T1B

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

RadioFan wrote:I lived in Kansas for 10 years, and personally saw this nutjob and his followers on several occasions. There are exactly ZERO Democrats in Kansas who give that guy or his followers any credibility or support whatsoever. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of KU students who nearly came to blows with him and his followers were left of being liberal.

Btw, Michael Moore and a group he brought with him showed up unannounced to counter-protest this idiot at KU.

One of the reasons Phelps is registered as a Democrat is that two-thirds of the voters in the state are registered Republicans ... it's simply another example of him trying to be "different" and against the "sodomite political establishment," as he would say, in Kansas. It's really not difficult to figure out.

Phelps has failed in numerous Democratic primary elections for governor of the overwhelmingly Republican state of Kansas, in 1990, 1994, and the last time in 1998, when he came in second with 15,000 votes out of a total of over 103,000 votes cast, or 15%.

The next paragraph from your source . . .

In the aftermath of the election, in an incident that would be repeated years later when Phelps circulated a fuzzy petition to outlaw homosexual work protection, many of the Kansas Democrats who had cast votes for Phelps came forward to express their distaste for him. They claimed that Phelps had lied about his intentions to numerous constituents, using double-talk and fuzzy language to confuse them; neglected to mention his stances on race, religion, and homosexuality, and campaigned mainly on the platform of a "good ol' boy" Southern gentleman and retired lawyer unfairly prosecuted by the system.

Sure, "morning after" second thoughts.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:Shall we trot out David Duke's GOP credentials?

Sure feel free, but this thread was more about Phelps so, start a new thread.

This thread was about some lawyers giving their profession a good name by opposing Phelps and his followers. Then some jackoff started parroting the right wing talk radio line about Phelps and here we are. Feel free to stop lying and we can get back on track.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:Shall we trot out David Duke's GOP credentials?

Sure feel free, but this thread was more about Phelps so, start a new thread.

This thread was about some lawyers giving their profession a good name by opposing Phelps and his followers. Then some jackoff started parroting the right wing talk radio line about Phelps and here we are. Feel free to stop lying and we can get back on track.

I haven't told one single lie this entire thread.

And I fully support shoving a sock or a legal cock in Phelp's and his follower's mouth.

Tom In VA wrote:I haven't told one single lie this entire thread.

No, you're just citing them. Maybe if you actualy READ the cites in that Wikipedia article you might see just how weak that story is. By your logic, the fact that I've attended Al D'Amato fundraises, have been registered as a Republican and had my picture taken with Al D'Amato means I'm one of big Al's guys.

Just because you speak the truth doesn't mean you are being honest.

And I fully support shoving a sock or a legal cock in Phelp's and his follower's mouth.

On that I think we can all agree.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:And I fully support shoving a sock or a legal cock in Phelp's and his follower's mouth.

"Free Speech for all!!! Unless I disagree with them or find them distasteful."

That's a good little goosestepper....

If he's breaking the law, he's breaking the law. This is America exercising her free speach and saying a collective "Shut the Fuck Up You Ungrateful Cunt".

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:And I fully support shoving a sock or a legal cock in Phelp's and his follower's mouth.

"Free Speech for all!!! Unless I disagree with them or find them distasteful."

That's a good little goosestepper....

I think this falls in the category of yelling movie in a crowded firehouse.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: "Free Speech for all!!! Unless I disagree with them or find them distasteful."

That's a good little goosestepper....

I think this falls in the category of yelling movie in a crowded firehouse.

Thinking was your first mistake. Lying was your second.

Yelling fire in a theater is a public safety issue. This is not a public safety issue. This is a "we don't like what this guy has to say" issue.

If my son were in the coffin it damn sure would be a public saftey issue.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:If he's breaking the law, he's breaking the law. This is America exercising her free speach and saying a collective "Shut the Fuck Up You Ungrateful Cunt".

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of this are you struggling with? I'm here to help.

Why we have laws against defamation of character if we're free to run around saying what we want about people, without being held accountable.

Can you help there ?

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Why we have laws against defamation of character if we're free to run around saying what we want about people, without being held accountable.

Can you help there ?

There is no "defamation of character" here as you well know.

Then why are they bringing Phelps to court ? And I'm sure you know the right answer. Has nothing to do with saying he can't say what he wants to say.

Tom In VA wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:If he's breaking the law, he's breaking the law. This is America exercising her free speach and saying a collective "Shut the Fuck Up You Ungrateful Cunt".

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Which part of this are you struggling with? I'm here to help.

Why we have laws against defamation of character if we're free to run around saying what we want about people, without being held accountable.

