We cannot live in a world where such decisions are made by people in authority. Or by people who consider themselves "normal".
Keep in mind that this comes from a group of so-called "worshipers" in the congregation of a so-called "church." Applying more disgrace to their evil tactics, they also use children to hold signs with hate-filled slogans. Evidently, they think that it's perfectly natural to teach kids to spew acid-laced venom at innocent bystanders, but it's unnatural to inform them that gays are different from straights but no less human or deserving of civil rights. In 2006, in another example of mind-numbing malice, they picketed the funeral of Lance Corporal Mathew Snyder, a twenty-year-old Marine who died in Iraq.This is not just bad judgment. This is uncivilized. We might as well be cannibals.
The Marine's father, Albert Snyder, sued the church because its members brought signs that read "God hates fags" and "God hates the USA" to his son's funeral. In 2007, Snyder was initially awarded $11 million in damages because the jury found that the church intentionally inflicted emotional distress. The amount was later reduced to $5 million, and then the verdict was overturned on appeal. In addition, last week, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Snyder to pay $16,500 in court costs to Fred Phelps, the founder and pastor of that pathetic excuse for a parochial institution. (In a display of true decency and heartfelt concern for the Snyder family, Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly said that he'll put up the money.) They have a website that says it all: http://www.godhatesfags.com. The very idea that this church exists is frightening. Can anyone assemble a group of hateful misfits and call it a church?
Social cohesion cannot survive this kind of undermining. And we cannot depend on the kindness of strangers to save us from a criminally insane autocracy.
Read: False Prophets are Ravenous Wolves
The Gunslinger
I've been following this...it is beyond insane. Where are we going?
ReplyDeleteAnd can someone please tell me why..... Snyder has to pay that sorry excuse for a church anything at all? They sought him out. They caused him and his family untold stress at a time when they were grieving the loss of their son. Now, he must pay them? WTF? The only payment he needs to give them is his boot in the pastor's ass. So, now churches full of hate are ok? I really must be losing my mind here because none of this makes any sense. Any of those asses show up at the funeral of my son with their disgusting signs would get gun barrels square in the face from my whole family. No shit. No one knows how to be respectful anymore. Cowards. Every one of them. So easy to target a grieving family at a funeral. That kind of bad karma will come back to bite them in the ass. I just hope it doesn't take a whole lifetime. -- skiri'ki
ReplyDeleteBill O'Reilly of Fox News says he'll pay the fine, so the family is off the hook in terms of finance, but still this decision is horrible and speaks volumes as to why all judges at any level of government should be elected and limited to only two terms of four years each. MAXIMUM. Tyranny can come by means of black robes.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm gonna get called out on this one, but it's called First Amendment. I don't like the circumstances but it would set a dangerous precedent to rule against a "peaceful protest" regardless of how vulgar most of us might find it.
ReplyDeletealphadog, I know where you are coming from. It just seems to me that there is a responsibility that comes with freedom of speech. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'm not calling for legislation of FOS. That would open up a whole new can of worms that we don't need. The ruling just seems so illogical to me. -- skiri'ki
ReplyDeleteskiri'ki,
ReplyDeleteThe ruling is not illogical, it's Constitutional. While I am in no way defending what fred phelps and his congregation of fucktards are doing, I am defending the courts decision. As soon as the court starts tweaking the Bill of Rights based upon public opinion or political pressure we open the door to the thundering herd.
Without going into a long and ponderous dissertation, I offer for example the GCA of 1968. Any gun enthusiast can cite any number of legislative motions, both enacted and rejected, that never would have come to the floor if GCA'68 had not set a precedent.
I describe myself as a Constitutional Libertarian. I believe that laws should be made to protect our freedoms, not restrict them. No matter how irresponsible, reprehensible, or vile I may find ones actions to be, I'm willing to take the good with the bad if it protects the spirit and intent of our Constitution.
Maybe we should just hang all the immoral fucking lawyers that would defend the likes of phred.
"Maybe we should just hang all the immoral fucking lawyers that would defend the likes of phred."
ReplyDeleteI'll go along with that. :)
When I said the ruling seemed illogical, I meant making Snyder pay the church. I do understand why we can't start tweaking the BOR to fit a situation. I'm with you there. As much as I don't like what they did, I understand that FOS is for everyone, not just the select few. I just think it's preposterous that Snyder has to pay the church a dime at all (even if O'Reilly offered to do it for him). Apologies for not explaining myself clearly. -- skiri'ki
I'm going to have to agree with alphadog in principle on this one. While I don't know all the circumstances of the event, if the church conducted a peaceful assembly to express an opinion, did not trespass or assault anyone, they were within their Constitutional rights. Don't get me wrong; what they did was despicable but as has been pointed out by the likes of Jefferson and others, if free speech doesn't protect unpopular free speech, than it can hardly be called protection of free speech.
ReplyDeleteThat "church" showed what they were about. While I may agree with their views on homosexuality, I do not agree with the cruel and callous manner in which they chose to express those views. It was hateful, spiteful and definitely not Christian.
I think the appropriate decision would be that no one pays anyone, period! I'm getting a bit sick of these "grief and emotional distress" claims for damages. Are we that wussy of a society that every word we find offensive demands a court judgment? I believe decent people will shun that "church" or perhaps even exercise their own free speech rights to condemn that "church" for what it did. Or is every disagreement to be litigated?
Trubolotta said "Are we that wussy of a society that every word we find offensive demands a court judgment? I believe decent people will shun that "church" or perhaps even exercise their own free speech rights to condemn that "church" for what it did. Or is every disagreement to be litigated?"
