Infidel Castro
New member
Just watch Father Ted. It\'ll all make sense!
There is some justice still...
- Thread starter Avelorn
- Start date
Roger Bunting
New member
Father Dougal is my hero. 
Infidel Castro
New member
\"Ebony and Ivory...\"
Shawn R. L.
New member
[/quote]
Totally agree. Sadly, it\'s the loudmouth\'s that get all the press since the press seems out to simply make a buck. Freak shows are far more attentiongetting than the VAST majority of Christians out quietly doing good. Seeing how this lopsided news gets gobbled up, the stereotype is begun, and it\'s the rest of us that have to bear the brunt of being thought of as one of \'them\'. This type of issue, since it hits home for me, has made me question some of my own assumptions about other groups and types.
When I hear groups like the one protesting funerals in the name of God, I simply go to what Jesus said about love and treating your neighbors and even your enemies with love. In the name of God, they defy God\'s word...........go figure.
Which point is that? Who makes those determinations?
I understand laws about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater for instance, threats to public safety, etc.....
BUT
I still have to stand by my original statement...if these people were on public grounds, I think they are getting shafted.
Free Speech isn\'t about POPULAR speech. These guys are freaking assholes, I am not defending WHAT they are saying...just their right to do it.
Standing outside someones house in and of itself is not a crime either (again provided you are on PUBLIC property). If it were the Paparazzi stalking the \'pretend\' celebrities would be in trouble. Standing outside someones house and yelling could constitute public disturbance, or something similar...definitely not an 11 million dollar penalty.
A funeral may be a private affair, but again, weren\'t these a-holes on public grounds?
I feel some of you are caught up in WHAT they are saying...I think it should be a seperate issue.
DrEvilmonki
Active member
While I understand what you are saying and feel some sympathy towards it, I do feel these people have overstepped the freedom of speech point. Your freedom to do something usually ends at the point where it seriously impinges on the freedoms of others.
Just because they were on public property does not give them complete freedom to say what ever they want. I will agree that 11 million is a bit over the top (and pretty pointless considering the judge has said it is well above their ability to pay).
Just because they were on public property does not give them complete freedom to say what ever they want. I will agree that 11 million is a bit over the top (and pretty pointless considering the judge has said it is well above their ability to pay).
Sand Rat
New member
Actually Jim, that point is determined by the courts.
And yes, they have a complete right to go out and make total arsehats of themselves and show the world what a bunch of hatemongering slimeballs they are - just like the father of the Marine who\'s funeral they interrupted with their actions has the right to sue for redress and damages caused by those actions.
$2.9M compensatory damages, $6M for invasion of privacy, and $2M for emotional distress.
Anyone else wonder where in the world they get numbers like that? Lawsuits of this kind just plain boggle my mind... was it wrong of them to disrupt someone\'s funeral? Yes, but I fail to see how that\'s an eleven million dollar incident.
Anyone else wonder where in the world they get numbers like that? Lawsuits of this kind just plain boggle my mind... was it wrong of them to disrupt someone\'s funeral? Yes, but I fail to see how that\'s an eleven million dollar incident.
farseerlum
New member
i would be happy enough to accept totaly free speech if i was able to practice toally free arse kickery.
many years ago a person saying something other people thought was obscene was *fixed* by another person hanging one on them. since that sort of behaviour has been legislated out the few that think it\'s still OK to say what they want haven\'t had any natural opposition.
legaly requiring someone to pay damages for things that shouldn\'t be said in some places is the only real check there is for people saying BS crap because they can.
please note that the law doesn\'t say you can\'t say BS crap, just that you may be held to account for it.
i\'m pretty sure the only help these people might get is from people concerned with freedom of speech. everyone else thinks they are close to where they should be. ie the cemetary.
many years ago a person saying something other people thought was obscene was *fixed* by another person hanging one on them. since that sort of behaviour has been legislated out the few that think it\'s still OK to say what they want haven\'t had any natural opposition.
legaly requiring someone to pay damages for things that shouldn\'t be said in some places is the only real check there is for people saying BS crap because they can.
please note that the law doesn\'t say you can\'t say BS crap, just that you may be held to account for it.
i\'m pretty sure the only help these people might get is from people concerned with freedom of speech. everyone else thinks they are close to where they should be. ie the cemetary.
And I thought this place could be bad.
Egad indeed sir.
No Such Agency
New member
Yeah I think I\'d rather have non-scarred genitals than $600k, but the court doesn\'t have the power to reverse history. Monetary damages are the *only* tool the civil court has, if you screw up royally, you pay royally. Phelps has been milking that system for years, but every sword has two sides suckah!
