Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 03/04/2011 View Thu 03/03/2011 View Wed 03/02/2011 View Tue 03/01/2011 View Mon 02/28/2011 View Sun 02/27/2011 View Sat 02/26/2011
1
2011-03-04 Home Front: Politix
Fallen Marine's father says anti-gay pickets will draw gunfire
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by gorb 2011-03-04 01:03|| || Front Page|| [11123 views ]  Top

#1 So is what Westboro doing not similar to yelling fire in a church--spurring incendiary behavior which inflames emotions and behaviors and endangers public safety?
Posted by JohnQC 2011-03-04 08:08||   2011-03-04 08:08|| Front Page Top

#2 There was an interesting case several years ago where a man bought a book from Paladin Press entitled Hit Man which was a basic "how to" about being a hit man. It is interesting that the Westboro case has parallels to that case but the ruling was in favor of free speech concerning deplorable behavior. It seems like a lack of consistency regarding free speech in the Federal courts.

In 1993, a triple murder was committed in Montgomery County, Maryland, by a man who claimed to have used the book as his guide. James Perry, who had been imprisoned for violent crime, was caught, convicted, and sentenced to death. He had been hired by Lawrence T. Horn, who sought to receive the proceeds of a trust fund that resulted from his ex-wife's suing a hospital over injuries to their son. The families of Mildred Horn, her son Trevor, and her nurse Janice Saunders sued Paladin Press, the publisher of the book, claiming Paladin Press "aided and abetted" the murder. The suit, Rice v Paladin Enterprises, claimed that Paladin Press had a share of responsibility in the murders by virtue of their publication of a book that, by Paladin's own admission, could be used by criminals and would-be criminals in the solicitation, planning, and commission of murder for hire.

In November 1997, a U.S. appeals court ruled 3-0 that Hit Man was not protected by the free speech/free press clause of the First Amendment and thus Paladin Enterprises could be held liable for a triple murder committed by one of its readers.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-03-04 08:19||   2011-03-04 08:19|| Front Page Top

#3 Just as some claim to be 'anti-war' when their real agenda is anti-Republican, the Westboro trolls put an anti-gay mask on their clearly anti-American activities.
Posted by ryuge 2011-03-04 08:31||   2011-03-04 08:31|| Front Page Top

#4 It seems like a lack of consistency regarding free speech in the Federal courts.

No kidding. And it becomes even more inconsistent when its a 'Living Breathing' thingy that's up the unchecked bias of the various benches.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-04 09:13||   2011-03-04 09:13|| Front Page Top

#5 I suspect that Fred Phelps' little troupe are solely interested in litigation. They are very careful to always follow the letter of the law, and if pre-event publicity is too harsh, they won't show up. And, if they ever think they are at physical risk, they bug out.

So their biggest vulnerability is a lone gunman with no assets, who sneaks by the police cordon and comes in blasting. Gerald Loughner type.

Ironically, depending on the jurisdiction, without explanation, the jury might acquit him. Then unless the Just Us department retried him for a Civil Rights violation, the SCOTUS would likely poop themselves.

They truly fouled up with this decision, opposed as it is by 48 States. The first amendment is already perforated with exceptions, so they should have just added a very narrow one to that list, so at least there would be a way for cities, counties and States to stop this sort of crapola in the future.
Posted by  Anonymoose 2011-03-04 13:04||   2011-03-04 13:04|| Front Page Top

#6 I agree with the SOTUS decision. You have the legal right to say any damn thing you want short of libel or yelling fire in a crowded theater.. and God isn't likely to file a suit claiming he never said " I hate fags". That said, you also have responsibilities and consequences for your actions. I have the legal right to head down to the local biker bar and call them all sissies. And the responsibility and consequences of that action are all my own. As Phelps' are all his own.

I fear courts and gov't placing limits on the Bill of Rights just slightly more than I despise Phelps and crew.
Posted by Mercutio 2011-03-04 14:26||   2011-03-04 14:26|| Front Page Top

#7 In other words Phelps can say what he wants - but should also be responsible for any resulting 'blanket party' someone might throw in his honor.
Posted by CrazyFool 2011-03-04 14:36||   2011-03-04 14:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Ayup
Posted by Mercutio 2011-03-04 14:46||   2011-03-04 14:46|| Front Page Top

#9 the Westboro trolls put an anti-gay mask on their clearly anti-American activities.

Their signs call for more US troops to die.

Why don't they pray for fewer US troops to die? Wouldn't that mean that their so-called "problem" was going away?
Posted by gorb 2011-03-04 14:48||   2011-03-04 14:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Have the Westboro scum protested at Arlington National Cemetery? Just asking. Recently a group of HS students were attending a conservative leadership conference and touring the Lincoln Memorial on June 25. So far this is not a court case to my knowledge. They said they were ordered by a security guard to stop singing the national anthem. I'm all for free speech but the average citizen (me) is left scratching his head and asking: "What is free speech?" My somewhat jaundiced view of all this is that this litigation is good for the legal profession but provides scant consistent guidelines for individual rights. As our newspaper said: Constitutional but not conscionable. If someone or some group wants to be the most annoying, irritating, disrespectful a$$holes they know how to be, it is legal so long as it is restricted to speech/signs.

Most torts (laws) are based on some harm or damage or occurring. It seems like that test would be made here. I understand the SCOTUS said free speech had to be protected at all costs; ignoring harm or damage that might result. But again, consistency of decisions does not seem to be the watchword here.
Posted by JohnQC 2011-03-04 19:40||   2011-03-04 19:40|| Front Page Top

#11 WESTBORO, etal.

versus

* CNSNEWS.COM > ORGANIZED CRIME [includ Cartel Wars] IN MEXIO JEOPARDIZES PROSPERITY OF NORTH AMERICA: MEXICO PRESIDENT SAYS.

Well, iff POTUS BAMMER = THE FED + US CONGRESS are going to continue to NOT secure the SW borders, then IMO Wahsington + Voets should NOT be surprised iff NOT-A-FEW STATE GOVTS ORGANZIED THEIR OWN MILITIAS = STATE GUARDS + DECLARE THE BORDERS TO NO LONGER BE A LEGIT "FEDERAL ISSUE", BUT A SOVEREIGN STATE ISSUE AS DUE TO "INCOMPETENCE/MISTAKE OR CORRUPTION".

As the Lawyers would say???
Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-03-04 19:51||   2011-03-04 19:51|| Front Page Top

23:23 Barbara Skolaut
23:22 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 Barbara Skolaut
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:02 Barbara Skolaut
23:01 trailing wife
22:56 trailing wife
22:49 Frank G
22:46 Frank G
22:34 Procopius2k
22:22 KBK
22:17 KBK
22:16 Pappy
22:00 Pappy
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:45 Frank G
21:38 Frank G
21:37 DepotGuy
21:32 tu3031
21:31 JosephMendiola
21:27 tu3031
21:24 Frank G
21:19 Old Patriot
21:13 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com