Dead Marines father ordered to pay protesters legal costs

Discussion in 'US' started by ghost_us, Mar 31, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This really chaps my ass.

    I can't believe that they would overturn at the very least, an emotional distress award on this.
  2. [​IMG]
  3. A pity one of your NRA members didn't get annoyed and indulge in a bit of "nutter culling"! :x :x
  4. I don't think it is 'right' but I think it is entirely reasonable within the context of US First Amendment Rights. I can't remember who the quote is from but it goes something like "It is easily to believe in 'free speech' when you agree with the speaker. The real test is when you disagree."

    I think that Phelps is a walking, talking invitation to a punch in his bigoted mouth but, as the spawn of the evil toad said, the Synders sued ...

    The Supreme Court may overturn the 4th Circuit appeal, we'll see.
  5. I thought this kind of thing only happened in our twisted legal system?
  6. Apparently, the supreme court of US will be reviewing this case. There have been situations where limits are placed upon first amendment 'rights' - and this may be such a case.

    I've no problem with this eejits protesting - at least a block or two away from the funeral.
  7. This is one of the problems of living in a democratic society and a demonstration of where the law and peoples perception of their rights may clash. What should have happened is that the protester got arrested for a public order offense and given a caution. That would at least have got him off the street at the time. But hitting someone in that situation is an escalation to violence and the law must deal with that too. Of course the protester should have behaved with more respect and restraint, but that, presumably is a moral issue rather than a legal one. I'll be interested to see what the Supreme court makes of it.
  8. Well, at least this group has been banned in UK and classed as vermin in Australia
  9. I'd suggest that the real problem with the entire episode was the size of the damages awarded in the original case. $10.9 million??? OK, it was reduced to $5 million or $7.9 million (depending on how you read it), but at those amounts the Church is fighting for it's existence and loses nothing by appealing.

    Had the damages totalled a few hundred thousand, I'd wager that the Church would have stumped up and stopped involving itself in military funerals.

    Now there's a legal precedent and funding, be prepared for more anguish - and more profit to be made by the legal profession.
  10. The American legal system is much worse. If you got tried over there then you'd get down on you knees and beg to be taken to the worst of Britains courtrooms.
  11. Freedom of speech shouldn't give one the right to protest at a military funeral, these religious nutters are the Christian equivalent of the twats who wanted to protest at WB.

    I hope the 4th circuit appeal wins and bankrupts the God bothering cnuts!
  12. This is the Westboro Baptist Church we are talking about - you've just described a common-sense pragmatic approach - two virtues they are noticeably short of.

    There's plenty of 1st Amendment precedent in the US and very little state funding for law suits. Remember, it was the family that sued and, on appeal, have lost. If this was the UK, then your predicted avalanche of strife would be much more reasonable.

    While appreciating, even applauding, your intent, I think there is very little chance. This hits the "free expression of religion" as well as the "freedom of speech" clauses in the 1st Amendment. The next appeal is to the US Supreme Court - I wouldn't hold out much hope of it being successful there.
  13. It could be successful if the Supreme Court decides that the protesters do not have a First Amendment right to use hate speech against homosexuals at a private funeral service. However, that would seem a long shot.
  14. Why not, are you saying that we should only have freedom of speech if we agree with it. How would you like me to take away your right because I don't agree with it?