Thursday, November 01, 2007


Jury Renders Unto Caesar What is Caesar's

Being merely a mortal, I don't really know if God hates anything;* certainly I don't know what is the focus of His wrath, so I am agnostic on the proposition that "God Hates Fags." It is clear, however, that at least one jury hated the Westboro Baptist Church. I kind of do, too. I certainly hate their hateful protests at military funerals. Hate hates to hate hate.

Good luck turning that judgment into dollars, Mr. Snyder. Sorry for your loss.

*I'm led to believe that God is love (I John 4:8 and 16).



It's always refreshing when th evultures come home to roost.

Wow, I think you've found something we call all agree on.

Nothing causes unity like a common enemy.
I think it's the combination of their absurd 'message' and the abysmal choice of venue. Many of them are lawyers to boot. Double yeech.
I find Phelps and his minions repulsive, and would cheer their being the subject of a blanket party. When that blanket party is orchestrated by, under the auspices and control of, and conducted with the full coercive power of the government, that bothers me. When the cause is his speech, that bothers me more.

I'm not at all sure that the short-term (indisputable) benefits of this victory will outweigh the long-term costs to our society.
Doug, it was a civil suit, not a prosecution, and just because it was held in a government run court doesn't make it government action. We right thinkers all hate assaults on the right to free speech, but the worst of them recently seem to be the idiot speech codes on very liberal college campuses. Hello, liberals, there is no right not to be insulted. Thanks all for the thoughtful comments.
To all and sundry,

The speech, however hateful, is protected. As Roger points out, the issue is venue and it is on that issue that the apellate case will be determined.

Familiies at a funeral have a resonable expectation of privacy. If speech of whatever nature infringes on that right, the infringement is actionable.

"Doug, it was a civil suit, not a prosecution, and just because it was held in a government run court doesn't make it government action."

Who presided over the trial? Who is it that will be coming to collect that money? Last I checked, both the sheriff (or US Marshall) and the judge are a part of the government, and it is through their actions that the money will be collected. That makes it "government action" by definition.

The winners of the suit (barring appellate reversal, of course) have the full force of the government behind their desire to be compensated.

"Familiies at a funeral have a resonable expectation of privacy."

That was the theory that won at trial; that theory is not universally held.

The enforcement of basic civility is not (should not be - normative claim) the responsibility of government.
Sorry, Doug. I know who pays the salaries of the judges, etc. but providing a neutral (usually) forum for private dispute resolution is not, NOT, part of what Madison meant when he wrote Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, and expanding "free speech" protection as far as you seem to want is too far. I appreciate your free speech chauvanism though. Better than the opposite, at least.
That's not the point I was making. My problem is three-fold:

1) Inflammatory speech in a public venue* is protected speech. Neither public nor private actors should be able to infringe upon it on the basis of its content. (Yes, I'm a first amendment absolutist, but that's only a part of it.)

2) Getting your feelings hurt** shouldn't be a cause for legal action. That's true even when, as here, any reasonable person would have his feelings hurt. I have certainly said intentionally hurtful things that I'm perfectly willing to stand by, and I expect I will in the future. You should be able to do the same. (This isn't first-amendment absolutism, this is just an expectation that adults will show some backbone.)

3) This verdict calls down the full power of the state to enforce monetary compensation for hurt feelings. That's wrong. (And this part speaks to tort reform, which I understand to be something of a taboo subject among lawyers.)

It is precisely because of the existence of this sort of jerks that I somewhat regret the criminalization of dueling. Whether the duel is lethal or just a fist fight, the ability to offer a choice between the risk of physical harm and public ridicule has been a useful corrective in the past.

* It is my understanding that the graveyard (and/or the road thereto) is a public venue. I think it would be reasonable to remove such designation from cemeteries, but I don't think that's been done here.

** "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" is lawyerish for "he hurt my feelings and he meant to".

The road to the cemetary is a public space. The grave's a fine and private place."

Unless, you are going to reform civil and criminal law by allowing dueling, don't jump on the tort reform bandwagon. Insurance companies and corporations are the beneficiaries of tort reform. Individuals are not.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?