Johnny Rotten wrote:

Nevertheless, no matter how much merit your points have to a general discussion of restricting protests, they do not have much application to this particular ruling. With the possible exception of how much their proximity or the brewhaha contributed to the amount of outrageous behavior needed to be sufficient for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Could they have been succesfully sued if they had just posted their protest on their website and distributed in published press releases? 

Just one more little wafer-thin mint for you to chew on,  hon.

Bingo, asshole.  My points are very relevant to the actual case.  The first amendment is merely an affirmative defense.  The underlying case is intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.  The very nature and existence of these two torts is a limitation of free speech rights (as are the torts of libel, slander and defamation).  And as to whether they could have been sucessfully sued if they had only protested on the web and distributed published press releases...it depends on whether there were actual damages.  Did the family see the website or the flyers?  How were they affected by it?  Maybe a jury would have found the conduct extreme and outregeous enough to shock the conscience.  Maybe not.  So, please, take you wafer thin mint and stick it up your ass.

Bringing it back on track here:

http://www.killfredphelps.com/

Johnny Rotten wrote:

I know, I know.

I sat there for a few seconds before posting that response to HKG debating: should I or shouldn't I? But then I thought what the heck, it's like eating peanuts or picking your nose, you know you should stop but you just can't help yourself. I just rationalized it away that everyone would take comfort in seeing that the pavlovian laws of nature are still in fine working order.

And everyone can take comfort in the fact that you are still a pretentious fuck.

By the way, one of us has actually read the complaint and answer in this case, as well as some of the motions, so if anyone was having fun at the expense of someone who hasn't a clue, it certainly wasn't you.

Have I simply never noticed that HKG and JR dislike one another? I'm a little surprised, but watching two intelligent people I like spar is vastly more entertaining than watching the usual mental incompetents I see on other sites trying to outwit one another.

Taint wrote:

Have I simply never noticed that HKG and JR dislike one another? I'm a little surprised, but watching two intelligent people I like spar is vastly more entertaining than watching the usual mental incompetents I see on other sites trying to outwit one another.

Up until today, I have simply ignored his tedious ramblings, and that would have continued unabated had he not drawn first blood... and I'm certainly not one to back down from a good fight, especially when I have superior knowledge (in this case, the actual documents and not just the news accounts).

Roger_That wrote:

This reminds me of one of those classic images...

And at least at the special olympics you get a nice shiny metal.  Arguing here you get dick.

headkicker_girl wrote:

There are many times I could rail on you, but I just let it go, so back the fuck off.

Hot HKG on JR action!  I'm getting hard just thinking about it.

Roger_That wrote:

HEADKICKER STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Smitty, why is it that you just can't bear the existence of a conversation you don't personally like?  If you don't like it then don't read it.  Some of use are enjoying the war.  So butt-out you flaming peace-nik!

Johnny Rotten wrote:

All the while during this suburban American dream they spew the logic for saying the hateful things they do...they openly announce that they do it all for the publicity...they do it all for the love...they are keeping it real.

Perhaps...but are you?

While there's no point in apologizing for my post-Halloween, pre-apocalyptic, vodka-tinged rant, I do wonder if you got half of what I was saying or--like most ad hominem assaults--pulled one straw from the bundle and decided to tickle my ass with it. I actually have seen as much of the Beeb vid as I could stomach, across multiple sittings. I don't think we're really saying anything different here.

There is no classification for "pathological publicity whore." And, as HKgirl is clarifying (I think), their legal recourses/escape hatches are moot. Not all religious wingnuts behave in the same fashion, but my opinion of them is solid enough to tolerate a lot of gray area. They are a dodgy bunch, and warped enough to let any cause celebre suit their interests. Abortion, sexuality, immigration, the media... They're really quite impressionable, it seems. Like most addicts and serial killers, they can be steered onto any path that serves their interests. Everything is made to fit.

Claiming a moral high ground is insubstantial when it no longer suits the culture they inhabit. Like egomaniacal toddlers, they have to be told when to stop. They have more in common with the Taliban than virtually all other sectarian Christians, and if they're permitted to dictate the interpretation of Constitutional law, then the rest of society will have to pay the price. They use it as a shield when they want, spit on it when it's of no use.

