Why I have mixed feeling about the Phelp's verdict

[NJmaverick]

The problem, I have is this:

Phelps and his group are evil. What they are doing is morally reprehensible, in my opinion. Still the very foundation of free speech is not in the protection of popular speech. Rather it's the protections afforded to unpopular ideas and opinions. Sure some speech will remain forever unpopular, and rightfully so. Still other ideas start out as hated and unpopular, only to gain public acceptance, over time. The problem is few people can figure out how history will play out. When one stifles speech on the grounds that it is unpopular, it doesn't matter what excuse one uses. Call it hate speech, call it politically incorrect, call it dangerous or treasonous, one is playing a dangerous game. History is full of various tricks used to get around the 1st amendment and to stifle speech that one doesn't want to hear. Often the speech that people attempted to stifle proved to be the morally correct stance.

In this case it's a bit more dangerous. I think most people will say our civil legal system is out of control and dangerous. The case law is ripe with people suing and winning for things like coffee that is too hot or ladders that didn't have enough warning labels. If this sort of standard is allowed to be used on speech, I fear that free speech could become a distant memory. As much as I hate what they are doing, I think one needs to be careful how one goes about stopping them. I would much prefer the way PGR and his group is handling it, over the idea that people can sue one another over public speech that they don't like.

What's to stop a company from using this tactic to sue protestors that hurt their business? What if politicians start to use it? What if George Bush is allowed to sue everyone that called him stupid, for emotional distress?

[terrya]

1. I see it as harassment, pure and simple.

Those families who wish to grieve for their sons or daughters at their funerals should NOT have to put up with that evil piece of shit and his family.

[NJmaverick]

2. That is correct

Are you willing to sacrifice the first amemdment to see that happen?

[bryant69]

4. Does putting burning crosses on a lawn count as free speech?

No because there is a threat of violence behind it. You aren't allowed to threaten people to achieve your political ends. This could be seen as a similar case.

Bryant

[NJmaverick]

10. Phelps issued threats?

If he didn't, then it's nothing like the cross burnings.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

86. The FAILURE to distinguish a person's right to speak against government and a person's right,...

,...to be FREE from INTRUSION by either his/her government or any person,...THAT DISTINCTION has been and continues to be attacked by the right-wing fascists who seek the power to intrude on anyone.

If you are willing, please listen/read the following.

The CONSTITUTION guaranteed THE PEOPLE the right to speak ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.

Laws have been enacted to PROTECT PEOPLE from oppressive behavior as any democratic society would do on behalf of its people.

Asserting Phelps into constitutional free speech rights essentially destroys all democratic understandings, including the constitution, allowing him free reign to INTRUDE UPON OTHERS as a dictator.

You want that?

[NJmaverick]

119. Your interpretation pretty much strips all the

rights the Supreme Court has already granted us. S

[ProfessorGAC]

134. The Supreme Court Grants Nothing

The rights are inherent and merely codified in the Bill of Rights and Ammendments.

The SCOTUS has no power to grant or retract rights.

The language of the 1st ammendment is clear. It does not stipulate what you Pro suggest.

If it did, there would be no libel or slander laws.
The Professor

[NJmaverick]

154. So if the right isn't expressly listed in the constitution

we don't have it. You know you should contact George Bush. He is looking for more people with your view, to fill the federal courts with.

[ProfessorGAC]

171. That's The OPPOSITE Of What I Said

I said that it's MERELY CODIFIED in the ammendments. The rights are inherent and the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to grant or retract rights. We have them. That's it. They only rule on the elements of law that rein in the gov't from retracting inherent rights.

If you're going to give a smartass reply, you really should read the post to which you're replying. Then the reply might have a chance of making sense.

You didn't. Your's doesn't.

I'm the furthest thing from a strict constructionist as is humanly possible. But, since you don't read for comprenhension, you wouldn't have surmised that. Duh!

And, you still haven't addressed that your interpretation invalidates slander and libel. Since those laws are fixed in the jurisprudence, your interpretation MUST be wrong.

Class dimissed. You fail.
The Professor

[NJmaverick]

202. What was the slander "professor"

Seems to me you "fail" to explain that point. Oh well, too bad you already declared yourself superior and closed your mind.

[Kagemusha]

225. Ah, he's doing this to you too.

I think I've about had it with that poster and this thread, myself, even though I felt that stating a few things for the benefit of lurkers wasn't wasted.

See you around.

[Common Sense Party]

247. Rights come from 9 judges?

:shrug:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. It's not a First Amendment issue

It's a civil issue.

Civil law does not allow free and unfettered speech when it comes to actual and demonstrable harm done to other parties.

[NJmaverick]

7. So it's OK for cosmetic companies to sue

Animal rights protestors? What about logging companies suing environmental groups? I have a real problem exposing our civil liberties to civil law.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. Under what circumstances?

Because that is what makes the difference.

[Kagemusha]

12. Excuse me? Cosmetic companies and logging companies have done so, right?

They call them SLAPP lawsuits, right?

Another example: there are laws in various states to ban the badmouthing of particular kinds of agricultural crops, whether or not the allegation is true. I can hardly claim to agree with these laws and lawsuits filed under them. But they exist, they have existed for considerable time, and they have not all been tossed out as unconstitutional. (Even if I might personally prefer that they were.)

My point is, you treat exposing civil liberties to civil law as if it is new and as if the US is a virgin nation never before despoiled by such a concept. I laugh at that.

[NJmaverick]

17. So you support those lawsuits?

You think that the protestors should have to pay money to the cosmetic and logging companies because of the financial losses they may have sustained, as the result of the protests? What about boycotts, should targets of boycotts be allowed to sue? Doesn't this very group support and use boycotts for political purpose?

I don't follow your reasoning that previous wrongs, some how justify this. Honestly that doesn't make any sense to me, but then I guess that's why you are laughing.

[Kagemusha]

23. Sir, are you literate? I specifically wrote that I don't support with those lawsuits.

I am saying you are acting as if your beautiful mind is being violated by the very idea that civil law might infringe in any way on civil rights. What country do you think you live in? Are you so unaware of its legal history that you have just cause to speak here as if you were born yesterday?

The rest of us weren't born yesterday, so don't expect us to act the part.

[NJmaverick]

40. You know

I have often seen those that lack facts or reason, substitute hyperbole and personal attack. Why am I reminded of that thought after reading your post?

[Kagemusha]

50. Because you choose not to read plain English perhaps?

I wrote that there is a long body of civil law allowing lawsuits over speech. I wrote that I don't agree with the practice of suing people over speech such as the cosmetics and logging and fruit and beef cases. It is nonetheless legal in America. It's not government censorship when a private company sues and gets judicial relief. If the basis of your not liking this judgment against the Phelps clan is your belief that courts should not hear lawsuits from one private party against another involving speech, you have a problem with basic laws and judicial practices in the United States of America.

It cannot be any clearer than that.

If you are just too much of a simpleton to read "There are lawsuits like this in x, y, and z cases, which I don't like, but it's not like the Phelps case will cause them to arise where they never have before" as "There are lawsuits like this in x, y, z cases and I strongly support them", you are engaging in hyperbole, and I don't have to attack you - you have done such self-inflicted damage that any attack on my part is wholly unnecessary and would constitute cruelty against the rhetorically invalid.

[A HERETIC I AM]

78. "would constitute cruelty against the rhetorically invalid."

Holy shit!

Now THATS funny.:toast: :rofl: :spray:

Well written.

Nicely done.

[NJmaverick]

120. I see the problem

I knew full well what the situation is. Your comments were needless and self promoting. I guess I gave you credit for better a better quality response. Next time try a different approach then a condescending one, it only makes you look bad, for what it's worth.

[Kagemusha]

126. If you knew the situation, you should have said so.

You have just admitted understanding full well that I said I did not support lawsuits over insulting a state's fruit crops and similar suits, and yet, in the subject line of your very next post, you rhetorically asked me if I supported those lawsuits.

That made me look bad, because it was a direct, bald lie.

[Richard Steele]

139. He's painted himself into a corner...

...and now he's just spinning, spinning, spinning,
while tossing out more condescending insults.

[NJmaverick]

152. LOL!

Well there is a post that has so many great points. I bow to your genius!

