Quote:
|
Originally Posted by inBOIL
If they're disruptive, they can be prosecuted for disturbing the peace. Being verbally abusive and provoking people, while extremely asshole-ish, is defined by someone else's (e.g. the mourners, the jury) emotional response. Making that illegal is making people responsible for the emotional state of others. You're essentially saying "you can be mean, but don't be really, really mean or you'll have to pay more money than you have".
Where does this lead? Will you be able to sue an ex who breaks up with you in a cruel manner? What about someone who tells you your religion is stupid rather than just saying "I think you're wrong"? Is it ok only to offend/insult those with a thick skin? This precedent is all about punishing people for someone else's feelings.
|
This has got nothing to do with being mean or breakups or religion for that matter. what this is people is HATE SPEECH. and in our bill of rights it states that freedom of expression/speech/religion is not prohibited as long as it doesnt amount to hate speech or incite violence, because that is in fact illegal and in fact can even amount to jail time.
you can protest, you can picket, you can march, you can demonstrate but do it for a cause that is meaningful.
And don't let closed mindness be the root of your protest.
and while i think the amount of $11 million is quite high and ridiculous, the family was well within their right to sue. and that church, like ngdawg said, should get sued over and over again until they get the message.
this protest is absolutely terrible and i feel horrible knowing that their are people out their who would pounce upon grieving families...
makes me wonder how it would pan out had the situation been reversed?