Justice!

[Marston]

This really made my day

[Malacasta]

Hrm. My first instinct is to think this is a horrible precedent.

Having to pay $10.9 million in damages for staging a rally that was found offensive by the family would be a huge chilling effect on freedom of speech wouldn't it?

I mean, this church is disgusting, but so are nazi's who demonstrate in African American suburbs etc etc.

Maybe someone can explain the ins and outs of this to me, cuz the more I think about it the more worrying it seems.

[mliaa]

Malacasta,

I think the jury found the Kool-Aid drinking Phelps guilty of extreme assholism that is not protected under our rights to protest.

[Savaric]

Makes my day too. Looks like God doesn't like them either.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by mliaa
Malacasta,

I think the jury found the Kool-Aid drinking Phelps guilty of extreme assholism that is not protected under our rights to protest.

Phelps is an easy target. His views are almost universally derided and only his incestuous family can be called on to support him. I think Aristotle once said on a threshold board that hard cases make bad law. I would suggest this is a perfect example of that. Everyone thinks Phelps should go down, so they aren’t going to complain about the precedent as much as they would if the defendant was less objectionable.

The right to protest in the US, has allowed white supremacist groups to walk through African American suburbs in Toledo Ohio chanting their anti-human, extremely offensive chants. The right to protest in Australia allows for neo-nazi’s to gather in Jewish suburbs of Melbourne and celebrate the holocaust.

There are ways of shutting up these assholes (and I’m a firm believer in shutting them up). For example, we have a large circle of anti-nazis who quickly organize when fascists start to raise their head in Melbourne. Counter demos meet them wherever they appear and they soon crawl back under their rock when they find themselves unable to build support or get big enough to even gain media attention.

In the US, Phelps WAS opposed by regular people. Biker groups organized to oppose his rallies and kept his group at a distance from the funerals.

The state has a funny way of using precedents like these. The anti-blackshirt laws of England - Public Order Act 1936 (POA) - were introduced to stop fascists marching against Jews (amongst other things), but for 70 years, these laws have only ever been used against trade unions and the left.

Some of you might find that amusing, but it goes to show that the state can and will use laws and precedents that were initially met with popular acclaim for its own ends down the track.

[mliaa]

I agree with you Malacasta. It is a given. The State will attack with all it has if they want. Your example of the POA is a good one. The English government used it to their advantage.

I do not think the Phelps case is a precedent. The Southern Poverty Law Center has sued the Klan and won. I do not think the monetary rewards were as big as the Phelps have to pay though. I'm glad that they got the smack down, pwnd.

I am concerned though about protests where the intention of the organizers are peaceful and it ends up a bloody mess at the end due to violence by persons unknown. Who is responsible in the end? Can the government use the Phelps case to sue the protest organizers? And will that make for less protests? The result being that people can't afford to protest? I dunno. Time will tell.

[Rilthyn]

There is a time and a place for protest, but a funeral is definitely not one of them.

They got the smack down they deserved, and it would have been more absurd had they been able to argue a successful defense.

We can worry about the legitimate kinds of protests that might be in danger when common sense fails, but wonder also, what kinds of 'protest as a pretext' to utter bullshit we would be seeing, with common sense having already failed.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by Rilthyn
what kinds of 'protest as a pretext' to utter bullshit we would be seeing, with common sense having already failed.

Please elaborate.

[Rilthyn]

You seem concerned about the implications of this case, because of the precedent that it sets.

Whichever way the case went it was going to set an interesting precedent.

If not for, as you said, the possible future citing of the ruling as reason to clamp down on legitimate protests when and where it pleases the government, then the opposite - hateful and intrusive protests at the most inappropriate of times to be carried out without fear of reprisal from the law.

[Malacasta]

But Rithlyn, that already happens. I already described the nazi's in Caulfield celebrating the holocaust, or the white supremacists in Toledo marching through black neighborhoods. I would consider those protests to be hateful and irrational provocations, and equally on par with the Phelps mob.

I can't recall how many pro-life pickets my father had to wade through on his way to work, my mother had regular nervous breakdowns from the scorn that religious nutters spat at her because of dad's job, and we had to keep getting new silent phone numbers to stop the abusive phone calls.

As much as I despise these people, both for what they've personally done to my family, and for what they propose to do to society, I would NOT sanction the state the power to stop them gathering.

OTOH, I would go out of my way (and regularly have) to break up the pickets, and blockade the marches of the little feet, and chase the nazi's through the back streets.