[Richard Steele]

165. Snark in lieu of discussion or rebuttal. I'm neither impressed nor surprised.

nm

[NJmaverick]

151. Well I guess we will live with your original assertion

<<My point is, you treat exposing civil liberties to civil law as if it is new and as if the US is a virgin nation never before despoiled by such a concept. I laugh at that.>>

Here we have the classic example strawman argument used by those that try to pump themselves up and try to make themselves look smarter than they really are.

The reality is your point was useless. What you fail to understand is the difference between winning a lawsuit and suing someone. When you understand that, you will understand just how stupid your statement makes you look.

[Kagemusha]

177. I'll lay it out again then.

Your position is, this is a horrible decision because if "this standard is allowed to be used on free speech, (you) fear that free speech could become a distant memory."

My position is, this standard has been allowed to be used on free speech for decades. There are heavy restrictions on what lawsuits are allowed; in particular, the executive branch cannot be the one stifling speech. However, private parties that feel wronged by speech can sue. They won't necessarily win, but they can sue. That has been the case for many, many years.

In this case, apparently the Phelps family publicly defamed the dead soldier and the dead soldier's family over a prolonged period, stating that the soldier was raised godless and to hate and despise God and that is why God killed him. It is not simply this... I do not want to call it a genuine belief, because I don't think that can be supported, but the viciousness and maliciousness with which this defamation took place for the purposes of exploiting the soldier's death for publicity and probably fundraising, too. This gives the family standing to sue.

I have no way of knowing from where I sit if the jury's verdict was truly justified, but your position is not that the JUDGMENT was dangerous, but that the LAWSUIT was dangerous. My position is that this is naive and mistaken because for a lawsuit to be a precedent, in this case, the precedent that families of the deceased can sue for defamation when they are, not to put too fine a point on it, defamed. This cannot be a precedent because it has, you know, happened before. It's happened a lot before. It may not have happened a lot before relating to protests ... near, and about, a funeral, if not "at" one... but defamation lawsuits are nothing new to America. You see this particular defamation lawsuit as a unique precedent-setting case that threatens civil liberties in America. I see it as yet another defamation case among many.

The better question, which you have not been asking, is whether Phelps deserves a special exemption to civil laws because the nature of his protest is a mix of the political and religious, even though it clearly is defamation with malicious intent. In other words, if your religion is inherently hateful, should you get a free pass on hate speech? That is a better argument, even if I'm not inclined to agree that religion makes targeted defamation of a family that did not seek public attention any more legal. But it is a better argument. You should have made it.

(Edit: And yes, that would leave the cosmetics, logging and fruit lawsuits alone. It would, however, preserve Phelps' speech. There is simply no merit to citing Phelps' speech as a precedent for other lawsuits that have been taking place long before our conversation on this message board. The Phelps case is not a precedent. The better argument is to cite it as an EXCEPTION that should be specially protected.)

[NJmaverick]

203. Again you are mixing up the act of suing with the verdict

The right to sue is pretty general, how they turn out is what is important.

[Kagemusha]

218. How would you control that, sir?

There's a jury system in America. There's judges. How do you propose to control them in order to ensure that everyone can sue, but only the "correct" decisions get made?

[NJmaverick]

219. Make the appropriate laws

I would think that would be a good start. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen, with so many politicians being lawyers.

[Kagemusha]

220. Baloney. That's a complete contradiction.

The whole point of making the appropriate laws is so that people can't sue if lawmakers deem a particular class of lawsuits to be offensive to civil liberties. Juries are not meant to decide issues of constitutional law. The very fact that a judge allows a case to proceed to a jury decision means the judge has made the determination that EITHER outcome, guilty or not guilty, is acceptable to the justice system. The judge, it is hoped, makes that determination according to the laws passed by legislatures. The only way to stop juries from making "bad" decisions is to not allow them to make any decision at all by obstructing lawsuits at the various stages before a jury trial begins, or, barring that, after the fact with an appeal.

As I said, you seem to have a problem with basic judicial process. If someone has every right to sue, is that merely to file, only to have the suit dismissed by a judge, or does that mean the right to have the case heard by a jury? Because "the appropriate laws" cannot and will not force a jury to vote the way you would like. Only a judge can make a decision that says the jury's opinion is irrelevant - the case has only one just outcome, the one pre-determined by "the appropriate laws".

There is another, less dramatic possibility: that a jury picking the option you personally dislike is not a precedent whatsoever, but merely one single isolated case determined on the basis of one unique set of facts with no bearing regarding any other defamation case before or since. In this scenario, the jury may not have ruled as you would like, but none of the dramatic consequences you list will occur as a result. The only result is specific to the defendants and whether or not they can successfully appeal on a point of LAW. Because they can't appeal the jury's choice in and of itself. Unless someone bought the jury off or some such thing, the only argument is to argue that the case should never have gone to a jury at all so the jury's opinion should be rendered irrelevant. That's not consistent with your argument that people should be able to sue for defamation but.. like I said, the consequences are localized, and will in no way income your rights to free speech or anyone else's.

[NJmaverick]

222. What is the contradiction????

You make the statement- "Baloney. That's a complete contradiction." Then fail to support your claim. Was the statement intended just to inflame? No matter, you see to think that juries are incapable of having their decisions clouded by emotion. Even though any lawyer will tell you, that to win, you need to take emotions of the jury into account. Good laws minimizes the impact emotions play on juries.

On top of that I have talked to many jurors who have complained that they were forced to hand down certain decisions, even though they felt that justice was not servered. They were forced to render a verdict because of the instructions (which are based on the laws I talked about). There were also jurors that complained about the lack of reasonable guidance when it came to the ammount of reward. Again this is something that could be addressed by laws.

I also do not buy into your concept that law cases are isolated incidences and they don't affect future ones.

[Kagemusha]

223. If what you say is true, how in good conscience can you allow this to go to juries?

That's the contradiction. The entirety of your argument - the ease of manipulating juries, how emotion plays an impact, how decisions are made that are not good - supports a view that letting this go to a jury is wrong and dangerous and the laws should be changed to prevent cases from doing so. Reasonable guidance about rewards is completely besides the point in a case like this one we have been discussing here when you think a single cent paid is wrong, so whatever.

My point is that you should not argue overwhelmingly in favor of laws being passed that would strangle defamation lawsuits on the principle that free speech should be much closer to absolute, and then say on the other hand that you support everyone's right to sue. You clearly don't think it's proper for such plaintiffs to sue. Now you're trying to thread the needle that they should be allowed to have an expensive trial, have the judge give the jury instructions that make a verdict in favor of the plaintiff impossible except for jury nullification, and this, you call fairness. I call it a waste of everyone's time.

If it's constitutionally noxious to have civil suits for defamation, there is no point having Soviet show trials with a rigged outcome in favor of the defendant. Let's just have judges dismiss the suits and save a lot of time and money for everyone, including the public. If it's that important a principle to uphold, rolling the dice on a jury is pointless. I am pleading for consistency.

[NJmaverick]

227. You have twisted this issue beyond recognition

You seem hopelessly lost in some inconsequential point or issue. Let's get back to the issue at hand.

Do you support this attack on the first amendment using civil law or do you oppose it?

[madinmaryland]

18. I don't see that as a valid arguement.

If the protestors trespass on a companies grounds they can be arrested. If a person makes a false claim they can be sued. I don't see how you can compare phelps to the situations you have shown.

[NJmaverick]

153. Did Phelps trespass? Did they make a false claim?

No on both counts. They expressed their religious beliefs. Their beliefs may be wrong and they may be evil, but they did not trespass and they did not make false claims.

[mondo joe]

197. Yes, actually.

[NJmaverick]

215. Specifics please?

[gilpo]

21. Corporations can't sue for personal harm... they aren't people.

[NJmaverick]

43. Corperations can sue for financial loss

It's not hard to claim protestors hurt the business financially either directly or indirectly.

[immoderate]

What did the beef producers do to Oprah Winfrey?

Corporations are people, legally.

--IMM--IMM

[Whisp]

49. ever see The Corporation? yes, they are 'people' - insane ones. nt

[qdemn7]

91. Corporations ARE considered people, unfortunately

http://www.uuworld.org/2003/03/feature1a.html

That is why we need a Corporate Personhood Amendment to the Constitution.

