, that this young man died "defending the constitution"** and his family is attempting to abridge these rights. They seem to be playing the new American defacto stance of victim. The protest was not even during the funeral proper. As has been pointed out above, the family did not even know about the protest until after the fact. This whole situation is interesting from a law point of view. One the consequences of freedom is all the idiocy that the idiots get to do with that freedom.

**I put this in quotes, because I do not believe it, but many people try to frame any war in this regard.
 
  • #116
The father's lawsuit
This is a suit for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

(1) www.thesignsofthetimes.net;[/URL]
(2) [PLAIN]www.smellthebrimstone.com;[/URL]
(3) [PLAIN]www.godhatesamerica.com;[/URL]
(4) [PLAIN]www.priestsrapeboys.com;[/URL]
(5) [PLAIN]www.godhatessweden.com;[/URL]
(6) [PLAIN]www.godhatescanada.com;[/URL] and lastly,
(7) [url]www.godhatesfags.com[/url].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #117
Evo said:
The father's lawsuit

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting, IMO.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

I completely agree with you there. The websites say it all (I've looked through them all).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
Evo said:
The father's lawsuit

http://blogs.kansascity.com/files/findlaw.pdf

I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

These people take the cake.

17. Defendant Westboro Baptist Church, Inc. operates, maintains, and owns several
websites:

(1) www.thesignsofthetimes.net
(2) www.smellthebrimstone.com[/URL]
(3) [PLAIN]www.godhatesamerica.com[/URL]
(4) [PLAIN]www.priestsrapeboys.com[/URL]
(5) [PLAIN]www.godhatessweden.com[/URL]
(6) [PLAIN]www.godhatescanada.com[/URL] and lastly,
(7) [url]www.godhatesfags.com[/url][/QUOTE]

Thanks Evo. I was under the false assumption that it was only the protest under consideration for the suit. I think defamation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress are appropriate here. It also seems reasonable to consider whether their tax status as a church should remain intact given their hate mongering. There must be some provisions concerning any groups tax-exempt status and illegal activity.

On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides. Very interesting.

Also, Evo, you might want to take the semicolons out of the URL tags.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
Norman said:
On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides. Very interesting.
Unfortunately, since the WBC has twisted everything to sound like a Free Speech issue, it's clouded the original intent of the parent's lawsuit.

Also, Evo, you might want to take the semicolons out of the URL tags.
I just copied and pasted from the lawsuit, this would be the current list.

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/

Sister Sites

GodHatesFags.com
The main website of the most controversial church in the world – Westboro Baptist Church!

SignMovies.com
Brief, fascinating videos that offer Bible-based expositions of the message of WBC.

JewsKilledJesus.com
What the Bible teaches about the final fate of the nation of Israel for murdering the Messiah.

BeastObama.com
A scriptural look at the rising beast and how he is going to usher in the destruction of the world.

PriestsRapeBoys.com
The Catholic Church: the largest, most well-funded and organized pedophile machine in history.

blogs.SpareNot.com
Chronicles the worldwide street preaching ministry of Westboro Baptist Church!

AmericaIsDoomed.com
Builds the airtight case that america is not only cursed of God, but that this curse is irreversible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #120
will the court have to also decide on the issues of whether there is a Creator, Devil, good, and evil? if internet postings are the real issue here, then it all seems relevant based on the text in the pdf above.
 
  • #121
Proton Soup said:
will the court have to also decide on the issues of whether there is a Creator, Devil, good, and evil? if internet postings are the real issue here, then it all seems relevant based on the text in the pdf above.
The decision should be based on the personal attacks on the Snyders.

But now the WBC is crying First Ammendment protection of their personal attack on the family.
 
  • #122
Proton Soup said:
will the court have to also decide on the issues of whether there is a Creator, Devil, good, and evil? if internet postings are the real issue here, then it all seems relevant based on the text in the pdf above.

As decided in Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, lawsuits involving Satan must include directions for the US Marshals on how to serve process... :uhh:
 
  • #123
Evo said:
The decision should be based on the personal attacks on the Snyders.

But now the WBC is crying First Ammendment protection of their personal attack on the family.

thing is, i think it would be easy to construct criticisms along similar lines that are purely secular and sound much less "outrageous" and inflammatory. and i would call them criticisms, not "attacks". and so the question for me is, is it out of bounds to criticize individuals?

as troubling as WBC is, I'm finding the thought of silencing them a lot more troubling.
 
  • #124
CRGreathouse said:
As decided in Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, lawsuits involving Satan must include directions for the US Marshals on how to serve process... :uhh:

Satan is a tricky bugger, ain't he? :rofl: why can't we try him in absentia?
 
