Exactly.GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm reminded of a famous quote from a Law Lord here, when he was dismissing a case on a technicality and a man stood up and yelled "I thought this was a court of justice!"
The judge looked at him sternly and said "Then you were very much mistaken, sir. This is a court of law."
Doesn't mean it's "the right thing to do;" or that I have to be happy about it.GrahamKennedy wrote:When you sue a person, and lose, it is standard that you have to pay their legal fees. And such precedents don't have a disclaimer at the bottom of them which says "unless the person involved is REALLY unpleasant, in which case just do what the hell you like."Sonic Glitch wrote:So, they pickett a dead Marine's funeral, the family sues for invasion of privacy/emotional damage/other issues, and these a$$holes have the gall to overturn the decision and force the family to pay legal fees for the protesters? What happened to respecting the deceased? This is the same group that holds protests and signs saying "God Bless Dead Soldiers" because "God is punishing the United States for the 'sin' of Homosexuality" -- and his punishment is killing our soldiers. These people are an embarrassment to religious Americans and this decision is an embarrassment to our legal system.
And they should have lost this case. What WBC says is disgusting, horrific, offensive... and an opinion that they have every right to hold and to express in a legal manner, which is what they did.
WBS is certainly an embarrassment to America. But this decision is exactly what the court was supposed to do and should have done.
WBC has been protesting, getting sued, and winning money from their accusers for years. I don't think this new case is going to cause any big upsurge of copy-cats.Tsukiyumi wrote:IMO, it sets a precedent that religious groups (or any other fringe groups) have legal "right of way" when it comes to this sort of intrusion into people's private lives.
I know, under other circumstances, I'd say that's a "slippery slope" fallacy. We'll see what the "Supreme" Court has to say about it, and then we'll see just how slippery.
Which is really what makes me think this should fall under the fighting words provision. It's not political speech, it's a scam.GrahamKennedy wrote:People need to wise up to this a little. A LARGE part of what this "church" does is sue people and make money off them. Indeed a cynic might suggest that the main reason they picket funerals and such is precisely to give people a great big emotional shove in the hopes that they will do something daft and get the WBC into court.
Who says it's legal? I have not yet seen anything about their permit status; and using language intended to antagonize and incite isn't part of any lawful protest.Sionnach Glic wrote:Nope. They're just showing up and protesting on public property. All perfectly legal. If their protest happens to provoke one of the family members into doing something suable, or tries to sue WBC, then the law is completely on their side.
They're assholes, but they're assholes that know what they're doing.
