Father of US Marine killed in Iraq ordered to pay.

[zomgwtf]

Anyways would I be within my fundamental rights, if I were American of course, to burn down their church if they were to cause this type of distress throughout my family?

 

[elect_eng]

... the same thing as flat out agreeing with what they are doing. You are defending the wrong side, by far. If any of these fallen heroes could come back and you were to ask them, did you die for this form of freedom? I highly doubt they will tell you, yes, yes I did die for nutcases to cause my family distress for raising me as a Catholic.

Again, this is misrepresenting my position. I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them. I am not defending their side. I am defending my side which says that freedom of speech is too important to water down. I think fallen heroes would say they did die for this form of freedom. Clearly they would not say they died for nutcases to cause their family distress. This is the unfortunate downside for having the freedom of speech.

I'd like to see these people stopped by legal means, but not by watering down freedom to protest and speak our minds, nor by killing them in cold blood. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how this can be done, but it is starting to sound like a fraud or scam case could eventually be built up over time. However, I'm just speculating based on random statements that have been made in this thread. Are these people expressing a real concern they have, however misguided, or are they trying to profit from harassing people? There is a big difference between the two situations.

This debate about the double-edged-sword nature of free speech has been going on for centuries. The US founding fathers debated this issue and came down on the side that the benefits outweigh the problems. They had first hand experience with what can happen when basic freedoms are denied. When people join the military, they swear to defend these freedoms. If they die in service, they die defending these ideals. I'm not about to try and second guess what they might say if they could be raised from the dead, but it's clear what they said before they died. They said it in words and they said it in deeds.

 

[Cyrus]

Is all the shouting in this thread really necessary? Yes, the American legal system has its down sides. Welcome to the real world. The people on the Supreme Court know the law better than you people posting here, so if they ruled in favor of the Church there was a reason why.

 

[Evo]

Is all the shouting in this thread really necessary? Yes, the American legal system has its down sides. Welcome to the real world. The people on the Supreme Court know the law better than you people posting here, so if they ruled in favor of the Church there was a reason why.

It hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet.

 

[Cyrus]

My mistake, I misread someones post. Anyways, the point is this: a court does not rule in favor of what is popular. It rules based on what the law says. In this case, it's unfortunate for the family, but that does not mean the court is wrong, or that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. The SC will only make sure the law was followed, that is its purpose.

 

[calculusrocks]

Again, this is misrepresenting my position. I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them. I am not defending their side. I am defending my side which says that freedom of speech is too important to water down. I think fallen heroes would say they did die for this form of freedom. Clearly they would not say they died for nutcases to cause their family distress. This is the unfortunate downside for having the freedom of speech.

I'd like to see these people stopped by legal means, but not by watering down freedom to protest and speak our minds, nor by killing them in cold blood. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how this can be done, but it is starting to sound like a fraud or scam case could eventually be built up over time. However, I'm just speculating based on random statements that have been made in this thread. Are these people expressing a real concern they have, however misguided, or are they trying to profit from harassing people? There is a big difference between the two situations.

This debate about the double-edged-sword nature of free speech has been going on for centuries. The US founding fathers debated this issue and came down on the side that the benefits outweigh the problems. They had first hand experience with what can happen when basic freedoms are denied. When people join the military, they swear to defend these freedoms. If they die in service, they die defending these ideals. I'm not about to try and second guess what they might say if they could be raised from the dead, but it's clear what they said before they died. They said it in words and they said it in deeds.

If the funeral was on private property, then he was trespassing and can easily be thrown in jail. Other than that, I'm not going to be the one to throw someone in jail because of something he said either.

 

[calculusrocks]

Although, I can't say I watch Bill O'Reilly, he's demonstrating to all of us how a free press works. The public is made aware and is able to make their own judgments. Freedom of press is a check against many, many wrongs and needs to be protected.

 

[Choronzon]

I recall a number of years ago I saw a program where a journalist name Louis Theroux spent time with this cult—it was fascinating. I ended up feeling bad for the younger members of the group, because they were so obviously controlled by the elders in the church.

During one poignant moment, a young woman in the group (about 20 years old) was asked by Mr. Theroux if it made her sad that she believed he was going to hell, since they had struck up a sort-of friendship during the week he was there. She told him that it was God's will or something similar, but she had tears in her eyes...

I can never understand why some religious people torture themselves.

 

[OmCheeto]

hmm... I'm a bit divided here. Did Matt risk his life to protect the rights of his fellow citizens to bad mouth Matt and his family upon his death for their own gains? Yes, I believe he did. But I think he'd be pissed at how that privilege had been abused.

This is probably one time where I'd not advocate shooting the lawyers, but have them bring up a civil suit against the Westboro group on behalf of the honor guard that was probably at the funeral for, well, making them feel bad for defending their ****ing country.

Thank you Matt.

 

[zomgwtf]

My mistake, I misread someones post. Anyways, the point is this: a court does not rule in favor of what is popular. It rules based on what the law says. In this case, it's unfortunate for the family, but that does not mean the court is wrong, or that the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. The SC will only make sure the law was followed, that is its purpose.

Which court? The court which originally said it was illegal or the Court o Appeal which overturned that vedict (even though it knows the Supreme Court is going to look into the matter and they overturned it prior to this)?