  • #125
Proton Soup said:
[...]
as troubling as WBC is, I'm finding the thought of silencing them a lot more troubling.
I've lost track of the thread, but far as I know the call is only to prevent them from hurling their vile garbage at certain venues like funerals, not to silence them.
 
  • #126
Proton Soup said:
thing is, i think it would be easy to construct criticisms along similar lines that are purely secular and sound much less "outrageous" and inflammatory. and i would call them criticisms, not "attacks". and so the question for me is, is it out of bounds to criticize individuals?

as troubling as WBC is, I'm finding the thought of silencing them a lot more troubling.
The original suit did not ask them to stop their hate mongering, it was a suit for personal injury. The WBC has twisted it to make it sound like the suit was to make them stop their protesting in general. Not true, as you can see.
 
  • #127
Evo said:
I think the suit should be read to understand what the reasons were before they became distorted. The *church* personally attacked the parents on their hate website. Based on the suit, the damages were for emotional distress caused by the Westboro Church and where they were standing and when they were there aren't the issue. Just read it. IMO, these (Westboro) people are using the First Amendment as a smoke screen, it's digusting.

Actually, the pertinent issue (as far as the appeal and the verdict being overturned) is whether or not the church personally attacked the parents. And the point of punitive damages (on top of compensatory damages) is stop the behavior from recurring in the future - i.e. stop the WBC from future protests at funerals. The location and timing of the protests is also a general issue, but the WBC adhered to all regulations; so that issue never was presented to the court.

Snyder vs Phelps - Fourth Court of Appeals

The analysis of the First Amendment Issue starts at the bottom of page 15 (although the background info is worth reading for those lacking familiarity with the case).

I like this quote:
Second, rhetorical statements employing "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language" are entitled to First Amendment protection to ensure that "public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation." (Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21.)

tied to:
In focusing solely on the status of the Snyders and the funeral, and not on the legal issue concerning the nature of the speech at issue, the court failed to assess whether the pertinent statements could reasonably be interpreted as asserting "actual facts" about an individual, or whether they instead merely contained rhetorical hyperbole. (See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20; CACI, 536 F.3d at 293.) Whether a statement can reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual is a question of law for the court, (see CACI, 546 F.3d at 293-94), and the district court failed to consider that issue in its Post-Trial Opinion. Consequently, we must assess the content of the Defendants’ protest signs as well as the Epic, and determine whether such speech is entitled to constitutional protection.

The 4th's opinion on the internet "epic":
Thus, even when the Snyders are mentioned in the Epic, a reasonable reader would understand its contents to be primarily focused on the more general message to which their protests are directed. The Defendants assert in the Epic, for example, that the Snyders had incurred God’s wrath by raising Matthew as a Catholic and allowing him to serve in the military — assertions a reasonable reader would take as focused on the Defendants’ concerns with the policies and activities of the Roman Catholic Church and the military. Furthermore, a reasonable reader would take as rhetorically hyperbolic a text describing the "United States of Sodom" as a "filthy" country, labelling the Catholic Church as a "pedophile machine," and equating the Maryland Legislature with the Taliban. In that context, the reasonable reader would understand the other assertions of the Epic — that the Snyders raised their son "for the devil," and taught him to "defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery" — as simply "loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language" not connoting actual facts about Matthew or his parents. (Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21). Thus, a reasonable reader would not understand the Epic to assert actual facts about either Snyder or his son.

The court hearing the initial case tossed out two of the counts (defamation of character and publication of private facts) specifically for the reason above, so they at least considered the issue. The 4th felt they didn't take that analysis far enough.

The other major issue was in the jury instructions - a technical issue that would have resulted in a new trial if the 4th had not decided the case should not have been presented to the jury in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • #128
BobG said:
Actually, the pertinent issue (as far as the appeal and the verdict being overturned) is whether or not the church personally attacked the parents.
Yes, this is where the WBC started twisting things to make it look like they were being attacked for their "freedom of religion and "freedom of speech. BS, IMO.

The court
awarded summary judgment on the defamation claim because
the Defendants’ speech was "essentially . . . religious opinion"

When they specifically targeted the Snyders, they went too far. That's why I am hoping that the Supreme court will rule that personal attacks of the nature and extent perpetrated by the WBC is not covered, and overturns the Fourth court of Appeals. The WBC are attempting to make a mockery of First Ammendment rights.

The lawsuit should be set back to the original, and get back to reality.
 
