tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post8030793676488692731..comments2023-11-10T04:17:00.492-05:00Comments on View From The Porch: 'Ware the First.Tamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-59898194510646723612010-03-11T20:31:05.889-05:002010-03-11T20:31:05.889-05:00If some guy was openly carrying for the sake of pr...<i>If some guy was openly carrying for the sake of provoking flashbacks on the part of some muggee or other, then he could be sued. But if there was merely some one in the vicinity who happened to have a flashback, then no one gets to sue the guy who is open carrying.</i><br /><br />Defining "for the sake of" is too open to interpretation--Look at the mainstream media insisting that people carrying guns near Town Hall events were obviously racists out to intimidate Blacks. It wouldn't be all that unlikely to get a jury who felt the same way.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18445532285100697769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-61546824686186051222010-03-11T20:16:32.197-05:002010-03-11T20:16:32.197-05:00I want to go back to the "fighting" word...I want to go back to the "fighting" words thought. This is not correct, there is a ruling discussing the use of words or phrases that might incite a riot, not cause a fight. <br /><br />I don't like Phelps and his cause as much as the next guy, if he showed up on my lawn, I would take the opportunity to escort him off of it, in a brusque fashion.<br /><br />Unfortunately, until Phelps crosses the line and attacks someone, his speech and right to protest is protected by our Constitution. Right, wrong, or otherwise, I would die protecting Mr. Phelps right to be an asshole. Limiting free speech is just another way to limit your freedoms as an individual.<br /><br />-RobRevolver Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10745371069603827032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-3966380512785467512010-03-11T13:12:20.302-05:002010-03-11T13:12:20.302-05:00Somehow I keep seeing this image of a Marine Honor...Somehow I keep seeing this image of a Marine Honor Guard being issued...what's English for <i>dezentral beschaffte Sicherungsmun</i>? Decentrally procured protective ammo?<br />Well, the Gunny's name tag says Highway, so you'll get the idea.T.Stahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05351094909296928284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-19911994515916714622010-03-11T10:21:39.317-05:002010-03-11T10:21:39.317-05:00In case you haven't seen LawDog's recent p...In case you haven't seen LawDog's recent post on dueling...<br /><br />This radical christian supports the legalization of dueling. I'm sure there will be gays lined up to trade lead balls with the Phelps clan, and I'll be happy to show them how to aim while I'm standing in line next to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-44904185055457239972010-03-11T09:15:30.811-05:002010-03-11T09:15:30.811-05:00The BoR isn't a list of your rights, which are...The BoR isn't a list of your rights, which are nearly infinite insofar as they don't mess with someone else's; it's a list of restrictions on the government.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-41951009163698922972010-03-11T09:01:33.929-05:002010-03-11T09:01:33.929-05:00"And damn it, it doesn't say anything abo..."And damn it, it doesn't say anything about a right to privacy, either."<br /><br /><i>Amendment IX<br />The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people</i><br /><br />Just because it's not an enumerated right doesn't mean it's not a right. Hell, if there's no right to privacy, I guess we don't need that silly 4th amendment.Laughingdoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07788824586959334168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-20988160341614049962010-03-11T07:40:44.846-05:002010-03-11T07:40:44.846-05:00Question: If god hates fags, whyd he make so many?...Question: If god hates fags, whyd he make so many? And how am I supposed to get my living room decorated without them?oghttp://www.neanderpundit.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-8301831518202781182010-03-11T07:19:35.989-05:002010-03-11T07:19:35.989-05:00In FantasyWorkd (i,e, this can't and shouldn&#...In FantasyWorkd (i,e, this can't and shouldn't actually happen) there would be a MediaMultiplex(tm).<br /><br />Phelps is out protesting next to the road in their little permitted area. Another rig 'breaks down' in front on the street. A cellphone-bearing driver (on with 911, incidentally) is suffering unintentional acceleration of their massive Toyota Sequoia and at a high rate of speed, chooses the wrong (depending on viewpoint) path around the rig blocking the road. The police take a staggering 15 minutes to respond to the incident and EMS takes a further 30 minutes, all due to some prank calls, and once the Phelps crowd is *at* the hospital, 1/3 get ignored to death (the British model), 1/3 get the wrong procedures (sucks to get the wrong leg amputated, doesn't it?) and 1/3 develop severe MRSA infections (mostly of the larynx, for some reason).<br /><br />The news outlets would overgorge to the point of exploding.Dr. StrangeGunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03349076338197668654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-64142602814576221412010-03-11T01:13:27.753-05:002010-03-11T01:13:27.753-05:00So that is that POS mentioned the in the AFN News ...So that is that POS mentioned the in the AFN News who protests at soldiers' funerals and blames the casulties to the WOT on gays.<br /><br /><br />I have a soft spot for him.<br /><br />It's at the forward end of a spin-stabilized object travelling at Mach +2.T.Stahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05351094909296928284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-30336197452680148882010-03-11T00:15:54.707-05:002010-03-11T00:15:54.707-05:00lol. Nice.lol. Nice.oghttp://www.neanderpundit.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-73067697069154695162010-03-10T23:50:09.398-05:002010-03-10T23:50:09.398-05:00Og,
I didn't really have any expectations one...Og,<br /><br />I didn't really have any expectations one way or the other; that's why I asked.<br /><br />FWIW, if a grieving relative were to punch Fred, I wouldn't be able to acquit them, because I'd be sent home faster than you can say "<i>voir dire</i>".Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-70674176295702823312010-03-10T23:02:31.394-05:002010-03-10T23:02:31.394-05:00So, Tam: Was my answer what you expected?