I guess that means that all that time that the judicial system was ruling in favour of hatred in America they were never wrong once huh? Just doing their job protecting the laws, instead of the people.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Personally I would have called out these clowns, they are my heroes. I suppose though that clowns likely would have disrupted the funeral too.

As Russ points out the decision rests on whether or not they were intentionally harassing the family of the dead soldier or simply exercising their right to free speech. The problem is in making it a civil suit. The family was apparently so aggrieved as to spend time enough in court over such a psychologically traumatic event that they received a judgment of 11 million dollars. Eleven million dollars because some people were mean to them. Most people would be content with calling the police and having the offenders removed or quieted. But apparently that was not nearly enough for the Snyders. So not surprisingly they were counter sued since the people they sued were likely not capable of coughing up eleven mill.. This is the sort of mess you get into in a sue happy country. You get upset at people for being jerks and sue them for millions of dollars and they sue you back.
None of this was necessary and it could have easily stopped when the funeral was over. Or the Snyders could have been a bit more conscientious and found more productive means of stifling the ignorant jerks who assailed them at their sons funeral than suing for millions of dollars in "pain and suffering". Perhaps they did not ask for so much. Perhaps it was the judge who was ridiculous in this regard. But they ought have seen this coming and the judge who awarded such an amount should be ashamed of himself for creating this situation.

 

[BoomBoom]

I think they should schedule a Gay Pride parade in front of this church leader's house everday!

 

[zomgwtf]

I think they should schedule a Gay Pride parade in front of this church leader's house everday!

Or an athiest gathering? They are fundies right? The athiest can shout very hatefull and discriminate things at them.

Oh wait isn't religion protecting under current hate laws?

 

[Cyrus]

Which court? The court which originally said it was illegal or the Court o Appeal which overturned that vedict (even though it knows the Supreme Court is going to look into the matter and they overturned it prior to this)?

I guess that means that all that time that the judicial system was ruling in favour of hatred in America they were never wrong once huh? Just doing their job protecting the laws, instead of the people.

The job of the court is to uphold the law, the job of the legislature is to make them. Please take a class in civics.

As a side note, you only need to use one question mark when you ask a question. Unless you're hard of hearing?

 

[zomgwtf]

The job of the court is to uphold the law, the job of the legislature is to make them. Please take a class in civics.

As a side note, you only need to use one question mark when you ask a question. Unless you're hard of hearing?

This wouldn't be a simple matter of class in civics it would require a class in law. Your are mistaken in your thoughts, it's not that simple.

The job of the court also involves setting precedent which involves how the laws are interpreted and how the are applied. They don't write the law but it is definitely part of the system that they interpret it in certain situations, this being one of them and that is why the Supreme Court has agreed to accept this case.

Alas, that's not what this case is about though. It all has to do with the intent of the church and their comments, were they intentionally just trying to harm the grieving family?
Also you can keep your snide remarks to yourself about whatever posting etiquette I have that you dislike, that or just report me (I'm pretty sure you already have actually). There's no need to try and make people look or feel stupid but from reading the majority of your posts that seems to be one main reason you continue to come here.

 

[Cyrus]

This wouldn't be a simple matter of class in civics it would require a class in law. Your are mistaken in your thoughts, it's not that simple.

The job of the court also involves setting precedent which involves how the laws are interpreted and how the are applied. They don't write the law but it is definitely part of the system that they interpret it in certain situations, this being one of them and that is why the Supreme Court has agreed to accept this case.

Alas, that's not what this case is about though. It all has to do with the intent of the church and their comments, were they intentionally just trying to harm the grieving family?
Also you can keep your snide remarks to yourself about whatever posting etiquette I have that you dislike, that or just report me (I'm pretty sure you already have actually). There's no need to try and make people look or feel stupid but from reading the majority of your posts that seems to be one main reason you continue to come here.

That's because the majority of people that respond to me don't spend the time reading what I write, and then try to misrepresent my statements. If you so choose to do that, don't expect me to be nice to you in response: I have no more patience for it. FYI: you should reevaluate how you respond to my posts.

 

[D H]

I am not protecting or agreeing with what they are saying. Nor do I have any sympathy or affection for these people. They make my skin crawl. Defending the right to free speech is not the same thing as agreeing with them.

Hear, hear! Freedom of speech is not about protecting the rights of people with whom one agrees. It is about protecting the rights of those one deems most loathsome. And these people are indeed most loathsome. I know! Those bastards decided the publicity was right and protested right in front of NASA's main gate with vile, vile placards following the Columbia disaster. I (remotely) knew one of the astronauts who died on the Columbia.

 

[turbo]

That's because the majority of people that respond to me don't spend the time reading what I write, and then try to misrepresent my statements. If you so choose to do that, don't expect me to be nice to you in response: I have no more patience for it. FYI: you should reevaluate how you respond to my posts.

Says Cyrus, the ultimate supreme post-response mucky-muck.

Come on, USPSRMM! Catch a clue.

 

[MotoH]

Take it to PMs and quit derailing my thread.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Wasn't it derailed when somebody threatened to brutally murder someone? These last few pages are an embarrassment to the site.

 

[turbo]

Wasn't it derailed when somebody threatened to brutally murder someone? These last few pages are an embarrassment to the site.

Darned! Don't people have the right to threaten to murder someone? What'd the world coming to?

 

[Evo]

Closed by request.