Bikers protest Westboro Baptist demonstrators at Arlington burial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, you have been doing it from step one.



Nope. You're falling into the Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy. You're saying that A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D. Your argument is formally correct but logical unsound. You cannot assume B and C to be true or inevitable without proving the inevitability and causation at each step. If you read the court opinions, you will see that there's no evidence of the causality you're assuming. In reality, over the past 100 years, first amendment protections have been expanded by courts in the face of public opposition--the exact opposite result of the slippery slope to which you say any new limitation of distasteful speech leads. I won't even go into the vagueness fallacy, but needless to say, unless you can show a cogent argument for each intermediate step, it can't be called a slippery slope.



Nope.



Read the case. Seriously. Read NY Times v. Sullivan. Read Hustler v. Falwell. Otherwise, you'll keep missing the point.


Maybe I should say "slippery slope may exist" as if the Supreme Court rules the way it should, nothing will slip here.

Meant to say "not Libel".

I'm saying A has led to B and B is now leading to C. I simplify because I know the crowd and I don't think we need to go in depth. And you're wrong, which is what you'll find once you sit back and watch how it plays out. The signs are protected, and will continue to be protected. I hope as long as those signs find their way to burials, there are good, freedom loving, military-appreciating people who counter it.

You haven't said how it's dangerous yet.
 
Last edited:
The signs are protected, and will continue to be protected.

If you only look at the words themselves, yes. It's easy to draw conclusions when you look at a third of the argument.

If the supreme court saw no reason to debate, they wouldn't hear the case. Clearly they don't see the issue as a non-starter.
 
If you only look at the words themselves, yes. It's easy to draw conclusions when you look at a third of the argument.

If the supreme court saw no reason to debate, they wouldn't hear the case. Clearly they don't see the issue as a non-starter.

Well, there could be a variety of reasons. A Supreme Court decision would set a precident for these kinds of assembly. I wouldn't assume that the reasoning to hear a case is to destroy someone's right to peacable assemble. I'm not sure if that's the direction you think it's headed.

They haven't been banned, and there hasn't been an indication that that's where it's headed. I assume that the Supreme Court may want to weigh in to settle it, as it's an ongoing issue.

You still haven't described what is "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false."
 
This isn't Freedom of speech- this is malicious speech that was intended to wound and has done so. It's hijacking the principle of free speech to claim that others have the right to deliberately inflict harm -either physical or mental on other private citizens. The argument that there is no recourse because we are worried about some mythical "Slippery Slope" is basically as feeble an argument as that advanced by Abraham Lincoln's opponents who protested his actions suspending Habius Corpus at the outset of the Civil War- The law exists to protect it's citizens and unless you are seriously arguing that a PRIVATE Citizen has no right or expectation of privacy and relief from harrassment - this case isn't gonna be decided by some abstract construct like a "slippery slope that will threaten the future of protected political speech". This is basically about verbal assault and harrassment of private citizens- which is exactly what the lower court found intitially. Yes the 4th Circuit overturned but I believe that the SCOTUS is going to side with the lower court

The Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the groups on Snyder's side, counters in its brief, "If Albert Snyder, a grieving father of an American hero, cannot seek remedy from (Phelps and his relatives) for the emotional torment (they) viciously imposed upon him, what purpose do our laws serve?"

"You only get one chance to do a burial," adds Harrisburg, Pa., lawyer Timothy Nieman, who wrote the VFW's filing. He says the Westboro protest created "a circus atmosphere at a private, sanctified time."
For Snyder, the case is not about speech rights, but personal harassment. Many federal and state officials agree.

Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, representing Senate leaders, tells the high court that free speech on public issues "does not encompass insults and verbal abuse intended to invade a private memorial ceremony and injure its participants."

He says protesters can take a stand in virtually any public place, but they cannot "hijack (a family's) private funeral as a vehicle for expression of their own hate."

Joining Snyder are 48 states — all except Maine and Virginia, which did not weigh in on the case — and the District of Columbia. In his appeal on behalf of Snyder, lawyer Sean Summers urges the court to focus on the targeted nature of the Phelpses' conduct against private people who Summers says were not public figures in a public debate.
 
This isn't Freedom of speech- this is malicious speech that was intended to wound and has done so. It's hijacking the principle of free speech to claim that others have the right to deliberately inflict harm -either physical or mental on other private citizens. The argument that there is no recourse because we are worried about some mythical "Slippery Slope" is basically as feeble an argument as that advanced by Abraham Lincoln's opponents who protested his actions suspending Habius Corpus at the outset of the Civil War- The law exists to protect it's citizens and unless you are seriously arguing that a PRIVATE Citizen has no right or expectation of privacy and relief from harrassment - this case isn't gonna be decided by some abstract construct like a "slippery slope that will threaten the future of protected political speech". This is basically about verbal assault and harrassment of private citizens- which is exactly what the lower court found intitially. Yes the 4th Circuit overturned but I believe that the SCOTUS is going to side with the lower court

:thumb:

Let's hope the courts do more with less here. No need to twist words to define the limits of the First Amendment.

