Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1473431" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>What qualifies as "hate"?</p><p></p><p>A ruling in favor of Snyder would have sent us down a rather slippery slope, whether you like it or not. The argument was whether something that could be considered remotely offensive should be subject to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such speech would include the infamous Muhammad cartoons, flag burning, etc.</p><p></p><p>Westboro's funeral protests are public and not private because the protests revolve around public issues and not private attacks.</p><p></p><p>The Court also rejected Snyder's argument of intrusion upon seclusion rather easily, as the protests were too far from the funeral to see anything but the top of the signs, and Snyder was actually unaware of the protest until seeing the news about it later.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.altenhofel.com/blog/scotus-rules-favor-westboro-baptist-church" target="_blank">In my opinion</a>, a ruling in favor of Phelps in this case is much better than the alternative.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1473431, member: 5151"] What qualifies as "hate"? A ruling in favor of Snyder would have sent us down a rather slippery slope, whether you like it or not. The argument was whether something that could be considered remotely offensive should be subject to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such speech would include the infamous Muhammad cartoons, flag burning, etc. Westboro's funeral protests are public and not private because the protests revolve around public issues and not private attacks. The Court also rejected Snyder's argument of intrusion upon seclusion rather easily, as the protests were too far from the funeral to see anything but the top of the signs, and Snyder was actually unaware of the protest until seeing the news about it later. [URL="http://www.altenhofel.com/blog/scotus-rules-favor-westboro-baptist-church"]In my opinion[/URL], a ruling in favor of Phelps in this case is much better than the alternative. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom