Search forums

Forums

Export thread

A father of a dead marine has to pay Fred Phelps??

Mar 30, 2010#1

Chibibar

in Appeal court fees?? WTF?
http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/29/1246609/marines-dad-ordered-to-pay-protesters.html

Mar 30, 2010#2

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.

Mar 30, 2010#3

Hailey Knight

He shouldn't have lost. These shitheads need to go away.

Mar 31, 2010#4

Covar

escushion said:
He shouldn't have lost. These shitheads need to go away.

yea. Fuck the first amendment!

Mar 31, 2010#5

sixpackshaker

God Hates the First Amendment.

Mar 31, 2010#6

SpecialKO

Dude should set up a Paypal donation link.

It sucks that he has to pay Phelps, but he free speech is free speech, vile as it may occasionally be.

Mar 31, 2010#7

Bowielee

OK, I'm confused. What is the court ordering the father to pay fees for now? Did he assault the protesters or something?

Mar 31, 2010#8

Chazwozel

Covar;363507][QUOTE=escushion said:
He shouldn't have lost. These shitheads need to go away.

yea. Fuck the first amendment![/QUOTE]

Yeah fuck rational logic!

Mar 31, 2010#9

Shakey

TeKeo said:
Dude should set up a Paypal donation link.

It sucks that he has to pay Phelps, but he free speech is free speech, vile as it may occasionally be.

He's already taking donations. http://www.matthewsnyder.org/

Bowielee said:
OK, I'm confused. What is the court ordering the father to pay fees for now? Did he assault the protesters or something?

The father tried to sue the church, initially won, but lost on appeal. The church then sued him for legal fees and won.

Mar 31, 2010#10

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
OK, I'm confused. What is the court ordering the father to pay fees for now? Did he assault the protesters or something?

Mar 31, 2010#11

AshburnerX

TeKeo;363586][QUOTE=Bowielee said:
OK, I'm confused. What is the court ordering the father to pay fees for now? Did he assault the protesters or something?

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.

Mar 31, 2010#12

Chazwozel

This is why it's so hard to fuck with WBC, they're all fucking lawyers and accountants.

Mar 31, 2010#13

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
tied up in the courts for years to come.

That would bankrupt anyone.

I thought Phelps or his son was their lawyer...

Mar 31, 2010#14

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker;363602][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:
tied up in the courts for years to come.

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.

Mar 31, 2010#15

Philosopher B.

Mar 31, 2010#16

Hailey Knight

Covar;363507][QUOTE=escushion said:
He shouldn't have lost. These shitheads need to go away.

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.

Mar 31, 2010#17

Troll

Okay, quiz time! Which of the following rights is NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights?

A) Freedom of speech.
B) Protection from illegal search and seizure.
C) Freedom of religion.
D) Right to privacy.

The answer will explain why the court ruled the way it did.

Mar 31, 2010#18

AshburnerX

A Troll said:
Okay, quiz time! Which of the following rights is NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights?

A) Freedom of speech.
B) Protection from illegal search and seizure.
C) Freedom of religion.
D) Right to privacy.

The answer will explain why the court ruled the way it did.

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.

Mar 31, 2010#19

Kitty Sinatra

AshburnerX said:
he 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.

If he held the funeral in a private place, and avoided all the public places where the WBC protested, then yeah.

Mar 31, 2010#20

Cajungal

It still sucks. If I ever run into those guys again, I hope I have some urine-filled water balloons handy.

Mar 31, 2010#21

Kitty Sinatra

So do I, Cajun.

Although I kinda hope you don't carry urine-filled balloons around with you.

Mar 31, 2010#22

Cajungal

Gruebeard said:
So do I, Cajun.

Although I kinda hope you don't carry urine-filled balloons around with you.

Nope, just pee bottles.

Mar 31, 2010#23

Hailey Knight

Cajungal said:
It still sucks. If I ever run into those guys again, I hope I have some urine-filled water balloons handy.

Careful, that'll infringe on their rights.

Mar 31, 2010#24

Cajungal

escushion;363851][QUOTE=Cajungal said:
It still sucks. If I ever run into those guys again, I hope I have some urine-filled water balloons handy.

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...

Mar 31, 2010#25

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.

Mar 31, 2010#26

AshburnerX

You mean our yellow smiley face guy isn't enough? We could do paper masks ala the Spy from TF2.

Mar 31, 2010#27

Cajungal

As long as someone brings me the urine of Fred Phelps and his ugly daughter, I don't care what you wear.

Mar 31, 2010#28

phil

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.

Mar 31, 2010#29

Hailey Knight

Likewise.

Apr 1, 2010#30

Ravenpoe

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.