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

[Goblinmonger]

244. If the protestors commit a tort against the company

then they can sue, yes. Why is that hard to understand. The first amendment applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do, not private companies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. Why is it not a first amendment issue?

[Kagemusha]

65. To be honest, I haven't been able to look at the details of the case at all.

I may not have any sympathy with the original poster of this thread for saying that this decision is some kind of unprecedented, dam-breaking incident that will lead to a flood of civil lawsuits over things involving speech because... such suits occur every day of the work week. I just wish I could say with a straight face that I have reason to argue FOR this decision. At present, I don't. I don't know if it's a good decision or a bad decision or the details that would indicate why. I realize that what I write here is basically useless at this point in the thread but, that's nonetheless how I feel about the matter.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

66. Easy answer

A funeral is not a public forum.

Isn't that the premise behind several of the new state laws prohibiting protest at funerals?

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. They protest on public sidewalks

and as much as I despise their message, my group also protests against the war and the Bush administration on public sidewalks. So I will defend the Phelps' first amendment rights. If they lose them, we all do.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

80. Do you protest private funerals?

Do you inflict harm on innocent individuals?

If this is not an exception to the rule of free speech, which I personally think it is, then the ACLU will step up to defend Westboro Baptist Church as should be.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. Which part of public sidewalk are you having trouble understanding?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

98. I see

I find it unnecessary for you to respond to me in that fashion, proud2Blib. It's rude and was uncalled for.

My questions were not intended to anger you into snapping at me, I assure you of that. If anything I was attempting to engage in a conversation.

As I said in my last post if my perception of the situation is not correct, then the ACLU will step in and defend Westboro. Which is as it should be. I trust them to know where one persons rights end and another's begin.

[proud2BlibKansan]

104. This hits close to home for me; Phelps is an hour away

and as the legislatures in both states consider legislation to shut him up, the rights of those of us who protest against this war and the administration are also at risk.

I am sorry I was rude.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

204. I understand

Don't give it a second thought. It is after all a very complex issue and we both have valid concerns.

The point I had been attempting to make was that there is potential for an expectation of privacy at a funeral. Which was what the jury found in this case.

If it's decreed that Phelps maliciously chooses his venues to cause emotional harm on those attending the funerals of their loved ones, I don't see that as a blow to free speech, but rather a victory to a private citizen's right to expect privacy at such a venue.

I realize that there is potential for abuse in the intent to cause harm and expectation of privacy rulings. However, I find it difficult to simply disregard the victims rights in this case.

[Zynx]

135. You can very easily commit verbal tort claims in public spaces. This isn't exactly new law.

[MiniMe]

101. You can't yell "fire" in a theater, that is not protected speech

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. Is Phelps yelling fire?

I don't think so.

[mondo joe]

115. No, but he did defame this family.

And that's not protected speech.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

130. It wasn't a defamation suit

The lawsuit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Being a con artist, Phelps is trying to hide behind the skirts of the First Amendment, and many people have fallen for it.

No one suppressed his speech. He was sued for his deliberately evil acts.

The First Amendment is NOT a shield to other civil wrongs. It is NOT a vehicle for civil immunity.

When we bite on Phelps' First Amendment frame, we carry HIS water, in HIS bucket.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
America's Independent Liberal Radio Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

[H2O Man]

145. Very important points.

Thank you.

[LisaL]

231. WTF does it mean, intentional infliction of emotional distress?

If I somebody tells me something I don't like, and I get emotionally distressed, can I sue for millions?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

242. Nope

Lots more to it than that.

"Emotional distress" is very much a formalized term of art. It's not the same as getting pissed off. In most jurisdictions it has a required component of sequelae. One has to prove, in other words, that it had lasting, negative, quantifiable effects.

In this instance, it appears that the defense simply admitted it. Makes the plaintiff's job a heckuva lot easier.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

243. It's not a First Amendment issue because

Phelps' speech was never suppressed. He engaged in his speech freely.

In the course of that speech, however, he committed a civil wrong, a tort. A tort will be heard in a civil action for damages.

In this particular case, the tort was "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

The First Amendment is not a shield to tortious conduct. It's not an affirmative defense.

As I noted below, when we view this case as a First Amendment issue, we are settling for Phelps' frame and being suckered by it. Phelps is a liar. It stands to reason that he would lie abou the nature of his claim as well.

[H2O Man]

69. It's both.

It is certainly an Amendment 1 issue -- all civil or criminal laws that have to do with "free speech" issues are. Your point that there are limits on free speech is, of course, exactly right.

The OP raises an important point, too: we should always look closely at any restrictions on "free speech," or other Amendment 1 rights. Even with the issues with Miller and Cooper in the Plame case, it was important that Mr. Fitzgerald used his authority to compel testimony as a last resort.

In this case, I think the court ruled correctly. But we need to be sure it does not lead to abuses.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

155. Thank you

That's an important distinction I failed to make correctly.

[JVS]

92. When speech costs money, it isn't free anymore

[NJmaverick]

122. Excellent point

Pretty much nails it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

124. Over simplified

Speech can be harassing, libelous or defaming. All of which breech another persons rights and could potentially cost the offender money.

[redwitch]

127. Right to privacy at a loved one's funeral a whole 'nother deal.

It's a funeral for goodness sake! I am not willing to sacrifice the first amendment, this behavior is not free speech it is harrassment, which IS illegal.

[Dorian Gray]

62. Agree

It's harassment.

Phelps actions are egregious and horrendous, purposefully inflicting emotional pain on those suffering the loss of a loved one.

[LisaL]

234. Is being emotionally distressed really worth millions?

Should people be able to protest something or not? War, killing of dolphins, or whatever?
What if whatever it is being protested is stressing someone out?

[Prophet 451]

238. Normally, no

However, since it's Phelps, the court should have demanded Billions, all his property and his life.

[DS1]

3. God handed down that verdict

somewhere within the Phelps clan there's a sneaky fag-lover making God lift his veil of protection


I'll bet the beatings the last few nights have been severe, and that poor old Fred's knuckles are sore at the moment.

[madinmaryland]

5. The next question is when does free speech become harassment?

To me, Phelps has already crossed that line. Phelps is free to spout what he wants to, but I think it crosses the "line" when he does it at funerals.

[NJmaverick]

9. Can the KKK sue for mental distress

Next time protestors show up at their rally? Again it's not a question of is what Phelps doing wrong, it's a question of are you willing to toss away our first amendment rights to stop them.

[madinmaryland]

15. I don't believe those are valid comparisons

If the KKK is out protesting and someone protests against them, that is in the public. If Phelps want to walk down the street of any american city/town he is welcome to. A funeral is a private affair.

[NJmaverick]

22. So if the KKK have a meeting at a private hall

and the protestors protest outside on public grounds, just like Phelps does at the funerals, the KKK should be allowed to sue. After all their sacred ceromonies have been disturbed by those protestors outside. Sorry to have to play devil's advocate, but it's disturbing how many people are willing to toss aside a critical civil liberty just to get at some really slimey people.

[KittyWampus]

63. actually, yes. the KKK does in fact have the right to hold their secret ceremonies in a private hall

without harassment from protestors outside.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

248. I can't emphasize strongly enough

that this is NOT a First Amendment issue AT ALL.

His speech wasn't suppressed. No government entity stopped him from having his say.

In the course of having his say, however, he committed an actionable civil wrong. That is why he was hailed into court.

For instance: I'm protesting the war. I've got a big "No Mo War" sign. I'm chanting, singing, protesting, all quite peacefully. I turn to look at another protester, and in the process poke out another protester's eye with my sign. When the protester I injured sues me, I can't very well claim that the lawsuit for damages is suppressing my right to free speech.

The two are entirely separate legal creatures.

Phelps is trying to con Americans into thinking his rights are being trampled. They aren't. He admitted the tortious nature of his conduct on the stand, under oath and now wants people to think it's about his free speech rights.

It.Just.Isn't. Phelps is a liar and a sociopath and he's showing it once again.

[Kagemusha]

8. Public speech, you say. At a funeral?

What other messages are acceptable at funerals by people not invited to speak at the event? 'Muslims kill our Children'? 'Repent for your support of Israel'? 'Buy American'?

