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