As to those who argue that the family were unaware of the protesters during the funeral but learned of it afterwards, I say if you walked around school all day and people were smiling as they passed you and when you got home and took off your coat and found the "kick me" sign taped on it, are you no less hurt than if you found it during the day when people were smiling? No, it ruined your day and that cannot be taken away.
 
You still haven't described what is "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false."

How many times do you need to be directed to the case itself, or to my second post describing the actual issues of merit in this case? The original tort which started the whole case was predicated on speech which is intended to cause emotional distress or injury, which is prohibited under Maryland law. As the case has evolved to its current point, the question is whether such intentionally emotionally damaging speech (i.e. "Thank God for dead soldiers" at a military funeral) is

Moreover, if you actually read the post in which I used the phrase "dangerous, injurious, or maliciously false" you'll note that I was referring to your characterization of any abridgment of free speech as the top of the slippery slope to a totalitarian state of censorship, as evidenced by your statement which read:

LineInTheSand said:
Maybe no one cares about the slippery slope, however, I do. As much as trimming the Constitution and Bill of Rights makes us feel good...just because someone does something we don't like, it doesn't mean we can ban it.

Clearly, the Supreme Court and lower courts have upheld that when someone says something "we don't like" that has delterious consequences on the greater good, it can at times be abridged. Hence, you can't shout fire in a theater or bring porn to school.

It seems that you have yet to address the two precedents which are actually in question in this case. I think you're capable of far better than that. Yet, you seem intent on arguing only your opinions. It's honestly hard to debate the case when you won't talk about the case itself.

Had you read the case, the speech itself was already determined to be intentionally emotionally damaging to the plaintiff. However, the court used the precedent from the Hustler case and extended it to the Phelps party, which reuqired the cognitive leap that they 1) qualify as "media" and 2) the issues themselves meet the standard of a "public figure" in lieu of an individual. Snyder is arguing that the Westboro clan is not a media figure, but his more cogent and effective argument is that the issues may be public, but the damage is inflicted not on the public but on him, a private and therefore very un-public figure. The thrust of the appeal is that the standard which Hustler v. Falwell introduced was predicated on a desire to protect speech which, even though it may be injurious and false and malicious, contributes to the greater debate of a public figure and is necessary in a democracy. Snyder's argument is that his son's funeral is not part of the national debate, and thus their deliberately injurious speech is not afforded protection.

So, as I said...argue the actual case, not a philosophical stance on the first amendment. Or if you can't, don't. But endlessly repeating "you didn't answer my question" when the thread contains that answer from the get-go, and you have been referred to said answer, isn't an argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, who argued for The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case and the Judith Miller CIA leak case and has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court (most recently the Citizens United decision), talked with NEWSWEEK about how the court is likely to rule in Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church, and what the ramifications of the case will be.

Excerpts:

"How does the Supreme Court decide to hear this case over any other?"

"For one thing, the court of appeals for the fourth circuit, which did rule in favor of the church, wrote a very broad opinion, and the Supreme Court, even if they agree with it, might want a more narrow one. Of course another reason [could be that] they thought the lower court was wrong. One reason they take cases is because they think it’s decided so badly and is going to have an impact on the system. I heard Justice Thomas once give a speech saying that sometimes they take it just because it’s interesting."

"What do you think the consequences would be if the court were to rule against Westboro Baptist Church?"

"If the court were to do so, they would try very hard to write as narrow an opinion as they could. I don’t think they can do it. For one thing, we have protected hate speech, and I don’t think the court is going to move away from that for a moment, not in this case and not in the foreseeable future."

"So you feel strongly that the court will rule in favor of the church?"

"I think so. You know, the prime reason why I’m not so sure comes back to the question you asked a few minutes ago: why’d they take this case? They don’t usually take cases to affirm. If they were satisfied with what happened in the lower court, they don’t need to take it. I don’t think that they will reverse, but there is a chance."
 
You know, the prime reason why I’m not so sure comes back to the question you asked a few minutes ago: why’d they take this case? They don’t usually take cases to affirm. If they were satisfied with what happened in the lower court, they don’t need to take it. I don’t think that they will reverse, but there is a chance."

Exactly. That certainly doesn't mean they'll overturn the decision, but one has to wonder, especially since they turned down so many yesterday. If they do write that narrow opinion, my personal and non-attorney opinion is that they'll dig into what defines a public figure vice a private figure for the purposes of protected speech. There's no chance, in my mind, that they'll rule against the content of the speech. But they may rule against the protection of that admittedly malicious speech in the venue that Westboro has chosen to make it heard, based on the public v. private debate.

Either way, the opinion will be interesting. I highly doubt they took it just to say "Gosh, that circuit court really nailed it!"
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure the SCOTUS likes these things that much. I just think they feel the need to weigh in because so much has been said.

