Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shauk
you don't.
there weren't any lines when they wrote it, and there shouldn't be now.
|
The right as it originally existed (and was interpreted without protest for some one hundred and some odd years) was the right to speech free of prior restraint, not free from consequences. That is to say, "There shall be no laws saying 'You can't say the king is a jackass'" as opposed to "You can say whatever the fuck you want whenever the fuck you want to say it."
Now, it fairly clearly DOES mean the first (and nothing about this CIVIL suit which has little constitutional merit changes that) it does not and has never meant the second.
This is the operative paragraph of the article:
Quote:
|
The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.
|
Both of those torts have specific elements that must be met and the elements are tempered by the free speech rights of others. But no right is absolute, especially when it causes measurable legal harm to another person. You might be surprised to know this, but there are a great number of privacy torts and here the jury and judge determined that you have a right to privacy at the funeral of a family member, as you might have a right to privacy in your backyard. Furthermore, intentional torts (like intentional infliction of emotional distress-which I presume was ACTUALLY the tort in this case as opposed to "intent to inflict emotional distress") have NEVER been exempted, so long as the elements of the tort have been fulfilled. Also note that the "harm" required to fulfill intentional infliction of emotional distress isn't "I felt sad that someone said this to me" but rather "I have had to seek psychological counseling" or "I can't sleep at night thinking about it" or "I've had to miss work because I'm so upset."
Get off your first amendment high horse and do some reading about what it means, was intended to mean and has been held to mean. And then think about in the context of what ngdawg said.
This all would be very different if they were in a public park protesting to the general public. They're not. They're maliciously targeting specific families who are already grieving and trying to make them feel worse. You do not have a carte blanche right to free speech, particularly if it causes an individual legally measureable harm. Stop pretending that you do.
Edit: Since I'm noticing a lot of replies about this, almost every jurisdiction in the country recognizes intentional infliction of emotional distress as a common law tort action. So yeah, you can be mean to people, but if you're really really really really mean and are so hurtful that you cause them actual damages (as I tried to define above) you can be held civilly responsible for that. Important safety tip!