doubleplusundead

March 08, 2010

Yeah, there's an exception to every rule

I consider myself more or less a First Amendment absolutist. The State cannot limit what I can say. Period.

But. Yeah. I have exceptions.

The Westboro freaks can go fuck themselves.

Actually, my position isn't that inconsistent. The State cannot stop me from saying what I want. But that doesn't mean that I can say anything I want with no consequences. Of *course* those utter fucktards (apologies to the fucking retarded for the comparison) intended to cause emotional distress. That's the entire point of their acting up. That they are being held liable for that speech is in no way a state action limiting their speech. This is a private cause of action being brought by a private person for indignities directed to his family specifically. This is distinguishable from, say, the Code Pink rally puppetheads because those protests are directed towards either a. some entity such as the US or b. a political figure. The protests aren't against Cheney in his individual capacity but against Cheney as VP and as representative of US policy.

The Westboro "protests" are directed at the most solemn occasions of private families. Being a soldier should not place one into the same position as a politician. The soldier enforces state policy. The soldier does not create that policy. If Westboro wants to speak, it should be prepared to pay the price.

So. Were I on the Court the opinion would be consist of the following "The Court hereby reverses and reinstates the award to plaintiff. The Westboro defendants, individually and in their association, can DIAF."

Posted by: alexthechick at 08:28 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The only thing I want from you law-talking-people is this: If one of those motherfucking shit-stains shows up to protest a soldier-friend's funeral (all have made it back so far but theoretically) I need you to get me off with a justifiable homicide.

I mean, come on. What jury would convict?

Posted by: Moron Pundit at March 08, 2010 09:07 PM (GC5S2)

2 I thought courts were supposed to be good at discovering privacy rights...

Posted by: JoeCollins at March 08, 2010 09:28 PM (VWd7T)

3 DIAF while drowning.

Posted by: paul mitchell at March 08, 2010 09:36 PM (QS6dF)

4 "DIAF while drowning."

White phosphorus makes everything possible.

Yeah, these fuckstains can suck it. There are a number of things you can say that are not protected by the First Amendment. You cannot incite others to violence. You cannot incite others to panic ("Fire!" in a crowded theater). You cannot intentionally harm the reputation of others in speech or writing (slander/libel). All these have been tested and approved by the SCOTUS. Personally, I believe the Phelps' slandered this family.

Furthermore, as the state was not infringing their right to free speech, I don't actually see how the First Amendment applies. All the state did was arbitrate a civil dispute. No harm there.

Posted by: MikeD at March 09, 2010 10:45 AM (FkL60)

I don't know if they should be stopped from saying it, but their goal was to cause emotional distress, they're not bashful about saying that.

So, since they wanted to cause emotional distress and since they were sued for emotional distress, I'm wondering what the problem is.

If you don't want people suing for emotional distress, make it illegal.

Otherwise, make these iceholes fork over the $5m.

Posted by: Veeshir at March 09, 2010 11:18 AM (aFnZ8)

Surely some of what has been posted by (as opposed to "on", say from commenters) qualifies as libel and/or defamatory? And where are the "Thought police" (whom I largely despise) concerning the "hate crime" aspect?

Of course, for humor I would like to see the national press as co-defendants. A single "look at these fools" article is quite understandable, but for years every move of this tiny group, with fewer members than the PTA of my town, has been publicised via first-page above-the-fold headlines.

Posted by: John A at March 09, 2010 11:41 AM (LEb+F)

I began to know about the moncler jackets moncler jackets on sale was from the story of it! Now come with me ,and enjoy the story, and the meaning lesson as well. Once upon a time the different color of jackets started to quarrel, because all moncler jackets sale cheap wanted to be the the favorite, the most useful, most important. Red: "Clearly I am the most important. I am the warmth of life and of hope. I make the winters warmer. Blue said: I am the basis of life moncler jackets online sale and the symbol of the clouds from the deep sea. Yellow: You are all wrong! I bring laughter, into the world. All these jackets are boasting.

Posted by: canada goose jackets at December 30, 2011 02:36 AM (3Hj4G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment