Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
Their cause is their disapproval of American policies. It just so happens that some of their tactics tend to offend many people.
|
Their 'cause' is hatred. How sweet you call it a 'disapproval of American policies". Perhaps we should all join the WBC.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
I happen to agree with their defense, even though I find their cause and methods tasteless.
|
You agree with harassment, verbal abuse and stalking, eh? Using 'free speech' was a defensive try, not a defense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
|
Under 20 people, usually about 10, is hardly 'a ton', unless they're really overweight. Yes, yelling slogans in public will get attention...stick around for the rest of their Modus Operandi, which I will explain to you later.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
In other words, the victim was offended to the point of being emotionally distressed.
As far as I know, the son was still buried. How was this "right" violated?
|
You're joking, right? I won't even glorify this assinine statement with an explanation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telluride
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.
I never claimed that these people were being banned from protesting.
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.
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.
|
Abortion protesters have to go by the laws in their states. They can not harass clinicians or their patients, they can not block entrances, they can not stalk or verbally abuse, touch or assault clinicians or patients.
Last I checked, any strikers march in front of their place of employment...
Now...to educate as to why the WBC was found to be harassing, not protesting:
The WBC's MO is to go to sites like the Patriot Guard and scan for the most recent KIAs. They then make arrangements-buy plane tickets, rent vans, have meetings and travel to the locations where the funeral takes place. They gather together, making sure to be in clear sight of any mourners and start their verbal abuse to anyone coming or going to the service.
This, under NO circumstances, is "protesting". It's stalking and it's harassment and that is why the jury voted as they did.
You read a couple of articles about a jury verdict and proclaim it to be 'wrong' without actually knowing what's been going on.