Posted on 11/24/2007 7:44:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
bump
Keep in mind, I agree this “church” is despicable, but unless they are breaking trespassing or other laws (not related to constitutionally protected free speech), what right do we have to punish them?
I think that you're getting things mixed up here. Yes, the Phelps do have "the right" to say these things. Having that right keeps the government from arresting you for saying it. However, it wasn't the government that brought the suit. This was brought as a civil case by the family of a Marine (I believe) who's funeral was protested by the Phelps mob. The civil suit was for intentional ... oh damn, I can't recall the exact words... But the key is that it's for intentionally causing emotional harm, which IS actionable. Remember, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that you won't suffer the consequences for doing it.
This isn't the government quashing "free speech." This is a group of lawyers having to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Mark
Again, you completely misunderstand the entire case. The government did NOT stop them from protesting. The government did NOT fine them. A civil suit was brought by the family of a Marine who's funeral was protested.
As an example, I could stand outside your home with a large sign stating that "CitizneUSA molests goats." There really wouldn't be anything that the government could do about it, asd long as I'm not on your private property and I'm not causing a traffic hazard. The action would be within my 1st Amendment rights. However, my "free speech" would certainly be actionable by you, and I have no doubt that you'd be on the phone to a lawyer to see how you could shut me up. And you would be well within your rights to do so.
Mark
Mo1 wrote: “You, for what ever reason are refusing to note the difference between civil and government cases .. and there is a huge difference”
I’m not refusing to note a difference between civil and government cases. I’m aware government can’t restrict my free speech beyond the legal limitations noted previously in this thread (i.e. Fighting Words, slander, etc). I’m also aware people can sue more for just about anything they want. What I keep asking is how they can possibly use civil suites to restrict my constitutionally protected freedoms. I gave a 2nd Amendment example. Let’s say someone sued me merely for carrying a weapon on my private property because they found it offensive or intimidating. Let’s say they just don’t like weapons. If a judge/jury ruled against me, couldn’t I appeal the case all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary? And, if I appealed it, wouldn’t I win because civil rulings can’t arbitrarily deny constitutionally protected rights?
Perhaps I’m making too fine of a distinction, but I’m looking at some of the SCOTUS decisions and they aren’t necessarily about a government agency/public official versus a private citizen. Some of them appear to be rulings on disputes between private companies.
I may be misinterpreting what other FReepers posted, but some seem to be saying the SCOTUS and other levels of appeal don’t have anything to do in civil cases. Yet, it appears they do rule on civil cases that affect constitutionally protected rights. If I’m wrong, please explain it to me. Can civil cases restrict constitutionally protected freedoms?
MarkL wrote: “The civil suit was for intentional ... oh damn, I can’t recall the exact words... But the key is that it’s for intentionally causing emotional harm, which IS actionable.”
I remember a case a couple years ago where a couple women sued an airline for using a term they thought was derogatory. I don’t know if the women won, but I hope they lost. Nevertheless, they probably needed to prove the airline used the term intentionally to intimidate them, right?
Here’s another example. Let’s say a minority angers you, and you respond with a racial slur. To be more specific, you call them a name but don’t use it in an assault. Could they win a civil judgment on something like that?
The first amendment only protects the people from the government as far as having the right of free speech. The first amendment has nothing to do with actions of one against another- people have always been able to sue each other for actions and words. In the good old days differences were settled with fists and duels- but still not a free speech issue at all. The government had to act within the law toward the Phelps family in regards to their protesting funerals. Until the law against protesting at funerals was passed (even now there are restrictions) the government could do nothing about the protests. If the government had arrested or fined the Phelps family for protesting, only then it would be a free speech issue.
The government did not bring this lawsuit against the family- the family of a deceased that was targeted for protest brought the suit. That is why this is not about free speech at all. This is much the same as celebrities mouthing off and then finding their market dry up- that has nothing to do with free speech either. People are free to sue if someone disrupts a loved ones funeral, and people have every right to boycott those they don’t like for whatever reason.
I am really happy the family of the deceased won this lawsuit- something had to be done to stop those horrible people from protesting in the way and at the places they protested. I don’t care if the settlement was billions- I would feel the same.
This Phelps family has had financial backing from somewhere in order to be able to continue to do all this- maybe this settlement will force them to open their books so we can all see who supports such actions.
You didn’t mention anything in that post about appealing and taking it to the USSC
Supposing it even got that far ... which I highly doubt it would .. alot of it would depend on if they would even hear the case and who’s sitting on the court at the time
Better hope the libs don’t get a chance at packing the courts
With that said .. a case like that is no where close to being like the Phelps and I’m not sure why you are changing the subject
Good point- If one of my relative’s funeral had been a target of protest by these wackos I would have ran- not walked to my attorney’s office to sue them myself. I am surprised all the families aren’t lining up now.
