C
Chibibar
in Appeal court fees?? WTF?
http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/29/1246609/marines-dad-ordered-to-pay-protesters.html
http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/29/1246609/marines-dad-ordered-to-pay-protesters.html
- Status
K
Kitty Sinatra
It looks to me like the father sued the church and lost. It's fairly normal, as I understand, for a losing plaintiff to have to pay a defendant's court costs.
He shouldn't have lost. These shitheads need to go away.
yea. Fuck the first amendment!
God Hates the First Amendment.
C
Chazwozel
yea. Fuck the first amendment![/QUOTE]
Yeah fuck rational logic!
He's already taking donations. http://www.matthewsnyder.org/
The father tried to sue the church, initially won, but lost on appeal. The church then sued him for legal fees and won.
No, he sued them for invasion of privacy and lost on the circuit court appeal.
He's been ordered to pay their legal fees. Fairly standard.
He could appeal as well, naturally, so it's not necessarily over yet.
No, he sued them for invasion of privacy and lost on the circuit court appeal.
He's been ordered to pay their legal fees. Fairly standard.
He could appeal as well, naturally, so it's not necessarily over yet.[/QUOTE]
It's entirely likely he'll find a sympathetic judge and win, or at least get this tied up in the courts for years to come.
C
Chazwozel
This is why it's so hard to fuck with WBC, they're all fucking lawyers and accountants.
That would bankrupt anyone.
I thought Phelps or his son was their lawyer...[/QUOTE]
Considering who he's going against, it's entirely likely that whoever is his lawyer is doing this Pro Bono.
P
Philosopher B.
.
yea. Fuck the first amendment![/QUOTE]
Yeah, fuck people's privacy!
Think I still have the right jpg...
They were doing this at a funeral. At what point does one family's right to free speech impede another's right to privacy?
Today's way of crying persecution reminds me of in Dirty Harry, where the DA is bent out of shape about the killer's rights, and it's Harry who has to ask, what about the victim's rights.
While there may not be a blanket right to privacy, some privacy is protected. After all, if it wasn't, the entire concept of legal ownership couldn't exist, nor could spousal privilege or doctor's privilege. The question isn't whether he had a right to privacy, but rather if his right to privacy extended to a funeral service for his son. It probably doesn't, but the precedent could be set that it is.
K
Kitty Sinatra
If he held the funeral in a private place, and avoided all the public places where the WBC protested, then yeah.
K
Kitty Sinatra
So do I, Cajun.
Although I kinda hope you don't carry urine-filled balloons around with you.
Although I kinda hope you don't carry urine-filled balloons around with you.
Cajungal
Staff member
Nope, just pee bottles.
Careful, that'll infringe on their rights.
Cajungal
Staff member
Careful, that'll infringe on their rights.[/QUOTE]
The right to not be soaked in a stranger's urine without consent. :\ I'll have to get some of THEIR urine somehow...
K
Kitty Sinatra
I'm sure Halforums can concoct a wacky plan to accomplish that. We should find our own symbol akin to 4chan's masks. Something whimsical.
You mean our yellow smiley face guy isn't enough? We could do paper masks ala the Spy from TF2.
His fees are going to be paid by.... Bill O'Reilly?
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/oreilly-marine-funeral-protesters/2010/03/30/id/354287
I'm pleasantly surprised.
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/oreilly-marine-funeral-protesters/2010/03/30/id/354287
I'm pleasantly surprised.
Likewise.
Since I'm usually the person that ends up defending geriatric nazis (or any other similar scenario that I usually find myself stuck in) this might come as a surprise, but there are limits to free speech.
People have the right to express their opinion, this is true. But there are limitations on this right. Defamation is against the law, I can't publish blatant lies about any of you in hopes of tarnishing your reputation. I also can't yell fire in a theater, or other "fighting words" with intent to start a riot.
From my own personal opinion, I would label what the WBC does as a hate crime, and intent to disrupt or cause psychological harm.
I will also freely admit that I'm biased in this opinion.
People have the right to express their opinion, this is true. But there are limitations on this right. Defamation is against the law, I can't publish blatant lies about any of you in hopes of tarnishing your reputation. I also can't yell fire in a theater, or other "fighting words" with intent to start a riot.
From my own personal opinion, I would label what the WBC does as a hate crime, and intent to disrupt or cause psychological harm.
I will also freely admit that I'm biased in this opinion.
K
Kitty Sinatra
No, it's not. This case is not special just because it involves a dead soldier and the WBC. The law has to be applied the same here as in other cases. To do otherwise is BS - and would give the WBC a legitimate claim of persecution. Would you really want to give them that?
Man don't you pay attention to other threads? The constitution was written 200 years ago by a bunch of dead dudes. Who the fuck cares what it says and what their intentions for it were. 200 years ago we were putting leeches on people not protesting at funerals!
No, it's not. This case is not special just because it involves a dead soldier and the WBC. The law has to be applied the same here as in other cases. To do otherwise is BS - and would give the WBC a legitimate claim of persecution. Would you really want to give them that?[/QUOTE]
I don't care who the dead guy was, disrupting a funeral should not be netting you any money even if you get away with it by yelling "freedom of speech".
No, it's not. This case is not special just because it involves a dead soldier and the WBC. The law has to be applied the same here as in other cases. To do otherwise is BS - and would give the WBC a legitimate claim of persecution. Would you really want to give them that?[/QUOTE]
I don't care who the dead guy was, disrupting a funeral should not be netting you any money even if you get away with it by yelling "freedom of speech".[/QUOTE]
It's not exactly netting them money, it's getting their legal fees paid. It's fairly standard, if particularly unpalatable in this case.
- Status