That they are patently delusional seems to have no bearing on their competence or culpability. If an ACLU lawyer really wanted to get creative, then he or she might try to argue that they're suffering from a shared psychosis, and the law doesn't apply because they do not truly understand right from wrong.

pALEPHx wrote:

And, as HKgirl is clarifying (I think), their legal recourses/escape hatches are moot.

Exactly.  The standard of review on appeal is very narrow.  The only issue will be whether there were any errors (e.g., jury instruction), or if the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.  The ACLU is not a party and can only file an amicus brief.  No new evidence will be heard and courts are loathe to overturn jury verdicts. 

Furthermore, the Phelps' filed a motion to dismiss.  It was denied.  They filed a motion for summary judgment.  It was denied.  This isn't a free speech case; it's an intentional tort case, and after all the pretrial wrangling, there was enough merit to the case to get it before a jury (which as anyone who practices law knows is no easy feat since the federal court is known for dismissing on summary judgment).

So while JR and others can discuss the philosophy and history of free speech laws, none of that shit is relevant to this case.  The bottom line is that the Phelps' had their day in court, and their right to free speech was trumped by the Plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.  The jury just didn't buy it.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that people get tired of your long, boring-ass stories, your name dropping and your know-it-all attitude, you pretentious fuck?  There are many times I could rail on you, but I just let it go, so back the fuck off.

I think she's warming up to you JR.

pALEPHx wrote:

I do wonder if you got half of what I was saying or--like most ad hominem assaults--pulled one straw from the bundle and decided to tickle my ass with it. I actually have seen as much of the Beeb vid as I could stomach, across multiple sittings. I don't think we're really saying anything different here.

Paler,

I did pull the odd straw out for fun, but I will leave it to you to arrange your own ass tickling.

Yes you are very right, they are a dodgy bunch prone to warping. I suppose there is some poetic justice in their current legal troubles. The Phelps Family favors the legal profeesion and I have read  claims from their detractors that in previous decades  Fred and Shirley's prime endeavour to bring home the bacon was suing the pants off people who offended them.

HKG, I recognize that routes of appeal are very narrow. They were for Hustler vs Falwell too, Flynt was denied his initial Fed appeal, and that was also a Invasion of Privacy and an IIED case. As I asked in an earlier post to Feisty, could there be a similarity between these cases that would allow an appeal?

As I noted before, the whole standard for IIED tort law is rather dodgy in itself. I will leave you with this thought on the state of our civil courts:

When outrages are pretexts for taking money from others, occasions for outrage are never lacking.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2007-11-02 02:43:25)

Blah Blah Blah

Johnny Rotten wrote:

The Phelps Family favors the legal profeesion and I have read claims from their detractors that in previous decades Fred and Shirley's prime endeavour to bring home the bacon was suing the pants off people who offended them.

When outrages are pretexts for taking money from others, occasions for outrage are never lacking.

I thought that paraphrase originally applied to property law, but I'm no Headkicker. Regardless, if it is as you say--and I believe I've heard the same observations about them--then the Phelpses are merely reaping what they have sown. Undone by their own, as it were...like the serial killer who is murdered in jail. It's probably driving them craz[ier] that they lost by the same devices they've used so many times against others. I really don't think we've had such an intriguing family in America since the Mansons. Lunch is on Mr. Dahmer, today.

zipolo habu wrote:

Blah Blah Blah

Gazing into the Cruel-stal Ball, I somehow see you going the way of Lance Bass' heterosexuality.

Buttsecks and puppets to you.

Pale, you do realize that was a racist video.  By virtue of their hanging from strings in midair, they are a traumatic reminder of the lynching of negros.

zipolo habu wrote:

Are you inferring that I may be a homosexual?

No he wasn't.
But he was telling you to suck his cock or fuck off.
For Christ's sake, Zippy, how are you going to last around here if you can't pick up your cues?

Hk - Can I kiss you and make up? 

JR, uh, I'll have to think of something else.

Not choosing sides or anything, but maybe you two can work things out here.

Last edited by Fled (2007-11-02 08:19:45)

headkicker_girl wrote:

It was condescending and unnecessary.  You were more than polite to Feisty, yet when I made a polite post to her (not even directed to you), you responded with an insult.

Oh, will you two just sleep together and get it over with?

Zippy needs a friend... Taint?  Is he your type?

Roger_That wrote:

Zippy needs a friend... Taint?  Is he your type?

He's doable in a sex party kind of way. I like guys with facial hair.