Westboro Baptist

[hi_im_god]

you've simplified plaintiff arguments in a way that if true would, in fact, make this a slam dunk. so why did the supreme court grant cert?

plaintiff won $5 million against westboro in a lower court. the appeals court overturned that verdict. now the supreme court agreed to hear the case when all they had to do was deny cert and the appeals court ruling stands. why would they bother hearing the case?

re-read what riot wrote. it's not about signs held up at funerals. it's about the speech specifically targeted at plaintiff on the westboro website. the issue is going to be whether or not this plaintiff is a public figure. that's where the justices questioning went. if he is, then falwell vs. flynt applies and it is indeed a slam dunk.

if he's not, then they'll either expand the free speech rules from flynt so they also apply to private individuals or they'll distinguish from flynt and you could see a very different ruling than you expect.

the court took on the case for a reason. i don't know what it is but i guarentee it wasn't to waste all the time and effort to say the appeals court had it exactly right. they're going to make a point. they wouldn't have taken the case otherwise.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you've simplified plaintiff arguments in a way that if true would, in fact, make this a slam dunk. so why did the supreme court grant cert?

plaintiff won $5 million against westboro in a lower court. the appeals court overturned that verdict. now the supreme court agreed to hear the case when all they had to do was deny cert and the appeals court ruling stands. why would they bother hearing the case?

re-read what riot wrote. it's not about signs held up at funerals. it's about the speech specifically targeted at plaintiff on the westboro website. the issue is going to be whether or not this plaintiff is a public figure. that's where the justices questioning went. if he is, then falwell vs. flynt applies and it is indeed a slam dunk.

if he's not, then they'll either expand the free speech rules from flynt so they also apply to private individuals or they'll distinguish from flynt and you could see a very different ruling than you expect.

the court took on the case for a reason. i don't know what it is but i guarentee it wasn't to waste all the time and effort to say the appeals court had it exactly right. they're going to make a point. they wouldn't have taken the case otherwise.

Yes they take very few cases but they haven't taken one in 22 years such as this. More a, we are due factor, than rewriting the law....As for the internet post, the line of questioning didn't follow that that was their main concern for the case. Second, if they upheld the judgment, every blogger who is critical of someone from here on out will be taken to court....In 2 months we will see who is correct.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Yes they take very few cases but they haven't taken one in 22 years such as this. More a, we are due factor, than rewriting the law....As for the internet post, the line of questioning didn't follow that that was their main concern for the case. Second, if they upheld the judgment, every blogger who is critical of someone from here on out will be taken to court....In 2 months we will see who is correct.

they also haven't ruled on slavery recently, randall.

i like the idea of the justices sitting around deciding which cases to take based on the fact they haven't done it in a while. "yeah, it's settled law and there's nothing for us to add but it's been 150 years dude!"

that's not the way it's done though. they have a point to make. we'll find out what it is.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

they also haven't ruled on slavery recently, randall.

i like the idea of the justices sitting around deciding which cases to take based on the fact they haven't done it in a while. "yeah, it's settled law and there's nothing for us to add but it's been 150 years dude!"

that's not the way it's done though. they have a point to make. we'll find out what it is.

Not really. Again, when the court has changed virtually every member in the past 20 years, they do often look back at similar cases...yes things are different mainly b/c the internet is different. But to believe they will censor blog criticisms is not going to happen....Plus he was searching a month after the funeral when he saw the post. The two really shouldn't be connected at all.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Not really. Again, when the court has changed virtually every member in the past 20 years, they do often look back at similar cases...yes things are different mainly b/c the internet is different. But to believe they will censor blog criticisms is not going to happen....Plus he was searching a month after the funeral when he saw the post. The two really shouldn't be connected at all.

do they look back at similar cases and leave them intact?

i'm not suggesting which way this goes but it's going to be either an expansion of falwell vs. flynt so that it also apply to individuals who aren't public figures or it's going to place some limits on speech.

or they may move the line on what defines a "public figure"

what they aren't going to do is nothing which is what your "i can't believe anyone is even debating this" opening and "sometimes they like to do the same thing again just for the hell of it." suggests.

there's a reason they took the case.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

do they look back at similar cases and leave them intact?

i'm not suggesting which way this goes but it's going to be either an expansion of falwell vs. flynt so that it also apply to individuals who aren't public figures or it's going to place some limits on speech.

or they may move the line on what defines a "public figure"

what they aren't going to do is nothing which is what your "i can't believe anyone is even debating this" opening and "sometimes they just like do the same thing again just for the hell of it." suggests.

there's a reason they took the case.

To me it isn't debatable which is why I chose to portray it that way...Now they surely took it for a reason and as I said already part of that reason could be "internet speech" but also this kind of protest at funerals is not something that used to happen. We will wait and see rather than talk passed each other.

[hi_im_god]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...pts/09-751.pdf

some light reading.

[Nascar1966]

Because of ignorant people like these there should be a draft. Maybe then they will realize how good they have it. Its a shame you have people like these who have no respect for the dead, especially for a dead person who gave up thier life for our country.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Because of ignorant people like these there should be a draft. Maybe then they will realize how good they have it. Its a shame you have people like these who have no respect for the dead, especially for a dead person who gave up thier life for our country.

The majority of them are too old and genetically challenged to be drafted. Should just pick them up and drop them off in the desert with no supplies.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The majority of them are too old and genetically challenged to be drafted. Should just pick them up and drop them off in the desert with no supplies.

Maybe the above should also apply to the illegals. Lets also put them in the desert without supplies.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Because of ignorant people like these there should be a draft. Maybe then they will realize how good they have it. Its a shame you have people like these who have no respect for the dead, especially for a dead person who gave up thier life for our country.

Hey, if you can get them drafted, I am now protected (according to today's ruling) in my right to hold up a sign saying "God loves dead Westboro Baptists."

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Hey, if you can get them drafted, I am now protected (according to today's ruling) in my right to hold up a sign saying "God loves dead Westboro Baptists."

No, Joey, you've always been protected with freedom of speech. That is not a new thing starting today.