If they really want to put this to bed, they'll keep it simple, which points to siding with the original decision that the political speech is not the issue, but the harm to the family which was not the target of the political speech as they are not public figures. The church can stand on a soap box all day and make any statement, but can't stand on an innocent citizen's back and make any statement.

They'll get a lot fewer of these cases this way and can actually spend their time on more consequential matters.

Then again my way to deal with flag burners is to cite them for unauthorized burning (doesn't matter if it is a flag or a bedsheet) in a public place as a safety hazard. They can burn flags all day long on their own private property (if zoned apprpriately for public safety purposes) or in the bonfire pit of a public park (as long as the material burned doesn't give off noxious gases). Ignore the rhetoric and focus on the technical behavior.

BTW, if the folks from Westboro win, my bet is that there will be thousands of military vets protesting at the cemetery when that old preacher passes. He will get his...
 
I just read something about these idiots earlier (not the bikers). Pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. I don't know how the family could handle it, because I'd completely understand if the father went up and decked one of 'em.
 
Attorney general of Maryland had an article on this case in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../10/05/AR2010100503827.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
...They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held, waving signs that said "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "God Hates You."

They followed their protest by publishing a poem on the Internet entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder," which stated that Matthew's parents "taught Matthew to defy his creator" and "raised him for the devil."

So they targeted this individual family for harrassment.
....
The Constitution creates an impressive framework of rights that should be robustly defended. But these rights were created by the people, for the people, and when they are invoked to evade responsibility for wrongs committed against the people, their value is diminished. In deciding Snyder, the Supreme Court should be careful not to let the boundaries of our rights be set purely by those who wish to abuse them. To do otherwise would bring dishonor to those, like Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who fought to protect them.
Exactly.
 
Maybe he can head on down to Washington DC, pull the Bill of Rights out from under the many inches of glass it's protected under and take a pair of scissors to the parts he doesn't agree with. Wouldn't want those protections to hurt his eyes or offend him in any way.
 
Attorney general of Maryland had an article on this case in today's Washington Post:

"They stood at the entrance of the church where the funeral was held.."

The AG of MD is not telling the truth, according to the papers filed in the case.

"The seven picketers stood in a place designated by a priest and by the police, over a thousand feet from the funeral. They sang songs and waved signs that included the messages: “You’re Going to Hell,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The demonstration was neither visible nor audible to those attending the funeral."

His credibility is in question.
 
The AG of MD is not telling the truth, according to the papers filed in the case.

"The seven picketers stood in a place designated by a priest and by the police, over a thousand feet from the funeral. They sang songs and waved signs that included the messages: “You’re Going to Hell,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The demonstration was neither visible nor audible to those attending the funeral."

His credibility is in question.

You love to question the credibility of anyone you don't agree with. Somehow, I doubt the AG would risk a libel accusation.

I give you credit for actually reading the case though. It's more than some others are willing to do...
 
You love to question the credibility of anyone you don't agree with. Somehow, I doubt the AG would risk a libel accusation.


You can believe some outside opinion printed in a newspaper (and we know how factual they always are) given by a non-party in the case (the AG of MD), or you can believe the facts that will be presented as sworn evidence (punishable by felony perjury) before the highest court in the United States.

:rolleyes:
 
You love to question the credibility of anyone you don't agree with. Somehow, I doubt the AG would risk a libel accusation.

I give you credit for actually reading the case though. It's more than some others are willing to do...

I also assume governors don't want to be caught with prostitutes and generals know when to keep their mouths shut....

It's slip-ups that make the press world go round.

I appreciate your assumption that people will agree with you after reading the case....
 
You can believe some outside opinion printed in a newspaper (and we know how factual they always are) given by a non-party in the case (the AG of MD), or you can believe the facts that will be presented as sworn evidence (punishable by felony perjury) before the highest court in the United States.

:rolleyes:

Whatever fits someone's point of view, that's what they'll general use as support, however unfounded it may be.


It's with the Supreme Court now...we'll see what happens.
 
The AG of MD is not telling the truth, according to the papers filed in the case.

"The seven picketers stood in a place designated by a priest and by the police, over a thousand feet from the funeral. They sang songs and waved signs that included the messages: “You’re Going to Hell,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The demonstration was neither visible nor audible to those attending the funeral."

His credibility is in question.

Purely out of my own curiosity, does this quote come from the respondent's or the petitioner's brief? Or neither?
 
Purely out of my own curiosity, does this quote come from the respondent's or the petitioner's brief? Or neither?

Stop asking questions! The Sea Lawyers have decided that the AG is lying. It's a done deal.

Next you'll ask dumb questions like "Did all the protestors stand 1000' away?" and "Did they stand near the church at any point?"

You lawyers...always wanting to find out the whole truth. Next you'll want to argue the merits of the case instead of resorting to hyperbole about shredding the bill of rights.

I've had enough of you, sir. Good day! :thumb:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top