MA father awarded $11 million in lawsuit over his military son's funeral

[Alcon]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

[Alcon]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

The guy won his claim that Phelps' actions caused him severe emotional trauma (and given that it was the funeral of his own son, I'm not particularly incredulous of that idea).  That argument usually gets laughed out of court, so the fact that it actually succeeded this time means that Phelps must have done something pretty bad.

Quite frankly, this looks about as much a restriction of freedom of speech as the banning of libel and slander.  Not something I'm worried about.

I don't see how "his protest emotionally upset me" is a valid argument for restricting free speech.  I'm no Constitutional scholar, but beyond civil harassment, "fire in a crowded theater", and encouragements of violence, I don't see a compelling reason to restrict it.

This, I don't think, fell into any of the three.  It worries me.

[Alcon]

The right to freedom of speech trumps the right not to be offended.

Even at a funeral?

Who decides what event is solemn enough to warrant this?  So, yes, as far as I'm concerned, it should.

[Alcon]

It's not that it's solemn; it's that it's a private event being crashed and ruined by these people.  What gives them the right to do that?

If they are protesting within legal distances, how does that constitute "crashing" the event?  They weren't sued for trespassing or disturbing the peace, as far as I'm aware.  If they were, I could understand.

Seconded.

I also wonder how "free speech" can be banned from within 100 feet of any polling place, but not from a funeral.

Honestly, defending that is probably possible, but I'm not competent enough.  Effectively, with that argument, though, you could support banning any form of free speech whatsoever.  There is clearly a legally-defined law; I'm just not sure what it is.  And if this ruling crosses it just because these people are exceptional bastards, I can't respect that, as much as I wish I could.

[Alcon]

Who decides what event is solemn enough to warrant this?

Society? Common sense? Human decency? That sort of thing generally? I mean, for Christ's sake, it's a funeral.

Society.  Lovely.  No thanks.  I think I have less faith in humanity's willingness to tolerate things that make it uncomfortable at the polls, or in a jury, than you seem to.  By and by, "Christ's sake" is exactly why I might worry about that.

If it is wrong to prevent people from holding thuggish demonstrations outside funerals, then clearly it is also wrong to prevent people from holding thuggish, and intimidating, demonstrations outside polling stations. Or outside schools. Or in front of people's houses. Or anywhere in fact.

Long Live King Mob.

So, $11 million should be rewarded to anyone who is made upset by a protest, and whose cause a jury deems sufficiently worthy of not being annoyed?

I am not saying that I'm entirely comfortable with either end of the slope, nor do I understand the law and reasoning behind polling place restrictions enough to make a comment there.  But this is heading toward the end of the slide that discomforts me.

$6,000,000 of the verdict was strictly for invasion of privacy.  I don't see how that's even arguable against, but this place is special like that.

I've only read news articles and not the decision, but they mentioned that the jury found the church too "vulgar and offensive."  Why would that matter in an invasion of privacy case?

[Alcon]

If you reject the idea that certain rules of decency, acceptable behavior and so on should be made by society, then you are either arguing for anarchy or a dictatorship. Which?

I did not say that I reject the perception of society in all matters.  We already reject societal arguments in some matters of law.  Are juries in murder cases asked to decide whether the victim was worth killing?  No.

Thuggish protests outside funerals are merely "uncomfortable"?

Again, I was speaking to the lengths this precedent could easily be taken to.  I also meant "on a jury," not "at the polls"...which probably makes that statement make a little more sense.

You're worried about an expression of exasperation?

No, that was more a semi-sensical throw-off about the danger of determining which activities are worth sanctity by the vote of a jury.  Feel free to ignore it.

I've made no comment on the financial penalty involved in this case. I'm just arguing that people who organise thuggish protests outside funerals should be prevented from doing so.

Fair enough.  I'm not really as interested in the payout as the legality issue, either.

I think it has something to do with the intimidation of the electorate being seen as a bad thing.

Well, obviously I understand the reasoning behind them, but I'm not fluent in the law and history enough to speak to the consistency (or lack thereof) of polling place laws and free speech.