ReplyDeleteWith heavy heart and deep disgust, I've got to agree on the legal end - political speech is protected, and that is political.
However. That speech is protected from government restriction and censorship.
In my somewhat less than fully thought out opinion, I'm inclined to say that deliberately provocative acts upon people in emotional heartbreak and distress - such as at the funeral of a son killed in war - should be just cause for physical retaliation by the aggrieved party.
There's an old western... can't think of which, or who was in it, but a Gary Cooper/John Wayne type is passing by a lady being verbally accosted by a drunk, he pauses and says something like '''scuse me friend, but I don't believe the lady is interested in hearing what you've got to say, I suggest you move along.", the drunk says "Buzz off pal, now sweetie as I was sayin...", at which point the cowboy decks him, tips his hat "Ma'am" and moseys on down the street. End of story.
There was a time when such an action as the disgusting phelps lot would have drawn just that response, and any attempt to bring suit would have been denied just cause, or at the very least would have lost the case in court and earned a scolding rebuke from the judge.
And that gets back to the "Are we that wussy of a society that every word we find offensive demands a court judgment?" and the answer is that we have become a society where every action is deemed worthy of litigation, and people are no longer deemed worthy of settling disputes themselves, with civil fisticuffs as needed.
If we want to be a civil society again, we need the freedom to be uncivil to those who offer personal offense, without fear of lawsuits and jail time - when someone is rude, insulting or crude, they need to be very much aware that they may be physically busted in the chops by either the person they're verbally assaulting, or even by any decent passerby.
We've litigated away the right to be a Man and with it, any expectation of living like civilized men and women. Societies ruled by wussies rather than by men, are disgusting and barbaric places.
Don't like it? Well, we've got a long road to recovery, but get involved and help take the first steps.
Final comment from me (probably). Phelps & Co. won a judgement on a countersuit. Much as we may not like the verdict, it's a good law and I'll defend it. If you bring a lawsuit against someone, it's their right to defend their self against it and file a counter claim for the expense involved in doing so.
ReplyDeleteIn Japan the system requires the plaintiff to pay all costs incurred by the defendant should the plaintiff lose his case; no countersuit is necessary. If we were to adopt the same policy here it would cut way down on frivolous lawsuits, bullshit class action lawsuits and the attorneys that amass millions by bringing these suits - screw you John Edwards. As it is now, many cases that are winnable by the defendant are settled out of court simply because it's cheaper to pay than play. Even if you were to win and file a counter suit there's little point if the person is unable to pay the judgement.
I've gotta say, I agree with Van. And taking it one step further, the old adage that an armed society is a polite society rings very true.
Well, Van beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteWhen you make it illegal to defend yourself or others against assault, the only thing left is litigation. The "wusses" have forced people like Mr. Snyder into this position. I'm sure his first response...and what he would have liked to do is drive the Phelps savages away with sticks and bricks. No lawsuit necessary.
And the pricks would have thought twice about doing it again after a few broken noses.
Given the intolerance of normal behavior and the promotion of uncivilized, rude, boorish, criminal behavior, a lawsuit was Snyder's only option to beat back the savages...punching them in the nose no longer being permitted.
Besides you don't have "Freedom of Speech" in my house, or in my garden, or at my funeral.
What the hell!
"We've litigated away the right to be a Man and with it, any expectation of living like civilized men and women. Societies ruled by wussies rather than by men, are disgusting and barbaric places."
Yep..."We might as well be cannibals."
GS and Van,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue with you because there is a Constitutional issue involved. GS is right, there is no freedom of speech on my property and I can run you off if I choose. Again, not knowing the particulars, I don't know if that was the case.
I'm not a lawyer but I sure have heard of the expression "fighting words". I doubt any jury would convict a man for punching an idiot in the nose for causing a disturbance at his son's funeral. He shouldn't have to punch anyone, but that is a sign of the age we live in where decency is a troubling inconvenience to loud mouths who are absolutely sure they are right. While I can't be certain, I think that same jury might be capable of deciding when being thin-skinned crosses the border of just retaliation as well.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six? I think that applies here as well.
There is a difference between "peaceful protest" and "harassment".
ReplyDeleteNote how the courts have created buffer zones around abortion clinics?
They certainly seem to understand the difference when it suits them.
What a pity you don't live in wussyland north of you, where they have just banned the burqa. When the Muslims complained that since the Jews had a rabbinical court they should have sharia and they were therefore being discriminated against, the government agreed that it was discrimination and they promptly did something about it. They banned all forms of religious courts, Catholic, Jewish et al with the statement : there is only one law in this country and it is Canadian. When the Hamas loving British MP Galloway was on his way here, he was refused entry. The governments official reason: he was an infandous rabble-rouser. First time ever I had to look up a government statement in a dictionary. And when the Phelps clan showed up at the Canadian border where every American passport holder without a criminal record gets automatic admittance they were told in no uncertain terms to F.O., we don't want you in our country.
ReplyDeleteciccio said "What a pity you don't live in wussyland north of you, where they have just banned the burqa."
ReplyDeleteReally. Huh. Are the Canadians waking up? Well... they've got a ways to go before I say that ()... but it's a promising start.
Great comments! I still think Snyder got the short end of the stick, but I enjoyed reading everyone's take on this and I hadn't even considered the reason for the suit. Ciccio, I applaud the Canadians for taking a stand. Nothing good can come from instituting Sharia law. Europe is proof of that. -- skiri'ki
ReplyDelete