Several States have already enacted time, place, and manner restrictions on these idiots, so, if the legislature is going to step it, it should be to restrict this type of “pure political speech” not protect it.

Including Maryland. They passed a law specifically to regulate such action and Phelps fully complied. I’m still waiting for anyone to explain why he was wrong for assuming the legislature and the governor spoke for the state.

Oh, I’ve already made plenty of progress with you big boy.

I haven’t deduced your gender, so I’m not sure what your intent was, but if you were trying to get a rise out of me because you believe I’m a homophobe, you’ve got it all wrong. I’m one of the few people who supports most of the GLBT agenda. In fact, many of the people who agree with you aren’t the least bit concerned about the nature of the speech. They’re just pissed about the military tie. As for me, I just want to protect the right to peacefully dissent.

I don’t need an analogy. The example is going to the funeral of a deceased soldier (who is not a public figure in any way) (at which there would be expected no media coverage) with large signs that say “Thank God for IEDs” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Fag Troops.”

Several States have already enacted time, place, and manner restrictions on these idiots, so, if the legislature is going to step it, it should be to restrict this type of “pure political speech” not protect it.

“Then and only then, do you have any hope of making progress with me.”

Oh, I’ve already made plenty of progress with you big boy.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to recover damages for words alone? (keeping lible, slander, threats, and extortion out of it of course)

Yes it is very very rare to do so, but under no circumstances? Ever?

Change “words” to “political speech” and my answer is yes. Your Holloway example could, in no way, be construed as discourse on an issue relevant to this country’s laws and beliefs, so free speech concerns wouldn’t be a factor. The standards for IIED would be the only concern.

Phelps was communicating his beliefs on an issue of morality that we regularly struggle with.

And no, the jury does not stand in the place of the legislature.

Did the legislature not create the court and the very rules under which it operates? Is the jury not instructed examine the dispute in light of the law? Yes, you could make a case that the legislature is not responsible for common law, but it wouldn’t be much of a case. The legislature can trump common law any time it wants and its failure to do so obviously in any particular instance is a tacit approval.

And you seem confused about the whole crime issue. Just because you commit a crime, doesn’t necessarily mean someone can sue you. At the same time, people sue for things that aren’t crimes all the time.

I readily accept that, but the analogies offered all have extraneous factors that could the issue.

Show me an analogy that rests solely on speech that is clearly protected by the 1st at a location that is clearly public in a manner that clearly complies with all local regulations. Then and only then, do you have any hope of making progress with me.
-

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to recover damages for words alone? (keeping lible, slander, threats, and extortion out of it of course)

Yes it is very very rare to do so, but under no circumstances? Ever?

Imagine I call Natalie Holloway’s (sp?) mom. And I tell her in an excited tone that I have found her daughter alive and well. Then I put a Natalie sound-alike on the phone and they share a joyous moment. Then I tell her that we will be arriving at her house in one hour. Then I hang up.

Of course this would merely be a cruel prank. So no damages? It isn’t a crime necessarily. I only spoke, and didn’t actually harm anyone. She certainly was already greiving, and I didn’t cause her daughter to go missing. Under these circumstances, no action?

Yet I cause her great suffering. Why is it difficult to imagine that I should be found liable for this suffering?

The standard for words alone causing emotional injury is a tough bar to pass. The behavior has to be outrageous and/or reckless. A jury could easily find that the behavior of these losers is outrageous. You might save yourself a lot of grief and look at the precedent in Maryland for IIED with words alone. If it has never happened before, you MAY have an argument. If it has, how does this behavior not qualify?

And no, the jury does not stand in the place of the legislature.

And you seem confused about the whole crime issue. Just because you commit a crime, doesn’t necessarily mean someone can sue you. At the same time, people sue for things that aren’t crimes all the time. Defaulting on a contract isn’t per se against the law for instance, but it is actionable in tort law. Most car accidents happen without a crime being committed. Generally negligence of any kind is not a crime. Take my punch in the face example and substitute you accidentally dropping a bag of flour on my face from a window. No crime, lots of preexisting injury. And yet, I can still bring a claim for the harm you caused. I used the punch analogy because this was not negligent behavior by the WBC cultists, rather it was intentional.

The assumption here is that someone has special rights when they are grieving. Where does that come from? It’s an emotional argument. It is not based on fact or law…or for that matter a love for liberty. The ACLU would be proud. They have built their organization on emotional propaganda for years and that is what the majority of you so called conservatives are doing, when you rejoice over this tyrannical ruling. You get so emotionally worked up over the message and the messenger, that you can’t deal with the facts.

If someone protests silence in your front yard by playing loud music all night, the cops can jail them for disturbing the peace.

That’s exactly it, though. They didn’t violate a single law. Every analogy that has been presented in these two threads assumes a criminal act of some sort. One person assumed assault with a deadly weapon, another assumed battery, and now your analogy assumes the violation of a noise ordinance.

Phelps and company didn’t attack anyone.
They didn’t threaten anyone.
They were on public property.
They were the required distance from the entrance of the cemetery.
They were no louder or more demonstrative than many permitted protests.
As far as I know, they didn’t even utter a swear word.

The only thing they did was hurt a man’s feelings.

I simply don’t understand how people can accept that precedent so lightly.

This happened in a State Court and was a civil remedy handed down by a citizen jury, not a government sanction or criminal prosecution.

Ok, let’s confine ourselves to Maryland law.

Art. 10. That freedom of speech and debate, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any Court of Judicature.

I’m no lawyer, so I’m sure there are nuanced differences between that and our national Constitution, but it seems to cover the same ground. And no, they can’t skirt the Constitutional limitation by blaming a jury. The jury is simply a proxy for the legislature.

No. Maybe. Doesn’t matter. The harm is measured as the difference between the the Plaintiff without the tort and the Plaintiff with it.

Doesn’t matter? That’s all that matters. Without tort: Mr. Snyder is a grieving father. With tort: Mr. Snyder is a grieving father.

The only difference between the two is the degree to which he is grieving. Are you seriously suggesting that Phelps’ words caused more grief than did his son’s death?

If I am already a quadraplegic, and you come up to me and punch me in the face

That is a physical injury and a criminal act. Fix your analogy and try again.

You seem to mixing up two issues. 1. whether any compensation is allowed. and 2. whether the compensation awarded was in line with the evidence. The fact that these people were already greiving would influence part 2 but not part 1. At all.

I’m not the least bit concerned about part 2, so let’s focus on part 1.

I agree that the fact they were already grieving should not influence whether compensation is allowed. So let’s do a thought experiment. If Phelps had approach Mr. Snyder prior to his son’s deployment and said, “God hates fags and he’s going to prove it by killing your son”, would Mr. Snyder have deserved compensation?

Do you really think a precedent in Maryland which says that a Defendant may be liable for the emotion suffering caused by their willfull and wanton picketing and celebrating at the funeral of a non-public figure, in progress, for their own political agenda which is utterly unrelated to the deceased or the deceased’s family in any way will destroy the country? Really?

It depends on the path of the appeals. If it stays within the state as you suggest, I withdraw my statement and instead speculate that it would ruin discourse in the state unless the courts go out of their way to limit the applicability of the precedent.

If SCOTUS puts a rubber stamp on the precedent that a plaintiff can receive damages whenever his feelings are sufficiently hurt, yes, I believe it will ultimately end with our descent into tyranny. It is historically rare for people to enjoy the freedoms our founders set out to protect. It is naive to assume we aren’t in constant danger of undermining them.