Apr 1, 2010#31

@Li3n

Insulting people at their funeral/ disrupting the funeral should really not be protected against being sued for it in a civil court. And even if it is, making the guy pay their fees is major BS...

Apr 1, 2010#32

Kitty Sinatra

@Li3n said:
making the guy pay their fees is major BS...

Apr 1, 2010#33

Covar

A Troll said:
Okay, quiz time! Which of the following rights is NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights?

A) Freedom of speech.
B) Protection from illegal search and seizure.
C) Freedom of religion.
D) Right to privacy.

The answer will explain why the court ruled the way it did.

Apr 1, 2010#34

@Li3n

Gruebeard;364060][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
making the guy pay their fees is major BS...

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".

Apr 1, 2010#35

SpecialKO

@Li3n;364114][QUOTE=Gruebeard;364060][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
making the guy pay their fees is major BS...

Apr 1, 2010#36

Chazwozel

Covar;364074][QUOTE=A Troll said:
Okay, quiz time! Which of the following rights is NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights?

A) Freedom of speech.
B) Protection from illegal search and seizure.
C) Freedom of religion.
D) Right to privacy.

The answer will explain why the court ruled the way it did.

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![/QUOTE]

YEAH! I FUCKING LOVE REPUBLICAN BLACK AND WHITE LOGIC! UGH! MY DICK IS SO HARD NOW!

Apr 1, 2010#37

drawn_inward

Chazwozel said:
YEAH! I FUCKING LOVE REPUBLICAN BLACK AND WHITE LOGIC! UGH! MY DICK IS SO HARD NOW!

Dude, it's probably time to turn CSPAN off.

Apr 1, 2010#38

Troll

Chazwozel;364209][QUOTE=Covar;364074][QUOTE=A Troll said:
Okay, quiz time! Which of the following rights is NOT mentioned in the Bill of Rights?

A) Freedom of speech.
B) Protection from illegal search and seizure.
C) Freedom of religion.
D) Right to privacy.

The answer will explain why the court ruled the way it did.

Apr 2, 2010#39

@Li3n

TeKeo said:
It's not exactly netting them money, it's getting their legal fees paid. It's fairly standard, if particularly unpalatable in this case.

I consider somene else paying for me as getting money... but whatever.

Apr 2, 2010#40

Hailey Knight

@Li3n;364917][QUOTE=TeKeo said:
It's not exactly netting them money, it's getting their legal fees paid. It's fairly standard, if particularly unpalatable in this case.

I consider somene else paying for me as getting money... but whatever.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention, since the lawyer is part of the family, they weren't really paying anyway. It's just what he would've charged.

Apr 3, 2010#41

Chibibar

I am for free speech on many levels, but I still believe what WBC is doing is beyond free speech. What is a Neo-Nazi protest on a dead Jew's grave? Same situation different people. I believe this does fall pretty close to hate crime levels.

Apr 3, 2010#42

SpecialKO

Chibibar said:
I am for free speech on many levels, but I still believe what WBC is doing is beyond free speech. What is a Neo-Nazi protest on a dead Jew's grave? Same situation different people. I believe this does fall pretty close to hate crime levels.

Already been basically done, and decided as protected by free speech and free assembly.

Apr 3, 2010#43

Chibibar

TeKeo;365345][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
I am for free speech on many levels, but I still believe what WBC is doing is beyond free speech. What is a Neo-Nazi protest on a dead Jew's grave? Same situation different people. I believe this does fall pretty close to hate crime levels.

Apr 3, 2010#44

AshburnerX

Chibibar;365358][QUOTE=TeKeo;365345][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
I am for free speech on many levels, but I still believe what WBC is doing is beyond free speech. What is a Neo-Nazi protest on a dead Jew's grave? Same situation different people. I believe this does fall pretty close to hate crime levels.

Already been basically done, and decided as protected by free speech and free assembly.[/QUOTE]

Yea, but if they decide to march in full German Nazi uniform (swastika and all) I believe it would be hate crime. Many country already ban buying/sell of Nazi material (i.e. hate crime) So the first amendment won't protect them if they wore that stuff (the wiki said that they didn't)[/QUOTE]

You can't ban symbols in the US. This is why it's still "okay" to fly/display the Confederate flag in some states, why some buildings that predate WWII have swastikas built into their architecture still, and why the KKK are allowed to march. It's part of our First Amendment.

Apr 3, 2010#45

SpecialKO

AshburnerX;365375][QUOTE=Chibibar;365358][QUOTE=TeKeo;365345][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
I am for free speech on many levels, but I still believe what WBC is doing is beyond free speech. What is a Neo-Nazi protest on a dead Jew's grave? Same situation different people. I believe this does fall pretty close to hate crime levels.

Apr 4, 2010#46

sixpackshaker

Protected free speech especially extends over unpopular speech.

Apr 4, 2010#47

Covar

TeKeo;365378][QUOTE=AshburnerX;365375][QUOTE=Chibibar;365358][QUOTE=TeKeo;365345][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
I am for free speech on many levels, but I still believe what WBC is doing is beyond free speech. What is a Neo-Nazi protest on a dead Jew's grave? Same situation different people. I believe this does fall pretty close to hate crime levels.

Apr 4, 2010#48

SpecialKO

Covar said:
That's because of that Republican Black and White logic that makes me so hard.

Apr 5, 2010#49

Chazwozel

sixpackshaker said:
Protected free speech especially extends over unpopular speech.

What the Phelps clan does is less so free speech and more so hate-crime and riot instigation, which are not legal.

Apr 5, 2010#50

sixpackshaker

Chazwozel;365866][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
Protected free speech especially extends over unpopular speech.

What the Phelps clan does is less so free speech and more so hate-crime and riot instigation, which are not legal.[/QUOTE]

They are repugnant, but legal. Yes, I've wanted to smack them in the face from time to time. But they have the right in this nation to say what they want.

In a way it is good to know what your enemies are thinking.

Apr 5, 2010#51

Espy

TeKeo;365626][QUOTE=Covar said:
That's because of that Republican Black and White logic that makes me so hard.

Apr 5, 2010#52

Chazwozel

Espy;365920][QUOTE=TeKeo;365626][QUOTE=Covar said:
That's because of that Republican Black and White logic that makes me so hard.

:shocked: Ooookay...or it could just be that free speech is protected in the US to a greater degree than other countries, much as various political groups of both left/right persuasion would prefer differently.[/QUOTE]

Psssst... I think he's making a play on chaz's post awhile back.[/QUOTE]

He is. And like a typical staunch right winger, he still doesn't understand that the world doesn't work in absolutes.

Apr 5, 2010#53

SpecialKO

Espy;365920][QUOTE=TeKeo;365626][QUOTE=Covar said:
That's because of that Republican Black and White logic that makes me so hard.

:shocked: Ooookay...or it could just be that free speech is protected in the US to a greater degree than other countries, much as various political groups of both left/right persuasion would prefer differently.[/QUOTE]

Psssst... I think he's making a play on chaz's post awhile back.[/QUOTE]

Ah, missed that one. I blame the lack of shopped shark pics.

Apr 5, 2010#54

Norris

Chazwozel said:
He is. And like a typical staunch right winger, he still doesn't understand that the world doesn't work in absolutes.

Only Republicans deal in absolutes.

Apr 5, 2010#55

Espy

Dorko;366099][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
He is. And like a typical staunch right winger, he still doesn't understand that the world doesn't work in absolutes.

Only Republicans deal in absolutes.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.

Apr 5, 2010#56

SpecialKO

Espy;366111][QUOTE=Dorko;366099][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
He is. And like a typical staunch right winger, he still doesn't understand that the world doesn't work in absolutes.

Only Republicans deal in absolutes.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.[/QUOTE]

Are you positive? Most of the Republicans I know just get a charge out of arguing, regardless of position.

Apr 5, 2010#57

Espy

TeKeo;366113][QUOTE=Espy;366111][QUOTE=Dorko;366099][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
He is. And like a typical staunch right winger, he still doesn't understand that the world doesn't work in absolutes.

Only Republicans deal in absolutes.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.[/QUOTE]

Are you positive? [/QUOTE]

Maybe.

Apr 8, 2010#58

Officer_Charon

The standard response to Fred Phelps & Co has been best put forth by the Patriot Guard, I think. Do not engage, do not antagonize, do no exacerbate... merely stand as a shield of Stars and Stripes between their group and the grieving family.

You have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home, so long as you keep your windows closed. You have it in your yard, so long as you have a fence. You do not have it in a public cemetery. However, the disruption of a funeral DIRECTLY is considered an invasion of privacy. Which is why the WBC stands by about 500 feet away, chanting and picketing. The standard internet doctrine of not feeding the trolls applies here.

If you refuse to acknowledge them, no matter how badly you want to, you deny them power of you and your loved ones.

That being said, the idea of Ceej hurling bottles of urine appeals to me... *chuckles*

Apr 8, 2010#59

@Li3n

TeKeo;366113][QUOTE=Espy;366111][QUOTE=Dorko;366099][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
He is. And like a typical staunch right winger, he still doesn't understand that the world doesn't work in absolutes.

Only Republicans deal in absolutes.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.[/QUOTE]

Are you positive? Most of the Republicans I know just get a charge out of arguing, regardless of position.[/QUOTE]

And that's why they deal in absolutes... now you know.

Forums