  • #129
Norman said:
On a side note, I really liked reading over how the court was pushing the logical boundaries of the arguments and how they were trying to look at the question from all sides.
Do you have a link? I would be happy to know this is the case. Unfortunately, the previous article I read suggested quite the opposite - that nearly all members of the SC were looking for arguments that might make the protest something outside of protected speech.
 
  • #130
Evo said:
Yes, this is where the WBC started twisting things to make it look like they were being attacked for their "freedom of religion and "freedom of speech. BS, IMO.

The court
awarded summary judgment on the defamation claim because
the Defendants’ speech was "essentially . . . religious opinion"

When they specifically targeted the Snyders, they went too far. That's why I am hoping that the Supreme court will rule that personal attacks of the nature and extent perpetrated by the WBC is not covered, and overturns the Fourth court of Appeals. The WBC are attempting to make a mockery of First Ammendment rights.

The lawsuit should be set back to the original, and get back to reality.

The initial court tossed out the defamation claim (plus another). The 4th tossed out the other three counts. The Supreme Court would have to overturn both courts to reinstate the defamation claim. I guess it's possible, but probably very unlikely.

The only counts I see as having any chance of being upheld is the intentional infliction of emotional distress and I guess having any of the first four upheld would pretty much mean the fifth count would stand.

I do think this is the issue that strikes at the heart of most people. It's speech aimed at creating emotional distress and the Snyders are in a position to feel that emotional distress more than the average person.

I don't think that's enough for it to hold up, though.
 
  • #131
Don't have time to read the thread, but from what I've heard some say, while what this church is doing is despicable, if the Court ruled it wasn't allowed, it would open the door for all sorts of formerly free speech being banned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #132
BobG said:
The initial court tossed out the defamation claim (plus another). The 4th tossed out the other three counts. The Supreme Court would have to overturn both courts to reinstate the defamation claim. I guess it's possible, but probably very unlikely.

The only counts I see as having any chance of being upheld is the intentional infliction of emotional distress and I guess having any of the first four upheld would pretty much mean the fifth count would stand.

I do think this is the issue that strikes at the heart of most people. It's speech aimed at creating emotional distress and the Snyders are in a position to feel that emotional distress more than the average person.

I don't think that's enough for it to hold up, though.
I think you're absolutely correct in your assessment.

I believe that the UK protects free speech, while protecting the rights of individuals from this kind of attack and harm. I don't know if that was brought up earlier in the thread or I read it as a related article. If they manage it, why can't we? I'm going to have to find that now.
 
  • #133
Is free speech a fundamental right in the UK? Or a privilege granted by the government?
 
  • #134
CAC1001 said:
Don't have time to read the thread, but from what I've heard some say, while what this church is doing is despicable, if the Court ruled it wasn't allowed, it would open the door for all sorts of formerly free speech being banned.

Not quite. It would open the door for all sorts of speech previously banned to be banned once again.

For example, Eugene Debs may not be a particularly sympathetic character to many, seeing as how he was a Socialist, but he was sentenced to 10 years of prison just for praising individuals that had been convicted for attempting to evade the draft. What he said was considered to be a surreptitious method of encouraging others to evade the draft.

He was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 (WW I era), and his conviction was upheld by the US Supreme Court which agreed his praise of convicted draft evaders was sufficient to be considered inciting illegal activity.

After the war, the Espionage Act was repealed and he received a Presidential pardon.
 
  • #135
Here is Canadian law.
Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. The prohibition against inciting hatred based on sexual orientation was added to the section in 2004 with the passage of Bill C-250.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada

I would like to see the same kind of thing here in the US.
 
  • #136
This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?
 
  • #137
Office_Shredder said:
This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?
:rofl: They're Canadian, what did you expect? <runs and hides>
 
  • #139
Office_Shredder said:
This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?

It means the statement was made during a discussion about hockey.

I think it's valid to have restrictions about inciting illegal behavior. If an unofficial leader tells his followers to burn down the state house and they do it, shouldn't he be held accountable, as well? I think whether it's punished or not still depends on the outcome and how the 'command' was worded. If a tea party candidate uses the term figuratively to inspire followers to replace incumbents with tea party candidates, and one lunatic takes him literally, then I don't think he should be held accountable.

I don't like the Candian law in general.
 
Last edited:
  • #140
Office_Shredder said:
This of course begs the question of what does it mean for a statement made in good faith to publicly incite hatred?
Looks pretty clear to me. Incitement of hatred if permitted if it is done in good faith.
 

Similar threads

News Father of US Marine killed in Iraq ordered to pay.
    • General Discussion
3
Replies
91
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top