Until Fred Phelps and his brood, I wasn't aware funerals were places where you could protest like this and disturb what I had thought were private funeral services.

[NJmaverick]

14. Are they in the church or on public lands outside the church

If they are on the public lands, the funeral arguement really doesn't apply.

[Kagemusha]

19. Are you suggesting that Phelps was NOT picketing funerals?

I don't want to have to look into the details of the case any further - it'd spoil my stomach - but I have to seriously ask, if Phelps isn't picketing funerals, what is the point? The content of his message is that God hates Gays, America coddles Gays, therefore God kills our Children, in the form of slaying soldiers who serve the nation in Iraq. So if he's not picketing funerals of soldiers, as he's been widely reported as doing, what would the point be?

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. They aren't AT the funeral

They are outside on the PUBLIC sidewalk.

[MissB]

13. I liken it to the work that the Southern Poverty Law Center has done.

They've combated the hate by suing the hell out of hate groups. Bankrupt the bastards. http://www.splcenter.org/center/about.jsp

[NJmaverick]

16. They sued for violent acts not speech

and that's a big difference.

[mondo joe]

131. Defamation is not protected speech. NT

[NJmaverick]

161. What happens when liberal view points are classified as

defamation???? What becomes of the first amendment then???

[mondo joe]

229. If you don't defame someone, you're not guilty of defamation.

Simple.

[KingFlorez]

20. This isn't a free speech issue

This is a civil suit about harassment during a very painful occasion, the family had every right to sue. No one is infringing on anyone's first amendment rights, the ruling doesn't stop Phelps from saying what ever he wants.

[NJmaverick]

24. So only the rich will have free speech?

I serious doubt that's what the FF's had in mind when they penned that first (and most important) amendment. This sounds a lot like the reasonings used for the flag burning amendment.

[KingFlorez]

26. I never said anything about the rich

The bottom line is Phelps was wrong for disrupting a private funeral, he caused stress to the grieving family, this is one situation, it's not an overall judgment on the first amendment. Like I said, Phelps can still say what he wants, so where have his right been violated?

[NJmaverick]

38. If his protest was on public property where are the grounds

for your lawsuit. With the way you want this Country only those that can afford to pay off all those that are offended by their speech will have first amendment rights. Others will have to shut up out of fear of crippling lawsuits.

[KingFlorez]

68. This is an individual case

A civil case at that, the government isn't making rules about what people can say and what they can't. Since this was funeral, what Phelps did constitutes harassment and harassment is not free speech.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

70. Free speech was about people having some say about their government.

Your position appears to be that, free speech trumps right to privacy and freedom from intrusion. Free speech allows anyone to attack anyone for any reason.

That's not the free speech presented in the constitution. The free speech offered involves the people speaking to the government,...not some hateful asshole screaming at individual citizens attending a funeral.

There is an OBVIOUS distinction between the free speech protected by the constitution and the kind you seem to implicate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. The first amendment prohibits the federal legislature from making laws

that infringe the freedom of speech. It isn't about people speaking to the government, it's about ALL speech.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

87. Oh. Then, you can speak to people and drive them to kill me. When I'm dead, you're free. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

129. That is a completely different situation

and I think you know it. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

88. If you slander someone on pubic property it's still slander.

[NJmaverick]

157. What were the lies Phelps told

Having horrible religious beliefs is not a lie or a falsehood. Making false claims is the heart of slander.

[Telly Savalas]

99. So if I stand on the public property outside your home at 3 AM shouting obscenities

through a megaphone, I'm exercising my first amendment rights, and you can kiss my ass if you want me to stop?

I can go to a public park and loudly brag to young children there in graphic detail about my recent sexual exploits. It's public property and my free speech, right?

There's a huge grey area between what constitutes protected speech and what constitutes harassment, and deciding where to place the line between the two is certainly food for a healthy debate. But to out and out deny the existence of the concept of harassment is absurd.

[NJmaverick]

162. You are aware the plantiffs NEVER saw them at the funeral

Are you not? This lawsuit was based on what they saw on the news. So it's incorrect to say they disrupted the funeral.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. I doubt that this verdict will stand on appeal

[NJmaverick]

163. Most constitutional scholars and first amendment lawyers agree

They expect this to be over turned and thing it should be over turned.

[AngryAmish]

27. A littler 1st Amendment primer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It begins "Congress shall...". So, in this case congress (or any other body of government) made no law that restricted Phelps' speech. The government did nothing to restrict their rights.

Now a fellow citizen complained in court that their conduct was outrageous, beyond the pale, etc. It was an intentional infliction of emotional distress thingy (not sure of the exact causes of action). It is a well recognized tort.

Fellow citizen does something another citizen does not like = no constitutional claim. The Bill of Rights means rights that individuals have against the government. It is to protect people from the government, not the other way around.


Now you may argue that it is wrong to allow torts based on speech alone. Fine. It is a public policy debate we can have and we can allow the legislature to hash this out. That is why they are there.

Everything having to do with speech is not a constitutional issue.

[Kingshakabobo]

93. "or any other body of government made no law that restricted Phelps' speech"

The government will enforce this judgment - at the point of a gun if necessary. The government IS very much restricting his right to free speech.

[mondo joe]

137. Free speech is not, and never has been, absolute. Slander, defamation, threats

and more are not covered by free speech. Government enforcement of those laws does not violate free speech.

[NJmaverick]

169. Should I listen to your "primer" or should I listen

to a Supreme Court justice?????


"'Outrageousness' in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it," then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court's majority. Rehnquist held that the First Amendment must protect the rights of those who voice controversial, even vitriolic opinions, arguing that a jury could "impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression."

[AngryAmish]

175. In this case, me

You are quoting the Falwell v. Flynt litigation that ended up in the Supreme Court. Jerry Falwell is a public figure - that is clear. There are different standards for public figure speech snd about public issues and has been since NY Times v. Sullivan.

Did you notice that this was a private figure and private speech directed at him? That is the difference. For example, truth is a defense in libel but not in invasion of privacy litigation. I can discuss the true sexual acts of a public figure in a newspaper. I can't do the same of a private person because everyone has a right, recognized in law, to keep certain things private.

[NJmaverick]

186. I stick with the Supreme Court Justice

They have a better feel for the law and the Constitution. Still I will look for tie breakers like:


"I have spoken to a number of First Amendment attorneys today, and every one of them believes the case will be reversed and should be reversed," said Ronald K.L. Collins of the First Amendment Center in Washington.

[Nutmegger]

28. I stand against this decision.

Free and fair rights to all, including that piece of shit Phelps.

I look forward to the appeal.

[karlrschneider]

30. See post 29...and also have a spare set of asbestos skivvies ready.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

35. BRAVO!!!

I am glad there are still those that value and want to protect our civil liberties!

[immoderate]

46. Cool. I've raised this question in several other threads.

Why can't it be used against anti-war protesters? I didn't like the decision either. Wonder if the ACLU will wind up defending Phelps.

--IMM

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. The ACLU is already involved in a challenge of the MO no protest law

on behalf of the Phelps family.

[immoderate]

82. Not surprised. Thanks, p2Bl.

--IMM

[NJmaverick]

187. Of course the ACLU is about protecting our civil liberties

Something many here have forgotten.

[NJmaverick]

123. It can be used against any protestor

It's a point missed by so many people

[LisaL]

235. Exactly. Because whatever it is someone is protesting, somebody

could be distressed by it, no?

[JVS]

94. I agree that the decision is bad

Soon we will have caused distress to the GOP convention or something like that

[karlrschneider]

29. You will discover that a lot of DUers give lip service to the Bill of Rights

up to the point where it interferes with their desire to condemn somebody. You want to start the biggest flamefest yet?...make a post saying you have hung up a noose on your front porch that has nothing to do with racism.

[NJmaverick]

33. I am not surprised

Sadly when it comes to our civil liberties many liberals are just as happy as right wingers to take away those that they think we don't need or they don't people having.

[karlrschneider]

52. Don't like people having. That's it. There's a lot of "fuck you, I got mine" even among

self-described 'liberals.'

I get a lot of flak around here for calling hypocrisy for what it is and no matter whence it comes.

