Posted on 03/30/2010 3:01:27 PM PDT by Mrs. Frogjerk
My opinion is that Phelps & Co. are in need of a good ass whoopin'.
That's how a group like them would be able to collect money from others, if that happened, doncha know...
They know that and they are well aware of how others may get upset and they can use that against those others who get upset and it can result in a lot of loss of money on those other people's behalf.
You don't want to put more money in their pocket. They've made a good success of doing that in the past.
Whatever, as I said in a previous post, I'm not a lawyer nor do I wish to get into a pissing contest with YOU or anyone else on legal issues.........
Instead of trying to impress me with your knowledge of law, maybe you should contact Mr. Snyder and offer to represent him on this obviously bogus judgment.........Based on what you have told me/us, it should be a slam dunk!
Just a thought.......
typo, meant to say’’ broadening it’’
There are limits. You can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, threaten someone’s life or limb, etc. Stalking is illegal. So is harassment. But as long as it’s done to America’s heroes, I’m sure it will have your support.
You can easily spend that much (or more) in printing costs for a federal appeal, since you have to print 10 copies of the entire trial transcript for the Court of Appeals, plus printing costs for the briefs. If it was an award of attorneys' fees, it would easily be ten times that.
What does that have to do with anything? Would you support phelps’ imaginary right to harass the homosexuals he claims are his target, or would you give them special rights over and above our military families?
Darn right, Tet! Marines up!
It was a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit-- one appointed by Bush I, one by Clinton, one by Bush II. The Bush I appointee wrote the decision; the other two concurred.
There are limits. You can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, threaten someone’s life or limb, etc. Stalking is illegal. So is harassment. But as long as it’s done to America’s heroes, I’m sure it will have your support.
It will have my support as long as something supports my free speech, so that the Marxists, and liberal leftists cannot shut down my own free speech that they find so highly offensive against them, that I speak about. That's the support I'll be giving, doncha know... :-)
Here's a section of a larger article, speaking to the issue of offensive speech.
[ ... ]
Since the 1980s, a number of laws have been passed that attempt to regulate or ban "hate speech," which is defined as utterances, displays, or expressions of racial, religious, or sexual bias. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally invalidated such laws on the ground that they infringe First Amendment rights. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992), the Court invalidated the city of St. Paul's hate-crime ordinance, ruling that it unconstitutionally infringed free speech. The defendant in that case had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family's residence.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the ordinance was limited to restricting conduct that amounted to Chaplinksky "fighting words." Therefore, the ordinance was not impermissibly content-based because it was "narrowly tailored" to further the "compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order." The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion, wrote that, even assuming that the cross burning was proscribable under the "fighting words" doctrine, the ordinance was, on its face, unconstitutional. It violated the First Amendment because it prohibited "otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." Scalia agreed that the government may constitutionally proscribe content such as libel, but that it may not proscribe only libel that is critical of the government. In Scalia's view, the unprotected features of "fighting words" are their "nonspeech" element of communication. Thus, fighting words are like a noisy sound truck: each is a mode of speech, and both can be used to convey an idea, but neither has a claim on the First Amendment. The government cannot, however, regulate fighting words or a sound truck based on "hostility-or favoritism-towards the underlying message expressed."
In addition, the ordinance was not over-broad but underinclusive. The content limitation was impermissible because it displayed "the city council's special hostility towards the particular biases thus singled out." An ordinance not restricted "to the favored topics" would have the same effect the city desired, but without the discrimination against unpopular views. Justice Scalia also noted that the city could have prosecuted the defendant under traditional Criminal Law statutes, including Arson, trespass, and terroristic threats. In his view, the city had other means to address the problem "without adding the First Amendment to the fire."
[ ... ]
I know where there’s a coin operated copy machine that charges ten cents a copy. As long it’s not more than 16,510 pages and I don’t have to make more than ten copies, I can do that within the budget. What do you think? Are there more than 16,510 pages?
I would even support your right to stand outside the office of your congressman and protest him if he was a supporter of this health care bill. I would even support your right to follow him to his office in his home town and protest outside that office too......(stalking?)
I would even support your right to gather on the lawns of the White House and protest against this current administration and call it a "tea party".......
Any other questions?
I would rot in jail first!
Me too! Of course I'd probably do something on top of not paying those scum sucking a$$holes!
Interesting theory. I love to see Fred hooked up to a polygraph and ask some personal questions.
That said, I believe Westboro is more of a law suit machine than a sincere hate group. Now they may really hate gays and America, but from what I can tell their whole operation is designed to provoke others into “violating their free speech rights” so they can sue.
I think there is a special place in Hell for Phelps and his crew. Hitler and Stalin will comfort each other in their eternal torment by saying, “It could be worse, we could be in the Phelps wing.”
The trial transcript, together with the various motion papers and depositions that were copied, might well have been that long. The record and briefs also must be indexed and bound. I have argued over 30 federal appeals, and the costs award doesn't sound unusually high to me.
My family would love for those a$$holes to show up. I don't think Phelps and his hags would make it to anymore funerals.
Sounds great how do we get this going?
Can they be in a sock?
Some truly talented and well trained Spec Ops could solve this problem without a trace.
LLS
Sure would be fun to watch with all that publicity.
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.