Lawyers cost money .. a good one can really run up a bill, especially if it's not a contingent case .. many families can't afford it
Mo1 wrote: “With that said .. a case like that is no where close to being like the Phelps and I’m not sure why you are changing the subject”
I’m not really changing the subject, just trying to clear up some areas I don’t completely understand. I wrote earlier that I agree the church used “Fighting Words” and libelous/slanderous statements on its web site. They are guilty, and rightly so.
Since then, I’ve tried to nail down what the law allows. As I wrote before, I’m concerned about people, like myself, being sued (and losing) for saying something like homosexuality is a sin. Certainly people say things that offend other people all the time.
The fact that it’s between private citizens (me and the offended homosexual) doesn’t mean I can’t appeal the “civil suite” all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary. I’m not saying the SCOTUS would take it, but they COULD take it, right? And, if they did take it, they could overrule the lower courts if the civil suite took away or restricted my constitutionally protected rights, right?
Anyway, I might be beating a dead horse here. I’m pretty sure I understand what speech is definitely prohibited (libelous and/or Fighting Words).
I'm not a constitutional lawyer .. or even a plain old lawyer .. so I would defer to them for better advice
but I believe a civil case doesn't stop you from using a gun again .. or in the Phelps case, stop them from shooting off their mouth again because it was a suit for damages .. it's not a criminal case and no one was arrested ... which is why I highly doubt the USSC would ever touch it
Though if the libs ever got their way and packed the court .. who knows what they would do
Thanks, Mo1. I’m clearly not a lawyer either. Let me just say I’m interested in any law that restricts offensive speech. It doesn’t seem a constitutional right to free speech is worth much if people can win civil suites against you for saying something that offends them. No doubt Fred Phelps crossed the line here. He committed libel, and he violated the family’s privacy rights. He’s toast, and rightly so.
I am not a lawyer but the “government” can sue and be sued in civil actions. For instance, in the late 1990’s, I worked for an attorney who sued the then-POTUS in a civil suit regarding the Panama Canal Treaty. Government officials are sued not as individuals, but in their official capacity. That particular suit went thru the federal district court, the district court of appeals and to the SCOTUS. It was a civil suit.
I think there is a misunderstanding of just what a ‘civil suit’ is. The federal courts (where the Snyder v. Phelps case was held) recognize only civil, criminal, bankruptcy cases. There is no such thing as “government cases” per se. Government agencies are afforded some special considerations in federal court (more time to answer, etc). There are also administrative agencies that handle government cases. That is a separate body of law (other than Article III courts) known as Administrative Law. The parties in federal court cases are irrelevant, so long as they are sued properly (as an individual, a corporate entity, a government official AS a government official not as an individual).
Criminal cases are pursued by goverments, i.e., local municipalities, states, federal government in the appropriate court. If you are a victim of a crime, the government pursues that as a criminal case, i.e., OJ Simpson was pursued in his criminal matter by LA in a municipal court, and in the civil matter was sued by the Goldmans.
According to Blackstone, there is a difference between “private wrong” and “public wrong.” The “private wrong” where a private person or entity or the government acting as or being sued as an entity, can go into court and sue (or be sued). The government, acts on behalf of the state in “public wrong” caes, acting on behalf of all the people.
Can civil suites can be used to restrict or award damages for constitutionally protected freedoms? Can a court give another person the right to restrict my free speech solely because it offends them (not libelous, not slanderous, not meant solely to intimidate or enrage)?
Once again ... I am NOT (by the Grace of God) a lawyer .. but my immediate answer would be NO. However, anyone can file any frivolous suit they want for any reason. An unfortunate number of suits are filed purely for harassment ... even the most unfounded suit, once filed and served, has to be answered. Typically that involves hiring a lawyer. Even more typically that costs time and money.
HOWEVER, that lawyer would immediately file to dismiss the case as frivolous and would likely win the dismissal, including the costs of defending the frivolous action.
Most lawyers would not file such a suit in the first place, knowing the case would be dismissed, so usually that kind of totally frivolous suit is filed by an individual proceeding on his/her own.
Civil suits that would attempt to restrict your constitutionally protcted freedoms, taking into account your stated restrictions, would or should be dismissed rather quickly. (I say ‘should’ because there are a number of judges who I would not trust in this regard).
That is why the Snyders didn’t sue about the protests themselves. Their attorneys undertood that the Phelps crowd has a right, within the restrictions set out about protesting at funerals, to say the most obnoxious things possible. They don’t have the right to defame. The lawyers knew the difference and sued accordingly.
Given the court system, quite possibly.
Mark
You never answered my post.
You don’t have to recruit anyone directly there are plenty of nuts to go around.. All one has to do is help a little here a little there. A little indirect support can let you culture and grow what you want. “Nuttiness” does most of the rest.
W
Thanks all,
I read to much into the “in place”...duh.
“Try simply answering the post without emulating a Clinton.”
I’m sure you meant “Try simply answering the post without emulating a Clinton, please”.
Just kidding...may I plagiarize the concept for daily use!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.