[NJmaverick]

166. Exactly

I am a liberal, but I am not a hyporcite. I am not going to have two sets of standards and rules. One for me and one for them. If I wanted to be like that, I would become a Republican, that's their specialty- Do as I say, not as I do.

[DinahMoeHum]

31. Speech is free. Consequences are not.

n/t

[NJmaverick]

37. Didn't I hear that same line during the Dixie Chicks incident???

I have never really been all that comfortable with that claim. It's been used a cover for a myrid of sins.

[DinahMoeHum]

140. Just goes to show - the axe swings both ways.

n/t

[NJmaverick]

188. Few people want to see that though

We were all up in arms about the way the Dixie Chicks were treated, but if it's someone we don't agree with, then some liberals are all for it. I believe in not being a hypocrite and having one set of rules for everyone.

[JVS]

95. If the consequences are government-imposed then speech isn't free any more

[mondo joe]

100. You mean like how slander rulings are government imposed?

[NJmaverick]

211. Where was the slander in this case?

I don't see why you are using that term.

[DefenseLawyer]

32. Just as a side note

I wouldn't use the McDonald's coffee case as an example of the out of control legal system. If you took the time to learn the facts of the case you would see that there was nothing frivolous about the suit or the verdict.

[NJmaverick]

34. I studied the case in college

and it's just as trival as the basic facts suggest.

[DefenseLawyer]

41. Oh sorry

I didn't realize you studied the case in college. You may have missed a class or two.

[NJmaverick]

45. Missed a class or two?

Yeah I must have missed the class where they taught condescension.

I guess you missed the class that taught you coffee is hot and it's not good for one's health to spill it on one's lap and not tend to it immediately. Sorry but anyone that did what that woman did, is a victim of their own stupidity and nothing more.

[DefenseLawyer]

56. You obviously know nothing about the case

I doubt you will read this, but if you are interested in something other than the Fox News spin of the facts of the case:

Fact No. 1: McDonalds said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, generally 20 degrees lower or more, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Fact No. 2: McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforced a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Fact No. 3: Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes.

Fact No. 4: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the prior decade had been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

Fact No. 5: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

Fact No. 6: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

Fact No. 7: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Thank you for this

I get so irritated when people call that a frivolous lawsuit.

[Kingshakabobo]

96. One of the better smack-downs I've seen in a while. Better because it's all fact.

[NJmaverick]

150. Here are the FACTS the lawyers don't want people to know

Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in the United Kingdom failed. The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench division, rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving not-so-hot coffee:

If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C (149 °F) will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55–60 °C (131–140 °F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85–95 °C (185–203 °F).<10>
Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.<13>

Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.<14> The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed “between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit <91–96 °C> for optimal extraction” and consumed “immediately”. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be “maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.” <15>

Although Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit, Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns;<16> and McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),<17> relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.<5><18><17> The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.<19>

Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”:

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F <93 °C> to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F <66–71 °C>, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.<20>

[tkmorris]

59. Edited

Forget it, this is all rather beside the point of the OP

[Pithlet]

239. I've spilled coffee in my lap. It didn't cause 3rd degree burns.

That case wasn't frivolous in the least. McDonald's had been warned previously about the temperature they kept their coffee at, and they ignored it.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

58. I disagree emphatically

What makes you say the case was trivial?

[NJmaverick]

189. Coffee is inherently hot

The woman left it on her lap for over 90 seconds. Any temperature that would have left the coffee edible, would have injured the woman. That's like suing someone that sells a knife, because it was sharp.

[DefenseLawyer]

205. No not really

It is more like suing someone that sells a butter knife that was made from a razorblade, because razorblades were cheaper and kept longer and let you sell more butter knives.

[NJmaverick]

208. That would be an incorrect and a misleading analogy

The reality is McDonalds servere their coffe per the only known standards

The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed “between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit <91–96 °C> for optimal extraction” and consumed “immediately”. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be “maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.”

and was in line with other fast food venues


coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature


Your analogy would be more accurate if you said it's like someone suing someone that sells a butter knife because it's NOT as sharp as a razor blade.

[karlrschneider]

60. deleted

...

[DefenseLawyer]

64. Actually the "ambulance chaser"

initially offered to settle her case for $800.00. I'm not sure what "legal niceties" are, but this case was about corporate callousness and greed. I might suggest that you read up on it a bit more.

[NJmaverick]

107. Lawyers get rich off of hard working people

With nonsensical lawsuits like this one. Lawyers become millionaires by convincing people that nothing is ever their fault and there is no such thing as personal responsibility.


The woman foolishly put a piping hot cup of coffee, that she KNEW from past experience was very hot and drove with it between her legs. When it spilled on her legs she did not pull over or address the issue. As the result of her stupidity she suffered burns.

Then she sued McDonalds because they foolishly gave her a hot cup of coffee. Clearly McDonalds was neglegent for not doing everything in their power to protect stupid and irresponsible people from themselves.

So much for your bogus claims that this lawsuit had merit defenselawyer.

[michaelwb]

113. No.

"The woman foolishly put a piping hot cup of coffee, that she KNEW from past experience was very hot and drove with it between her legs."


If you actually "..studied the case in college..." as claimed then you'd know she was the passenger in the car and not the driver.

[mondo joe]

116. It's like you are purposefully misrepresenting the facts of the case.

Hm, who would do such a thing....?

[NJmaverick]

172. Trial Lawyers of course- They have billions of reasons to

actually hundreds of billions of reasons to misrepresent the facts of the case. They make their money of hard working productive Americans while producing nothing of value. It's a sweet heart deal they will do anything, including lie and deceive, to protect.

[Zynx]

132. Good luck ever suing anyone without contingency fees. You want no civil courts?

Because that's what you'll get if you do away with percentage-of-verdict pay. Legal matters are expensive, and litigation is more expensive.

[NJmaverick]

176. What I want to see is the end of frivilious and fraudulant

lawsuits. I want to see a reasonable rate for my car insurance. I want to end the high taxes I have to pay so that towns can get insurance. I want to see towns put in play grounds, because the insurance on them will be reasonable. I want to see enough OB/GYN's because lawsuits haven't made practicing this sort of medicince cost prohibitive. I dont' want to see ladders with warning labels longer than the ladders themselves. I want to see fair civil law system, something that doesn't exist in our Country. The current system hurts the vast majority of hard working American and poor Americans while enriching trial lawyers and some in the medical profession.

[mondo joe]

136. Wow, pro big corporation, anti civil suit, anti consumer protection and all wrapped

up in misinformation.

Check your URL bar - you're at the wrong site.

[NJmaverick]

164. So it's liberal to support rich trial lawyers getting rich off the

hard working American public??? Give me a break, I have no use for the frivilious lawsuits that hurt the working people and the poor most of all. I don't buy into the BS the trial lawyers have sold the American public.

Plus I would like to see how opposing frivilious lawsuits, is anti-consumer protection. That is an diningenious attempt to make the good of sleezy trial lawyers the same as what's good for consumers. Consumer protection should be accomplished by the government, not trial lawyers.

[mondo joe]

180. It's liberal to support the right of ordinasry people to sue megacorporations.

Consumers have the right to sue. Too bad you seek to shame them rather than the corporation that was in the wrong.

[NJmaverick]

182. It's the liberal that protects the American public from

the greed of trial lawyers and those other professionals supported by the out of control civil legal system. Helping to ensure that the hard working American poor and middle class doesn't have to pay inflated prices for necessities like car insurance and health care, is TRUE liberalism.

[mondo joe]

196. You're arguing in favor of McDonalds and against trial lawyers and

pretending it's a liberal position?

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

199. Nice try

I am arguing in favor of the working public over the interests of trial lawyers. In the end burden of paying those suits fall on the poor consumer. In the end the millionaire lawyers get rich while producing nothing for society, while the poor and middle class have to do with out so they can insure their car, pay for healthcare and buy food.

That's the true liberal position. Your position is one of being a stooge for the trial lawyers and the industry the lawsuits created.

[NJmaverick]

193. That's not true, it's incorrect

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000

[DefenseLawyer]

209. You are right

It was McDonald's that offered her $800 to cover her $11,000 in medical bills before she sued. Nonetheless, she did not immediately sue for millions of dollars, she just wanted them to pay for the skin grafts and the 7 day hospital stay. See, you are learning more about the case all the time.