I thin...So, Tam: Was my answer what you expected? <br /><br />I think we're not far off one another but I'm wunnering what you think, since you asked. <br /><br /><br />I'm with Frank, by the way. Someone shows up at the funeral of one of my loved ones? they better bring their A game there too. <br /><br /><br />I think the consequences of being an ass in public are a jab in the snot locker, and an immunity from prosecution for the deliveror of the jab. But you should still be free to say what the hell you want when you want. <br /><br />By the way, try free speech in the workplace. Good way to not be in the workplace. Free speech at work doesn't work- well, for most people. I say what I want, to anyone I want, at any time. My employers think of it as a quaint personality trait that's tolerated as it balances against my skills. And I am always civil to customers.oghttp://www.neanderpundit.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-87385163770779203632010-03-10T22:58:08.502-05:002010-03-10T22:58:08.502-05:00With this as a precedent, couldn't a "tra...<i>With this as a precedent, couldn't a "traumatized crime victim" sue successfully when someone open carries at a political protest, because it brought back memories of their attack?</i><br /><br />Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a recognized tort. It would apply to your example, however, only if it was intentional. If some guy was openly carrying for the sake of provoking flashbacks on the part of some muggee or other, then he could be sued. But if there was merely some one in the vicinity who happened to have a flashback, then no one gets to sue the guy who is open carrying. (Leaving out the complication of reasonably foreseeing the presence of people who would have flashbacks as a lawyerly complication.)kishnevihttp://kishnevi.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-47124812284558185732010-03-10T20:01:24.268-05:002010-03-10T20:01:24.268-05:00"If the First Amendment extended to private c..."<i>If the First Amendment extended to private citizens, you would not be able to moderate comments on a blog.</i>"<br /><br />Bad analogy.<br /><br />I can't keep Fred from saying "God Hates Fags". I can keep him from saying it on my lawn.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-80137494006087556712010-03-10T19:55:35.934-05:002010-03-10T19:55:35.934-05:00Mr. B has it right. The First Amendment restrains ...Mr. B has it right. The First Amendment restrains (or should) the government from restricting free speech. It does not restrain private citizens from taking action against speech they find defamatory or otherwise damaging. If the First Amendment extended to private citizens, you would not be able to moderate comments on a blog. <br /><br />Speech such as Phelps should have consequences, if not criminal then civil.TOTWTYTRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17221321904364051792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-11035641165197450902010-03-10T19:00:06.809-05:002010-03-10T19:00:06.809-05:00Fred's "speech" isn't. Given its...Fred's "speech" isn't. Given its time and content it's a breach of the peace.staghoundshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05976667812875074135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-83983805141802124182010-03-10T17:15:25.693-05:002010-03-10T17:15:25.693-05:00Phelps is famous for using the Bible almost purely...Phelps is famous for using the Bible almost purely and exclusively as his justification to hate and claim the right to dominate whoever he can. What he's chosen to hate has changed over the course of his career, it's just this version has gotten him the most attention, which he loves. To give you an idea, the reason "Westboro Baptist" isn't actually recognized by any Baptist convention in the nation is that the most extreme sect he could find kicked him out for recommending a parishioner settle his marital differences by giving his wife a good hard beating. Which he did, and which he was arrested for. Phelps isn't a Christian, he's a sadist with a book.<br /><br />As for the case, I'm with Tam; the Phelpses are exploiting the boundaries of what civil society permits, which doesn't meant those boundaries aren't wholly necessary and the Phelps might be an unfortunate consequence less unfortunate than the alternatives.<br /><br />That said, I do expect the argument to come down to "fighting words".LabRathttp://www.atomicnerds.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-38259326042591040802010-03-10T17:02:31.715-05:002010-03-10T17:02:31.715-05:00The idea that there was 5 million dollars in actu...The idea that there was 5 million dollars in actual damages caused by emotional distress is silly. In reality this is a way to give the Phelps what they so richly deserve, despite their reprehensible actions being legal. <br /><br />What's the difference between the government fining the Phelps directly, and the government allowing a dubious damage claim for speech? <br /><br />With this as a precedent, couldn't a "traumatized crime victim" sue successfully when someone open carries at a political protest, because it brought back memories of their attack?Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18445532285100697769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-44856700815279845912010-03-10T16:40:42.841-05:002010-03-10T16:40:42.841-05:00Just wondering. Does the Phelps bunch (all what, 1...Just wondering. Does the Phelps bunch (all what, 180 of them - less than my local PTA) ever eat lobster or pork? The same part of Leviticus that proclaims [male] homosexuality "anathema" says the same thing about other practices, after all. If they do, and especially if some enterprising sort has pictures, how about counter-protesting with signs saying they should be stoned to death for it? Not actually stoning them, but signs and shouts...John Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801684602403824157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-13745065858910871092010-03-10T15:44:04.821-05:002010-03-10T15:44:04.821-05:00Like Frank, Stuart, etc... insulting the dead in t...Like Frank, Stuart, etc... insulting the dead in the presence of the recently bereaved by disrupting a funeral is so far beyond the pale that... well there just aren't any words. <br /><br />Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much the Platonic ideal of "fighting words" and hope there's not a jury in the land who'd convict a soul of beating them within an inch of their lives for it... or possibly even putting them in the ground. <br /><br />Now, have 'em made a parade down the street and wave all the obnoxious signs they want... enh. It's still a shadow of a free country - march all ya want.<br /><br /><br /><br />as to the "no right to privacy" - that's absurd. It's implicit in the fourth, to say nothing of the ninth, as Ken points out. You want to argue The Topic That Shall Not Be Named, great. But you'll have a heck of a lot better luck on the "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" tack than with "there is no right to privacy."Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682072668997410668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-42135964010726271852010-03-10T15:35:28.812-05:002010-03-10T15:35:28.812-05:00@Nathan: "The enumeration in the Constitution...@Nathan: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780425923108876647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-46516559826531450612010-03-10T15:19:47.616-05:002010-03-10T15:19:47.616-05:00Frank W. James: As someone who has also buried a ...Frank W. James: As someone who has also buried a child, I was just about to make the exact same comment. If the Phelps clan would have decided to picket my daughters funeral I am not sure I would have been able to restrain myself. Grief does that to a man.<br /><br />I believe that hate is a poison to a man's soul; it eats away that which makes us human. If the actions of Fred Phelps and his ilk are any indication, by that measure I would have to wonder if/how they still maintain their humanity. I guess that that is a question that only they would be able to answer, preferably after taking a long honest look inside in the deepest, darkest, lonliest part of the night. I sure wish they would.<br /><br />sStuart the Vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09254498595290292223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-84900461770665591942010-03-10T14:54:51.311-05:002010-03-10T14:54:51.311-05:00IMHO I would say his despicable behavior would be ...IMHO I would say his despicable behavior would be covered under the 1st Amendment.<br /><br />I would also say if I was a juror I would never convict someone for stomping the bejesus out of him and his tribe.<br /><br />GerryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-76245645557269944322010-03-10T14:47:38.798-05:002010-03-10T14:47:38.798-05:00D.W. Drang: The Constitution does not say, "T...D.W. Drang: The Constitution does not say, "The right to privacy shall not be infringed." But if you're going to allow penumbral readings, you also end up with other "rights" that don't exist. Which way do you want it?<br /><br />Irritablearchitect: Parade permits I don't have a problem with; when you consider the disruption that a parade causes on city streets, the extra police required, responsibility for cleanup, etc., that's what a parade permit is really all about. Maybe it wasn't in the past, but nowadays, I can't really see city government refusing permission to a group it doesn't like just because it doesn't like them. I think they'd be hard-pressed to refuse such a request (and sued up one side and down the other if they did). But the permit does establish that there are responsible people involved and that damages will be covered and so forth. And the cost (at least in Indianapolis) is minimal and probably doesn't even cover their paperwork. YMMV.Fuzzy Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802539927743643041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-83165864008754959642010-03-10T14:38:06.499-05:002010-03-10T14:38:06.499-05:00Obviously my comment was rhetorical about "fi...Obviously my comment was rhetorical about "fire", the point being freedom of speech should be absolute but it should not be free of consequence and the consequence should not necesarily involve the law.oghttp://www.neanderpundit.comnoreply@blogger.com