Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I hear you, that's the easy way out, though. It's always easiest to deny freedom of speech when the speech is downright ugly, however, it's that speech that needs to treated with the most care when attempting to censor it because denying it tears at the very fabric of the freedoms our country embodies. At least that's how I feel. It should be noted that the right to free speech is not unlimited. It never has been construed as such. You have things such as defamation, which one could argue is free speech, or "fighting words," which is like inciting a riot. Not all speech is protected speech. If I remember correctly, anything having to do with desecration of a funeral or the corpse a family member pretty much falls right into the house of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 It should be noted that the right to free speech is not unlimited. It never has been construed as such.You have things such as defamation, which one could argue is free speech, or "fighting words," which is like inciting a riot. Not all speech is protected speech. If I remember correctly, anything having to do with desecration of a funeral or the corpse a family member pretty much falls right into the house of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sure, but protesting one thousand feet away when there is no indication that you have any particular animus against this individual soldier or his family makes it a bit more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 It should be noted that the right to free speech is not unlimited. It never has been construed as such.You have things such as defamation, which one could argue is free speech, or "fighting words," which is like inciting a riot. Not all speech is protected speech. If I remember correctly, anything having to do with desecration of a funeral or the corpse a family member pretty much falls right into the house of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sure, but protesting one thousand feet away when there is no indication that you have any particular animus against this individual soldier or his family makes it a bit more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sure, but protesting one thousand feet away when there is no indication that you have any particular animus against this individual soldier or his family makes it a bit more complicated. Where are you getting those facts from? I didn't see that in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sure, but protesting one thousand feet away when there is no indication that you have any particular animus against this individual soldier or his family makes it a bit more complicated. Where are you getting those facts from? I didn't see that in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Where are you getting those facts from? I didn't see that in the article. That has been their MO....staying just whatever distance away that a state requires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Where are you getting those facts from? I didn't see that in the article. That has been their MO....staying just whatever distance away that a state requires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Where are you getting those facts from? I didn't see that in the article. Those facts weren't in this partiuclar article but were in previous articles detailing what the group was doing. There's a reason why they were never simply arrested or removed from what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Where are you getting those facts from? I didn't see that in the article. Those facts weren't in this partiuclar article but were in previous articles detailing what the group was doing. There's a reason why they were never simply arrested or removed from what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I think I agree.And I fear that the ACLU will step in on their behalf on appeal. And I think people will hate the ACLU even more around here and I will have to try and defend them again. Sigh. This is going to suck. NAMBLA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I think I agree.And I fear that the ACLU will step in on their behalf on appeal. And I think people will hate the ACLU even more around here and I will have to try and defend them again. Sigh. This is going to suck. NAMBLA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 That has been their MO....staying just whatever distance away that a state requires. That is correct. I was assuming based on prior behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 That has been their MO....staying just whatever distance away that a state requires. That is correct. I was assuming based on prior behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 NAMBLA No, I'm not going to join up. Quit asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 NAMBLA No, I'm not going to join up. Quit asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sure, but protesting one thousand feet away when there is no indication that you have any particular animus against this individual soldier or his family makes it a bit more complicated. The funeral is the reason they're there. They say so. (Although, a little voice keeps saying "and the difference between that, and the Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, or the KKK in southeast, is?") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sure, but protesting one thousand feet away when there is no indication that you have any particular animus against this individual soldier or his family makes it a bit more complicated. The funeral is the reason they're there. They say so. (Although, a little voice keeps saying "and the difference between that, and the Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, or the KKK in southeast, is?") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 That is correct. I was assuming based on prior behavior. Interesting.... If they were really 1000 feet away (roughly 1/5 of a mile) then that's very interesting to say the least. I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. If you get more facts about this case, I'd be curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 That is correct. I was assuming based on prior behavior. Interesting.... If they were really 1000 feet away (roughly 1/5 of a mile) then that's very interesting to say the least. I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. If you get more facts about this case, I'd be curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Interesting.... If they were really 1000 feet away (roughly 1/5 of a mile) then that's very interesting to say the least.I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. If you get more facts about this case, I'd be curious. More due diligence is needed, you're right. However, based on what I've read previously of how they operate, I'd say the "something very extreme" is likely the opinions and positions of the Westboro people, unfortunately, and that they were a prime factor in why a jury was able to find them liable. I hope that's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Interesting.... If they were really 1000 feet away (roughly 1/5 of a mile) then that's very interesting to say the least.I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. If you get more facts about this case, I'd be curious. More due diligence is needed, you're right. However, based on what I've read previously of how they operate, I'd say the "something very extreme" is likely the opinions and positions of the Westboro people, unfortunately, and that they were a prime factor in why a jury was able to find them liable. I hope that's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The funeral is the reason they're there. They say so. (Although, a little voice keeps saying "and the difference between that, and the Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, or the KKK in southeast, is?") Yes the funeral is the reason they are there. But the protest is against the US Government and American Society, not the individual soldier (or father). This is a very hard case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 The funeral is the reason they're there. They say so. (Although, a little voice keeps saying "and the difference between that, and the Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, or the KKK in southeast, is?") Yes the funeral is the reason they are there. But the protest is against the US Government and American Society, not the individual soldier (or father). This is a very hard case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Interesting.... If they were really 1000 feet away (roughly 1/5 of a mile) then that's very interesting to say the least.I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. If you get more facts about this case, I'd be curious. I dont think you'd have too tough a time showing substantial certainty that emotional distress would result or that it was extreme and outragous conduct.... to me the tough one would be showing severe emotional damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Interesting.... If they were really 1000 feet away (roughly 1/5 of a mile) then that's very interesting to say the least.I'd have to know more facts, but I can just say that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a VERY difficult case to win. There must have been something very extreme going on in order to get a plaintiff's verdict. If you get more facts about this case, I'd be curious. I dont think you'd have too tough a time showing substantial certainty that emotional distress would result or that it was extreme and outragous conduct.... to me the tough one would be showing severe emotional damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.