[NJmaverick]

210. Wow that's a classic right wing tactic

You got caught mistating the facts, and you try and turn it around and make it like I was wrong. Is your real name Dick Cheney?

[DefenseLawyer]

212. It's your opinion, it can't be wrong

I would say your position is misguided, but if you believe that McDonalds ought to intentionally sell a product they know to be unsafe because doing so helps their bottom line, and those that are injured because of their economic calculation should have assumed the risk of purchasing their unsafe product, you are welcome to hold that position. As long as you acknowledge that that is your position, rather than saying the lawsuit was about someone claiming not to know "coffee is hot", I have no beef. You may be a corporate apologist, but at least you will have your facts straight.

[NJmaverick]

214. Some inconsistencies

McDonalds sold hot coffee, to the industry standard. They did so, because it provide what the consumer WANTED. Consumers desire a good tasting (which requires higher temperatures) and coffee that isn't cold by the time they get to the office (which again requires hotter temperature). While you would try to mislead people by painting the "evil company maiming people for a buck" picture, the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Sure there are REAL cases where companies have knowingly injured people to save money, the Ford Pinto would be a classic example, but this isn't one of them.

I also find it funny that you, a blatant trial lawyer apologist, would also try the Dick Cheney tactic of projecting your faults on me and call me a corporate apologists. Sorry what I am is fair and unbiased, something your background prevents you from being.

[truebrit71]

36. I have no such quandry...Screw Phelps and the rest of his psycho nutjobs...

He's a fucking scumbag and he got what he deserves...

If I were the parent of a child that died in this bloody stupid war, and this asshalf showed up at the funeral, having me sue his ass would be the LEAST of his worries...

[NJmaverick]

39. So if some right wing nut job sues war protestors

Saying it caused him or her emotional distress, you will be proud to say you supported the case law that supports their lawsuit... nice

[truebrit71]

125. Nope, I'm saying that if some right-wing nutjob were to show up at my child's funeral..

..yelling and screaming about how "God hates fags", they're going to have to surgically remove my boot from his arse....

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. As a very active member of a protest group just 70 miles away from Phelps,

I am with you all the way.

Phelps is disgusting. His message is revolting.

But he has first amendment rights, just like every other American citizen. And every other American who wants to speak out is deprived of that right when Phelps is silenced.

[NJmaverick]

44. Thank God!

Another voice of reason!

[immoderate]

53. I've posted about my qualms with this decision in several threads.

The only retort I got was that he "caused distress." Speech can do that. Can I sue my creditors when they call? More seriously, anti-war protesters will be similarly vulnerable.

This sets a dangerous precedent.

--IMM (Go Giants!)

[Nutmegger]

54. Hello proud2Blib.

It's good to see you. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. Hey Nutmegger!!

Good to see you too! :hi:

[mondo joe]

90. Not a First Amendment issue. The government did not infringe on his right to free speech -

he was sued in a civil case, just as he might be for slander. And that isn't constitutionally protected speech either.

[Kingshakabobo]

97. I would LOVE to see the specific words he used to slander.

Does anyone have a link to the exact words cited in the case?

[Contrary1]

102. You can read the complaint here:

http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Complaint.pdf

[Kingshakabobo]

103. Thanks. Just read it.......

I'm not against defamation torts - they certainly have their place in society. The strongest argument the plaintiff has, IMO, is the alleged "defamation per se" for saying the Snyders raised their child to be an 'adulterer.' It seems to me to be a little too far removed from an actual per se allegation of adultery but at least it was something for the jury to hang its hat on.

I certainly don't agree with the "invasion of privacy" verdict for protesting on a PUBLIC street.

[Stop Cornyn]

51. Free speech is not unlimited. You are NOT free to stand outside the window and scream obscenities

into a kindergarten class. You are NOT free to tell your all neighbors and co-workers that you have photographic proof that the local weatherman is a necrophiliac (unless he is, of course, and you do have such photos). You are NOT free shout "fire" in a dark and crowded movie theater.

With rights come responsibilities. We are a tolerant country (our freedom of speech is broader than in most -- but not all -- countries), but there are limits. In America, Phelps is free to test those limits, and those who feel their boundaries have been infringed upon are free to test their rights in a court of law.

The Phelps case is nothing other than proof that we resolve such matters in a non-violent manner through a system of laws as decided by juries of our peers. That is a good thing for America.

By the way, you repeat false right-wing talking points when you refer to "The case law is ripe with people suing and winning for things like coffee that is too hot."

Here are some facts about the matter you refer to:

Facts About the Case

*

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.
*

Critics of civil justice often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
*

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.

Stella Liebeck's Injury and Hospitalization

*

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.
*

Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.
*

She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).

Stella Liebeck's Initial Claim

* Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

McDonald's Attitude

* During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

* McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
o Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
o Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Damaging Testimony

*

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
*

The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
*

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.
*

Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

*

McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
*

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

According to The Wall Street Journal

A Jury of One's Peers

*

The Wall Street Journal wrote (September 1, 1994), "The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' "
*

The Journal quoted one juror, Jack Elliott, remarking after the trial that the case had been about such "callous disregard for the safety of the people."
*

The Journal story continued, "Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually. To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. 'There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that,' says juror Betty Farnham."
*

At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens told the Journal, he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."
*

By the end of the trial, Betty Farnham told the Journal, "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking care of their customers."

The Verdict

*

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.
*

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
*

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000—or three times compensatory damages—even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

[LisaL]

232. My advise to you all out there. Don't put coffee in between your

legs. I am just saying.

[Whisp]

57. i'm glad you brought this up.

I have mixed feelings as well. As much as I detest the Phelps', something is nagging at me that some precedent will be set that we may all well suffer from in regards to free speech, right to protest , etc. Always the cynic, I believe there is something bigger and more dangerous at work in the undertow here that what appears on the face of it.

[immoderate]

61. Phelps is the perfect stalking horse -- nobody likes him.

Bad precedents are being set.

--IMM

[NJmaverick]

111. You got it guys

The perfect case as neither liberals nor conservatives like him. So many of the foolish are gleefully giving up their rights, with out having a clue they are doing so.

[Contrary1]

67. The lawsuit was for "invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress".

And: "...according to the lawsuit, the church's presence was emotionally damaging to the already grieving father. Postings by Phelps-Roper on the church's Web site following the protest that claimed Snyder "taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery," and "raised him for the devil," further added to the father's pain.

It was a civil case. Phelps can picket all the funerals he wants, no one is stopping him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/national/main1843396_page2.shtml

[A HERETIC I AM]

79. Your post needs an "ATTENTION POSTERS! THE CASE WAS ABOUT.." kind of subject line....

Seems to me, you are the only one who brought up this completely relevant point. The case was NOT about Phelps protesting at the funeral. It is NOT about being able to protest on a sidewalk. It is a DEFAMATION case wherein the plaintiff alleged the defendant defamed them and his son by claiming on a website that the parents brought him up to hate god, etc etc. It was alleged that Phelps and his clan intentionally wrote and published statements that were demonstrably untrue, done so without any investigation by plaintiffs as to veracity and are therefore defamatory.

Here's a .pdf of the original claim;
http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Complaint.pdf

"Count 1, Defamation" begins on page 5

Appropriately enough, the jury agreed with the complaint and awarded damages as they should have.

I don't think Phelps stands any chance on appeal.

[NJmaverick]

112. As I understand the verdict was rendered

For the invasion of privacy, not the defamation.

[A HERETIC I AM]

117. Both, apparently. Invasion of privacy and emotional distress that resulted from the defamation

From http://www.kansas.com/611/story/216375.html

The jury decided that church members had caused plaintiff Albert Snyder "mental pain and suffering, fright, nervousness, indignity, humiliation, embarrassment and insult" when they picketed the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, and later discussed Snyder's death on their Web site. Any family similarly targeted understands the elder Snyder's inclination to fight back.

And from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story

The jury found the defendants liable for violating the Snyder family's expectation of privacy at the funeral and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

[Tejanocrat]

71. Your misinformed blather about the McDonald's coffee case ended your credibility in my eyes.

The first paragraph of your OP was half interesting, but when I got to the nonsense about "coffee that is too hot" I realized that I was wasting my time and read no further.

