Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
What 'cause'? To intentionally inflict pain through verbal abuse?
|
Their cause is their disapproval of American policies. It just so happens that some of their tactics tend to offend many people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
You need to go over the case again, then. What the WBC is doing is proclaiming some right to free speech. It's a defense, nothing more. Their 'cause', their reason for what they do is purely to harrass and disrupt the solemnity of military funerals.
|
I happen to agree with their defense, even though I find their cause and methods tasteless.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
No, it is not. The primary 'point' of protesting is to protest, be it governmental action or against another group. Those that cause a disturbance seek to do so.
|
If all they wanted to do is bring attention to their cause, they would write letters to the editors of magazines and newspapers. Maybe take out an ad in the local newspapers. The whole point of gathering tons of people in a public place, waving signs and yelling slogans is to disrupt and draw attention to yourself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
This suit was not about being offended. It was about the emotional distress that resulted from the presence and abusive actions of these lowlifes.
|
In other words, the victim was offended to the point of being emotionally distressed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
The victim's right to properly mourn and bury his son were violated.
|
As far as I know, the son was still buried. How was this "right" violated?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
I think the FCC would disagree with you on that. In the interest of public decency, the TV, radio, and print publications you reference are quite rigidly censored based largely on the idea of what is "offensive".
|
Not necessarily. A radio show host who says that homosexuality is abnormal and sinful, for example, probably isn't violating FCC regulations, but these statements will undoubtedly offend many people. Dr. Laura, anyone?
Besides; the concept of rights exists independently from the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
First- if you don't think you're in a free country, feel free to leave. Second, no one says they don't have the right to protest.
|
I never claimed that these people were being banned from protesting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
You're not even demonstrating the ability to differentiate between civil proceedings and federal law. You're taking a win in a civil court between two individuals, having nothing to do with the government, and extrapolating the government-sponsored downfall of the right to protest... which is utterly stupid.
|
Civil courts are part of the judicial branch of the government, in case you didn't know. And I said nothing about federal or state laws. I said that if this lawsuit becomes a precedent, we may very well end up seeing people/organizations/business entities use the threat of financial ruin to discourage their protestors. I don't know if I would say the government would be sponsoring it. But it's certainly assisting; sort of like an accomplice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
The judge didn't say they can't protest. No one said anything about not being allowed to protest. A family was harassed by a group of people and won a settlement in a civil court. That's all. Under the guise of protest or not, these people were proven, in court, to demonstrate the characteristics of a harassment.
|
I'm aware of what was proved in the court. And I disagree with the legal requirements for harassment if this incident meets those requirements.
An animal rights group that is protesting a specific restaurant's treatment of animals has the right to protest in front of that restaurant.
Abortion protestors have the right to protest in front of abortion clinics.
People who hate the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest in front of that church.
A couple of years ago I saw nurses who were on strike protesting in front of the hospital they worked for.
If the protestors were following the people around all day; to their place of employment, to their home, to the restaurant they eat dinner at...
that would be harassment. I don't think this should be considered harassment. I'd say it's more a case of going where the action is.