Can you help there ?

The First Amendment protection of freedom of speech, while broad, is not absolute. Defamatory speech is not protected by the First Amendment, although the definition of "defamatory" speech is something of a moving target depending on the profile of the target (i.e., public figure).

That being said, as I said earlier, I'm not quite 100% sure that Phelps' speech and that of his family, is defamatory. A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress might actually be more promising in this instance.

mvscal wrote:So we should attempt to pass a bill of attainder abridging the Constitutionally protected 1st amendment rights of a group of people because you have no self-control? I'm sorry, but I don't find that reasoning very compelling at all.

Find me a jury in this country that would convict a man for killing someone while they were mocking the death of their loved one. I'm as liberitarian as they come, but this is just simple fucking common sense. One of these days someone is going to pull a weapon and cap that son of a bitch. And when it does happen, I'll be amazed if the guy who pulls the trigger does any jail time.

Haven't read this whole thread.

Once the "talk-show rhetoric" crowd gets going, a thread is immediately closed.

But, I reviewed this past page.

And I think I'll cite the old "anytime you get me and mvscal to agree on something, it probably means you just said something stupid" rule...


I find what Phelps and Co. does to be abhorrent and disgusting. And I think anybody who wants to deny him his Rights as an American to be even more disgusting. Take the bad with the good, tards. What the BOR doesn't gaurantee you, is the "Right To Not Be Offended."

Dinsdale wrote:I find what Phelps and Co. does to be abhorrent and disgusting. And I think anybody who wants to deny him his Rights as an American to be even more disgusting. Take the bad with the good, tards. What the BOR doesn't gaurantee you, is the "Right To Not Be Offended."

This goes to public saftey, not the "right" not to be offended. Mocking mourners at a funeral is tantamount to deliberately inciting a riot.

BSmack wrote:I'm as liberitarian as they come

Not really part of the subject at hand, but...


I'm pretty sure most "liberitarians" know how to spell "Libertarian."


Just sayin'...

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:I'm as liberitarian as they come

Not really part of the subject at hand, but....

No, it is not. Correct your own typos.

mv's red herring isn't even worth replying to.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Then why are they bringing Phelps to court ?

To silence him because what he has to say is unpopular.

No, they're making him pay $$$ to see how much he really wants to further his bullshit. That's how shit is done in this country and how it's always been done.

If Phelps wants to continue with his filth, he can, nobody is saying otherwise. But as long as there is legal recourse .... which several lawyers think there is ... so be it. It just might cost him a bit more than he originally thought.

This goes to public saftey, not the "right" not to be offended. Mocking mourners at a funeral is tantamount to deliberately inciting a riot.

In YOUR mind, maybe.


Mourners at a funeral who attempt to remove a person's right to Free Speech (and some of you should probably learn to spell that Right properly before you start waxing on about your expertise on the subject...just sayin') by violent means are the public safety problem...not the other way around, dipshit.


Just because YOU think certain people deserve to be shot for expressing their (whack) views, that doesn't make it right, legal, or anything else -- it just makes YOU an enemy of the BOR.


Last I fucking checked, the Aryan Nations and KKK had the same right to peacably assemble and spout whatever bullshit they deem approprite as Phelps....or you...or I. And for that matter...the same Right to Assemble as the people at the fucking funeral. All parties are excercising their Rights...some are just being complete fucking pricks about it.

Dinsdale wrote:In YOUR mind, maybe.

Yea, and in the mind of anybody else with a lick of common sense.

BSmack wrote:
Yea, and in the mind of anybody else with a lick of common sense.

Violence isn't protected by the BOR.


Better try a new tack on this one. The road you're going down is moronic, based upon the assumption that it's OK to respond to certain taunts with deadly violence.


But, if you'd care to show me where there's a precedent where it's OK to shoot someone because they "offended you," then I'll gladly retract my comments. Otherwise...you're an idiot.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:No, they're making him pay $$$ to see how much he really wants to further his bullshit.

You mean we have to pay a fee to exercise our rights under the 1st Amendment? Interesting. Is your account current?

Christ, where the fuck have you been. The more cash you have, the more you can get away with it.

There is such a thing as defamation. Some lawyers are bringing Phelps to court for this. They're doing it free. If you're such a hot shot constitutional lawyer, why don't you go ahead and represent Phelps pro bono. Me, I like the fact the twat might have to pay some cash to wiggle out of this.

Dinsdale wrote:Otherwise...you're an idiot.

No, the idiot is the person who screams down families of dead soldiers and doesn't think they are going to get beat down for it some day.