That's another example of how free speech works: when it becomes apparent that the speaker is ill informed, the audience drifts off.

[Richard Steele]

83. Same here. He's proven himself to be biased and poorly informed, at BEST.

And his further posts in this thread haven't done much
except remove doubt about it.

(I loved your "another example", BTW. :thumbsup:)

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

110. LOL!

Sorry if I don't believe that companies have to protect people with your intelligence from themselves.

I think that people should be allowed to buy a hot cup of coffee. I think that people should be intelligent enough to know it's hot and to handle it responsibly. I also think that people who mishandle should address it immediately.


I am not insulted by your comments though. You are just looking out for your intellectual brethren.

[Richard Steele]

138. I notice you've AVOIDED replying to the post containing the FACTS about that case...

...while continuing to spout these tired, far-right-libertarian clichés.

Seems more than a little "intellectually dishonest" to me.
Do you ALWAYS simply ignore whatever truths don't fit
your opinions?

[mondo joe]

141. Since the McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the coffee,

at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption, someone might at least recognize that it was a health and safety violation.

[Richard Steele]

143. Someone might.

If someone wasn't married to a bunch of RW talking-points
that can't stand up to the truth. :eyes:

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejanocrat]

146. Someone did. That "someone" was the jury.

[mondo joe]

147. Correct. I should have said "Anyone". Anyone except a RW schill who doesn't give a shit

about people or truth.

[NJmaverick]

173. Yeah better people drink cold coffee

After all if you make it hot, there is always the potential to burn people. You know the company servered it hot because the consumers were taking it and driving to work. They wanted it hotter than drinking temperature so it would be hot when they got to work. Plus it tasted better. For their efforts to better serve the consumer, they were viliafied by those with self serving agendas.

[mondo joe]

179. Strawman. McDonald's was serving the coffee far hotter than is standard,

and in the word of their own quality manager was unsuitable for consumption at that temperature.

[NJmaverick]

181. That's the MYTH perpatrated by Trial Lawyers

The TRUTH is other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature.

[NJmaverick]

195. What standard was that?!?!?!? IT was the standard

The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed “between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit <91–96 °C> for optimal extraction” and consumed “immediately”. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be “maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.”

[LisaL]

233. I like my coffee hot. I like my tea hot. And when I go out, I usually

get it luke warm. It's disgusting. But it's pretty clear why it's not hot. And by the way, I don't think it's a good idea to stick a coffee cup in between your legs.
:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

170. Your "facts" are selective and misleading

Perhaps you would like the more pertainent facts:


Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in the United Kingdom failed. The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench division, rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving not-so-hot coffee:

If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C (149 °F) will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55–60 °C (131–140 °F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85–95 °C (185–203 °F).<10>
Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.<13>

Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.<14> The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed “between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit <91–96 °C> for optimal extraction” and consumed “immediately”. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be “maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.” <15>

Although Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit, Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns;<16> and McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),<17> relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.<5><18><17> The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.<19>

Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”:

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F <93 °C> to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F <66–71 °C>, and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.<20>

[Richard Steele]

178. The horse you're beating has been dead for YEARS.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

191. The FACTS like this one

The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed “between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit <91–96 °C> for optimal extraction” and consumed “immediately”. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be “maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.” <15>

[NJmaverick]

194. Really too hot?!?!

Looks like you are the misinformed one

The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed “between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit <91–96 °C> for optimal extraction” and consumed “immediately”. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be “maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.” <15>

and

coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature

[ecstatic]

72. I think in this case, common sense prevailed

We're talking about soldiers' funerals for chrissake. I wish the legislators/judges in my state would exercise more common sense before putting teens in jail for years over teenage sex/etc.

[Jacobin]

77. Because you are a thinking person

And consider the problem of legal precedents.

My hat is off to you.

And yes, I think Phelps is a worthless piece of cow dung.

[NJmaverick]

109. NIce to hear from another person with brains and wisdom

The number of feeble minded fools that have attempted to attack me, because they fail to understand the ramafications of this issue is astounding.

[mondo joe]

128. Defamation isn't a new tort - it's not a new precedent. Phelps crossed the line.

[11 Bravo]

81. I am something of a First Amendment absolutist ...

but your ridiculous and demonstrably uninformed prattle about the McDonald's case renders you a less than persuasive advocate for your position.

[NJmaverick]

108. LOL!

Sorry Bravo if I don't believe that companies have to protect people with your intelligence from themselves.

I think that people should be allowed to buy a hot cup of coffee. I think that people should be intelligent enough to know it's hot and to handle it responsibly. I also think that people who mishandle should address it immediately.


I am not insulted by your comments though. You are just looking out for your intellectual brethren.

[mondo joe]

89. Your igorance of the McDonalds Coffee case presage your ignorance of the First Amendment.

Thank you.

[NJmaverick]

106. Thank you for taking time from your MENSA meeting

to offer up that brilliant and insightful reply. I see the error of my ways.

[mondo joe]

114. Doubtful. You don't need to be a MENSA member to bother to know what you're talking

about - especially since you CLAIM to have covered it in a class.

[NJmaverick]

118. Sorry if I don't think Trial lawyers should get rich

At the expense of the working public. That doesn't make me stupid, as you implied, it shows I have good values.

[mondo joe]

121. What you've shown is that you have no idea about the facts of the case, other

than repeating Rush Limbaugh style disinformation.

Thanks!

[NJmaverick]

148. As opposed to the Rush Limbaugh style attacks

On those that don't want to help the trial lawyers get rich at the expense of the working public? Give me a break.

[Zynx]

133. How else should the working public sue for wrongs? Represent themselves against corporate law firms?

That'll work well. You'd never get the case to trial, and even if you did, you'd lose because you couldn't get anything into evidence, because the other side actually went to law school.

No one can pay up front for litigation unless they are extremely wealthy. If there's no contingency fee basis, you simply wind up with no one who actually needs the money to right a wrong being able to sue at all.

[NJmaverick]

160. And the best part of the flawed system

The trial lawyers make fortunes and the hard working public gets to pay for it, with higher prices for everything. There has to be reforms of our legal system. It's totally out of control.

[Zynx]

207. You really have no clue how much litigation costs. Either that or you hate plaintiffs. Real liberal.

Without a contingency fee, people aren't able to sue for anything complex enough and valuable enough to be worth suing over. It's that simple.

[NJmaverick]

213. I have a clue what it costs, I see it in every insurance bill

That's why I know the cost. The current contingency fee benefits the lawyers and various other profesionals involved in the lawsuit industry (certain doctors, chiropractors and professional witnesses). The working middle class and poor, as a whole, suffer from this out of control system. In the end the lawsuit industry creates wealthy people while producing nothing of use to society. It's a parasitic relationship.

There needs to be a system of checks and balances that prevents the rampant fraud and abuse of the civil legal system. Until then the American public will be victims of this sick injury lottery game the lawsuit industry has created to entice the ignorant and greedy, while hurting the honest and hard working.

[DefenseLawyer]

216. In the interest of full disclosure

do you work in the insurance industry?

[NJmaverick]

217. Nope

In my whole adult life I spent roughly 3 years work for private industry. I spent 15 years in a not for profit hospital and 4 years as a government worker. I also have 22 years as a volunteer EMT. I think those years may be the most damning, as I got to watch the legal profession and the lawsuit industry in action (not that I didn't seem wrongful and costly lawsuits at the not for profit hospital). As an EMT I had to respond to numerous staged accidents. I also have had to treat many a phantom injury.

I had to sit through a lawsuit where the hospital was sued by an old man claiming the escalator and stoppped and started going in the other direction at a speed of 60 mph.

I have a friend that told me about a lawyer that instructed her to lie about what she witnessed to help the lawsuit.

I have had to deal with bus accidents where you couldn't get in to check on the people, because there were too many people hopping on the bus, after it was in the accident, so they could get in on the lawsuits.

I saw the hospital sued by a man that worked in the boiler room for one week, saying it ruined his health. The reason he sued the hospital was the company he had worked for 30 years had gone out of business and he wanted someone to pay for his bad health.

I have seen volunteer EMTs sued because they started CPR on someone, per the state protocals.

The list goes on and on and isn't very pretty.

