On Nov 1, 10:06 am, Modemac <mode...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I can't say I agree with this judgement, as it seems like the same
> tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center: use the legal system to
> force your opponent into bankruptcy, because he says things you don't
> like. The case itself was not a free-speech issue; rather, the
> argument that won in court was that Phelps and his crew had
> intentionally inflicted emotional distress and invaded privacy of the
> family of a soldier killed in Iraq. However, if they had indeed caused
> emotional distress to the father and his family (and they certainly
> did), then you would think that a fair and impartial judge would award
> enough damages to genuinely slap Phelps and make him remember
> this...not crush him financially in such a manner that the Westboro
> Baptist Church would have to sell their homes, all of their worldly
> possessions, and all income they make for the rest of their lives to
> pay it.
>
> Is $11 million a fair payback for insults from a bunch of wackos no
> one is going to believe anyway?
>
> This seems more like the actions of a judge who wanted to stop Phelps
> once and for all, rather than simply handle this one single incident.
> It's the same way that Morris Dees stopped White Aryan Resistance,
> Aryan Nations, and other hate groups.
>
> The WBC's pickets and protests were legal, but the hurt they inflicted
> on the soldier's family wasn't. They should be punished for their
> hurtful actions, not for their legal ones.
>
> Besides, Phelps' family manage their own law firm, and they know how
> to use the legal system. There's no doubt this case will be appealed,
> and we can only see what happens when other judges look at this case.
>
> Remember how a fair, honest, and impartial judge handled Magdalen's
> case, too.
>
> --
> The High Weirdness Project
> http://www.modemac.com
The core legal problem is far simpler than you suggest. If you want
to protest a newspaper, for instance, then go to the side walk in
front of the paper and go to it. No one will disturb you. However if
you go to the residence of the editor your looking at a whole nother
situation. Here you have the same thing, intruding into the privacy
of the family and friends, there are more appropriate place to
protest. Its the yelling fire in a crowded theatre bit, you just
can't do that 1rst amendment or not.
Also doing this crap at a cemetary is just going to piss people off.
This is the kind of case were rules, laws and everything else will be
bent to get the evil doers.
|
