Feb 13, 2012 -- 9:52PM, Roodog wrote:

Maine and Karbie,

The staunchly Republican state of Alabama keeps getting clobbered by tornadoes. The staunchly Republican State of Kansas gets clobbered by tornadoes. The staunchly Republican State of Oklahoma gets clobbered by tornadoes. The staunchly Republican State of Florida gets clobbered by hurricanes as do the the staunchly Republican States of Texas and Louisiana.

Maybe they should switch to the Democratic Party.

A generation ago- pre civil rights laws of the LBJ era- those states were staunchly Democratic, they still were pummeled by tornadoes. Weather phenomena are non-partisan   

Does anyone agree with the majority in Snyder v. Phelps (www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-7...)? I can hardly ever find anyone who agrees with the reasoning of this decision.

I’d say that the majority’s basis for this decision--that speech is deserving of “special protection” under the First Amendment when the speech content involves “matters of public concern”--is unjustifiable in more than one respect. The Court acknowledges that it can’t really define what are “matters of public concern,” yet its decision hangs on this concept.

Moreover, I’d say that “YOU’RE GOING TO HELL” and “FAGS DOOM NATIONS” are not conceivably “matters of public concern,” especially when shouted at the private funeral of a non-public individual, or when scrawled on placards and thrust into the faces of family members and other attendees of a private funeral of a non-public individual.

I believe there are acts and speech that, even when the speech may involve “matters of public concern,” can constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). It seems apparent that the intention for the Phelps’ actions is to inflict emotional distress on private individuals, not to participate in the marketplace of ideas. The Phelps’ funeral protests targeting non-public individuals do not have any rational relationship to any position on any “matter of public concern”.

It seems to me that Snyder renders the tort of IIED completely impossible when the act includes speech whose content someone might claim is a “matter of public concern”--which apparently could be any speech content, according to this decision.

keeping with a sub-text of this thread Bnet does a great job of keeping the Westbro group in the news.  I had never heard of this group except via Bnet.  I am  a huge news junkie one day a Bnet poster said to me something like "Yeah, well what about Fred Phelps!!"  To which I replied "who the hell is Fred Phelps?".  Then I was given an education.

Since then there is at least one (often times many more) threads created every month dealing with this Westbro group.  About 18 months after my initial introduction to Westbro I then spontaneously tripped across an article reporting on them on MSN. 

If Fred Phelps does says it one day it is discussed adnauseum on Bnet the next day.  I can walk outside right now and run across the first 10 educated, professional people and I am sure none of them woudl be able to tell me who Phelps is and what the Westbro church is. 

We are part of the problem because we give them Waaaayyyyyyy more attention than they deserve. 

Feb 14, 2012 -- 4:36PM, TemplarS wrote:

Erey, I agree, in any case, that Phelps is hardly a "hot topic."

But I don't mind discussing some of the issues raised; there are serious points regarding the limits of free speech as Mindis notes.  Though Phelps is not news, some of these issues are worth discussing.

But- just another "wow, look what Phelps did now!" post- I agree with you.  Enough already.

I agree. The man is deeply sick in the head, and he and his cult should be ignored. 

The larger issues -- the boundaries of free speech -- are interesting and important to discuss.