[Richard Steele]

142. More recycled far-right-libertarian clichés in lieu of actual discussion and thought.

:eyes: :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

168. Doesn't address my arguement

then again, I am sure you don't have anything but this pathetic claim to support the parasites on society.

[yellowcanine]

144. The first amendment does not cover stalking. What Phelps and his criminal gang does is essentially

stalk people. If he is left to pursue his obsession unfettered it is hard to say where it would lead. People who are as obsessed as he is often "up the ante" if they are not checked. There are limits to free speech and deliberately harassing people for their beliefs or their circumstance is one of them. There is no constitutionally protected right to harass people at a funeral.

[NJmaverick]

158. How does his behaviour constitute stalking

It doesn't meet any of the legal definitions.

[yellowcanine]

190. Wikopedia definition of stalking......

Stalking (from Middle English stalk: from Old English bestealcian; akin to Old English stelan to steal) is a legal term for repeated harassment or other forms of invasion of a person's privacy in a manner that causes fear to its target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

I think many people, including law enforcement people, would consider what Phelps does as meeting the definition, even if proving it in a courtroom might be difficult. It takes a brave prosecutor to take on a bastard like Phelps.

[NJmaverick]

192. Not when the key point is REPEATED

He protests each person and moves on. That's why it's not harrassment.

[yellowcanine]

201. Well I don't know the details but he was disbarred for harrassment. And he

certainly has picketed Matthew Shepherd's mother more than once and individual churches more than once. I agree that he cleverly moves around a lot - he is a lawyer and knows how to skirt the edges of the law. Probably some new laws are needed to deal with people like Phelps who target certain groups of people for harassment just because of who they are or because of their circumstance (mourners at a military funeral). That is not protected political speech in my opinion.

[CT_Progressive]

149. OMFG this is not a free speech issue.

If you rob a bank while shouting "Bush is a criminal and should be arrested!", do you get away with it? No.
If you steal a car while shouting "Bush is a criminal and should be arrested!", do you get away with it? No.
If you assault someone while shouting "Bush is a criminal and should be arrested!", do you get away with it? No.

If you commit the crime of harrassment while shouting "God Hates Fags!", do you get away with it? No.

Case closed.

[NJmaverick]

156. If his speech wasn't the crime

Then what exactly was the harassment. Your argument's fault is that his speech was the crime, while your examples the speech was ancillary to the actual crime.

[CT_Progressive]

159. Harassment is the crime.

Harassment is a crime of presence + speech.

It just so happens that the speech they used to harass was political speech.
The jury (rightfully) saw past that, as that speech is not protected when used to commit the crime of harassment.

Similarly, you cannot yell "BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS! BUSH SUCKS!" over and over in a movie theatre, you'll be thrown out and arrested for disturbing the peace (usually a misdemeanor).

Free speech is protected, except when it violates another law in the process.

[NJmaverick]

167. Again

You mix up public and private property in your example. Plus when you consider the pantiff didn't see Phelps at the funeral, only in news accounts, exactly where was the crime of harrassment?

[mondo joe]

206. Public vs Private property is not relevant to harassment or defamation

suits.

[tuckessee]

184. I can't wait until they apply the same standard to all protesters.

It'll be interesting to see what DU says when Code Pink is slammed with a multi-million judgement.

[mondo joe]

198. Which standard do you think that is? They have the right to protest. They

do not have the right to defame or invade privacy.

Did you think this established some new standard?

[NJmaverick]

200. I am sure most will forget what they said here

or they will try and claim that's different because they agree with those protestors.

[Kagemusha]

221. How about different because the facts of the case are different.

You know, facts, reality... good stuff.

[NJmaverick]

224. The facts remain the same

It's just who's side the victim sits on, that changes.

[Kagemusha]

226. That's not a serious argument.

There's a world of difference between a family that is simply grieving for a fallen son and not seeking publicity, and protesting professional politicians who are public figures. To argue that the facts never, ever change is the worst kind of mendacity, the kind that parades as absolute, never-changing truth.

I'm taking my keyboard and monitor and going home. Have a nice life.

[NJmaverick]

228. The FACTS are the same

Someone sues because they don't like what the person excercising their freedom of speech is saying. The details may change but the facts of suppressing offensive speech by what ever means they can, doesn't change.

[SeussTree]

240. Already happening to some.

SLAPP suits.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

249. Assuming that Code Pink

doesn't engage in tortious conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distrss, invasion of privacy, defamation, etc.) as Phelps did, there won't BE any such judgments.

This is a matter of tort law, not First Amendment law.

[LisaL]

230. I don't have any mixed feelings about this. I disagree with this

judgment completely. As for those people who are happy about this, maybe they should stop and think that next time someone out there is protesting the war, for instance, they could be slapped with a multi-million $ lawsuit too.

[mondo joe]

236. I don't mind if anyone who crosses the line from protest to harassment and defamation

is sued.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

251. Unless they commit an actionable tort in the process,

no, they can't.

I can't repeat often enough that this is NOT a First Amendment case. It is a tort case about the harm deliberately and intentionally caused by Phelps and his cult's sleazy, willful, wanton and malicious actions.

There is a profound distinction between the two that I fear many DU'ers are missing here, thereby being hoo-doo'd into carry Phelps' water for him.

The First Amendment is not, and never has been, a shield to otherwise tortious conduct. One may not, for instance, commit a negligent act resulting in harm to a person and defeat the victim's claim by saying that it happened while the offender was engaging in protected speech. It just doesn't work that way.

By talking about this case in First Amendment language, we're doing Phelps' own demonic work for him. Let's not do that.

[Prophet 451]

237. Based on an unsound arguement

The idea that the civil legal system is out of control is dubious, at it's very best. Although everyone can name the suit over coffee (and I wish people would actually read the facts of that case), comparatively few frivolous lawsuits make it to open court and fewer still are won.

And Phelps protesting at a funeral, a time when people are naturally raw and emotional is no different than shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Forget losing a lawsuit, he's bloody lucky no-one's charged him with incitement to riot.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

241. He's lucky

no one's taken a ballbat to the back of his skull.

There's not a jury in America that would convict a grief-stricken parent who did that.

In some states (albeit a very few) there still exist "fighting words" statutes that provide an affirmative defense to an attack that followed the use of the same kind of inflammatory language the Phelps uses. Those statutes embody the idea that some words are SO volatile that they have the same effect as a first-struck physical blow.

Meanwhile, you're absolutely correct about the legal system. The "judicial hellhole" argument is one concocted by the insurance industry in connivance with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

As for the McDonald's case, most people know about it because the other side is so VERY far ahead of the good guys in message management. Very few people know that (a) McD's had been repeatedly warned about the temperature of its coffee, but chose to maintain the temperature because it sent the odor of the coffee through the store better and (b) that the victim required massive plastic surgery to her entire genital region as a result of the third degree burns she suffered.

[Prophet 451]

245. While I cannot condone violence...

...let's just say I wouldn't mourn if some outraged parent stuck a Slugger in Phelp's ear.

I'm a Brit who actually rather likes the American tort system. Yes, ridiculous lawsuits are occasionally won (not half as often as the OP and Rush Limbaugh would like to believe) but our own system is absurdly restrictive (there was no drive for tort reform, it's just the different ways the law has developed in the last two centuries). For example, we have no concept of a class-action suit. Each plaintiff has to file individually.

Also, McDonalds had been quietly settling similar suits for years. I forget where I saw this (might have been the NY Times) but I once saw a statistic that compared actual costs of tort lawsuits against what the industries claimed were the costs. I forget the figures but teh difference was very large.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

246. The crocodile tears

about "lawsuit abuse" are all via a very well-funded "astroturf" industry that goes by the name of CALA (Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse). Every state has one, e.g. West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Every last one is funded by the likes of Snake Farm Insurance and AllSnake Insurance.

The only "lawsuit abuse" going on relates to the attempt by these companies to foreshorten the constitutional guarantee of access to the courts by agrieved plaintiffs, thus effectively eliminating the "petition for redress of grieveances" and "right to trial by jury" clauses from the Bill of Rights.

As to Phelps, I'm no man of violence, either; but, as the comedian once said "in his case, I'll make an exception."

[Lord Helmet]

250. sometimes the only way to get your point across is through your pocketbook