Lemme put it to you this way. If YOU went with Phelps and his whackos and got shot or beat up by a soldier's grieving relative, what would your father say? I know mine would say I got what was comming to me.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:why don't you go ahead and represent Phelps pro bono.

Phelps is a lawyer and he lives for shit like this.

Don't come crying to me when this "defamation" lawsuit becomes lodged in your ass sideways.

Good, then he'll have to invest HIS time in defending this. I'm glad about that, that's all. It gets in his way, make his life inconvenient and it's all done by American exercising THEIR freedom of speach, all legal like.

Why you're celebrating is beyond me. Lawsuit won't get "lodged in [my] ass sideways" not even a little bit.

I'm glad some Americans are taking it upon themselves to confront Phelps, once again exercising THEIR freedom of speach, all legal like. Something you seem to be against. I don't understand why.

mvscal wrote: And it's spelled S-P-E-E-C-H...speech.

Not that they don't have a Right to misspell that which every American should hold dear...


One of the first words in the BOR...and the tard can't spell it...even after being called on it previously.

I realize that it's just spelling/grammarsmack...but an especially funny example of it.


"I don'ts rightly knows how to spell it, buts you'z'all'z should listen to whats I gots to say about its.....GUFFFAWWWWWWW."

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Good, then he'll have to invest HIS time in defending this.

And having a ball doing it. The only disappoint that Phelps is likely to experience is that this suit is so absurdly weak that it will get shitcanned too quickly.

And it's spelled S-P-E-E-C-H...speech.

T-H-A-N-K - Y-O-U ..... thank you.


Anyway, I still disagree. I don't think private citizens raising an issue with the guy in court, is an impingement. If he's found guilty, then you might have an argument.

When the guard, or the military, run Phelp's and crew over with their tanks, then you might have an issue.

But lauding a legal .... CIVIL .... battle that might get Phelps away from funerals while he's waging the court battle .... is the right thing to do, on a message board.

End of speech and exercising my free speech.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:why don't you go ahead and represent Phelps pro bono.

Phelps is a lawyer

Not anymore. He was disbarred.

Dinsdale wrote:

mvscal wrote: And it's spelled S-P-E-E-C-H...speech.

Not that they don't have a Right to misspell that which every American should hold dear...


One of the first words in the BOR...and the tard can't spell it...even after being called on it previously.

I realize that it's just spelling/grammarsmack...but an especially funny example of it.


"I don'ts rightly knows how to spell it, buts you'z'all'z should listen to whats I gots to say about its.....GUFFFAWWWWWWW."

Gravytraining slut. Here, wipe your fucking chin.

BSmack wrote:[
Lemme put it to you this way. If YOU went with Phelps and his whackos and got shot or beat up by a soldier's grieving relative, what would your father say?

My Dad would say "I'm proud that you stood up for what you believed in...very proud of you, Son. But, what a dipshitass fucking cause you picked, Son."

And as far as the violence goes, my Dad would say "are you gonna take that off those morons? Time to quit standing up for what you believe in, and start standing up for yourself. Since when did you start putting up with that shit, you psychotic hellion?"



But, your entire (retarded) argument is based upon there being certain times that one has a "reasonable expectation" (you might want to look into that legal term, douche) that they will be subject to violent attack for excercising their Rights.


I'll hold my breath waiting for you to cite this legal precedent....really, I will.

Tom In VA wrote:[
Gravytraining slut. Here, wipe your fucking chin.

Shut the fuck up, before I cap you.


Just because a person realizes you're an idioit, it doesn't make them a "gravytrainer"...it makes them "correct."


Tell us how these people don't have the right to "peesiblee assebowl," Tom?

Phelps and his followers should be arrested for either...

1. Disorderly conduct

or

2. Disturbing the peace.


Over and done. No judge would bat an eye over it.

Dinsdale wrote:But, your entire (retarded) argument is based upon there being certain times that one has a "reasonable expectation" (you might want to look into that legal term, douche) that they will be subject to violent attack for excercising their Rights.


I'll hold my breath waiting for you to cite this legal precedent....really, I will.

Actually, he's not as far off as you might think. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that "fighting words" are not protected under the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Of course, the question arises whether the words uttered by Phelps and those of his ilk are "fighting words" from an objective standpoint.

Uncle Fester wrote:Phelps and his followers should be arrested for either...

1. Disorderly conduct

or

2. Disturbing the peace.


Over and done. No judge would bat an eye over it.

And who, exactly, will be left to speak on your behalf when we finally get around to arresting people for pimping shitty beer on messageboards?

Demonstrators invaded the family’s privacy and intentionally caused Al Snyder significant emotional stress, Trebilcock said. “It made his diabetic condition much worse.”

Maybe one of the lawyers here can expand, but I believe there's remedies that can be sought for the damages stemming from a frivolous lawsuit, if I'm not mistaken?

Hard to "invade privacy" of someone who is in the open in a PUBLIC PLACE. Absolutely asinine.


And gooooood luck proving those damages that Phelps "made his diabetic condition" any worse...my legal experience is limited to writing contracts, and I'll bet even I could get that one laughed out of court.


I can't advocate the abuse of the system to silence those we don't like. Don't get me wrong -- I think their cause is noble....they're just choosing the wrong way to go about it.

Dinsdale wrote:Mourners at a funeral who attempt to remove a person's right to Free Speech ... by violent means are the public safety problem...not the other way around, dipshit.

Just so we are clear...

The rulling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those {words} which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 {1942})

Dinsdale wrote:Maybe one of the lawyers here can expand, but I believe there's remedies that can be sought for the damages stemming from a frivolous lawsuit, if I'm not mistaken?

Most jurisdictions permit monetary sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, as well as for frivolous conduct in the course of non-frivolous lawsuits. Having said that, however, what constitutes a "frivolous lawsuit" is not necessarily what you think it is. Essentially, in order for a lawsuit to be considered frivolous, it must be unable to be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. That's a pretty difficult standard to meet.

As I said before, I think the best cause of action here for the Plaintiffs is intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ordinarily, that's a difficult standard to prove, in that it requires "extreme or outrageous" conduct. However, the Phelps' conduct of repeatedly targeting military funerals for their protests, and making comments likely to be hurtful to the families of the fallen soldiers, may qualify in that regard. Seems to me to be stronger than defamation under these facts.

Moving Sale wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Mourners at a funeral who attempt to remove a person's right to Free Speech ... by violent means are the public safety problem...not the other way around, dipshit.

Just so we are clear...

The rulling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those {words} which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 {1942})

Beat you to it.

mvscal wrote:So maybe they ought to sack up, walk across the street and beat the fuck out of these freaks instead of whimpering about "emotional distress" like a bunch of fucking pussies.

Maybe Phelps is right after all...

I've been trying to do my best to be serious and engage in rational discussion (which you guys are well aware that this isn't my forte, by this point)...


But that did it.

I laughed.

Rational discussion out the window...

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Mourners at a funeral who attempt to remove a person's right to Free Speech ... by violent means are the public safety problem...not the other way around, dipshit.

Just so we are clear...

The rulling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those {words} which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 {1942})

Beat you to it.

Sorry. It's a long thread. Must have missed it. My bad.

And as far as fighting words....there have been some military funerals where cops have had to restrain local citizens from beating the shit out of the Phelps slime. At least by California's standard for disturbing the peace (section 415 subsection 3) easily the fuckheads can easily be arrested & convicted for what they are known to yell.

Dinsdale wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:[
Gravytraining slut. Here, wipe your fucking chin.

Shut the fuck up, before I cap you.


Just because a person realizes you're an idioit, it doesn't make them a "gravytrainer"...it makes them "correct."


Tell us how these people don't have the right to "peesiblee assebowl," Tom?

Oh spare me the bravado and idle threats you seeping cunt. I never said the Phelps crew didn't have a right to peacefully assemble.

But according to our laws some people might have the right to take Phelps to court. We'll see how it's played out.

I'm just glad the little cunt Phelps gets a little bit of heat. That's all.

I'm not suggesting anyone walk on his right. If you'd learn the read the fucking thread right before you gravy-train of mvscal's spelling reproach, you'd have caught my intent.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Mourners at a funeral who attempt to remove a person's right to Free Speech ... by violent means are the public safety problem...not the other way around, dipshit.

Just so we are clear...

The rulling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those {words} which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 {1942})

So maybe they ought to sack up, walk across the street and beat the fuck out of these freaks instead of whimpering about "emotional distress" like a bunch of fucking pussies.

Maybe Phelps is right after all...

that'd be great if there was an assurance that the old fuck wouldn't sue them.

titlover wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: Just so we are clear...

The rulling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those {words} which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 {1942})

So maybe they ought to sack up, walk across the street and beat the fuck out of these freaks instead of whimpering about "emotional distress" like a bunch of fucking pussies.

Maybe Phelps is right after all...

that'd be great if there was an assurance that the old fuck wouldn't sue them.

Not going to happen. That's how the slimeballs make their money.