No it is not being regulated just because of the content of the
speech. That speech in other places, other times, other means is not
banned or sanctioned. People disrupting a funeral even with entirely
different words would still be disrupting a funeral. The disruption
can be prohibited -- the
It occurs to me that all of this could have been avoided if the
father of the deceased soldier, in a fit of grief-driven rage, had
taken Mr. Phelp's (or possibly Mr. Phelp's daughter's) life and then
claimed temporary insanity.
But then I might have been tempted to show up at the funeral
Yesterday I was struck by the coincidence of the discussion of the Phelps'
group's picketing at military funerals on the day that Paul Tibbets' death
was being reported, as follows by a newswire service (AP, I think):
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr., the pilot and commander of
the
If the actual spatial relation between the location of the activity and those
who are offended by it matters, it might be helpful for people to look at a map
of Walter Reed Hospital, where the Code Pink demonstratins occurred, and
compare the location to that in the funeral case. (The Code
I'm largely (90%?) in agreement with Eugene, but I'd add a slight caveat. I
think that some (small?) part of the offensiveness or invasion of privacy
here is, indeed, the mere presence of strangers in close proximity to the
funeral - an event that, as a matter of social custom, decency, and
I agree that my vote for Hillary is not a great analogy, but I think this issue
is more complicated than Eugene suggests in this and some of his prior posts.
Rowan does not stand for the proposition that speech can be punished whenever
the person being spoken to asks the speaker to stop
I assumed it's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
I would assume the damages will be dramatically reduced, but the point's
been made. As with OJ, the defendants haven't anything like the assets
needed to satisfy even the actual damages part of the award.
Susan
Jean Dudley wrote:
Maybe the Code Pink demonstrators were further away than the Phelps group (who
I think were 1000 feet from the grave site.) On the other hand, I assume that
they were seen by family members and soldiers because we know that family
members and soldiers were offended.
Besides, it is easy to
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite possible to
suppose that military families will be offended by demonstrators, either, as
with Code Pink, outside a military hospital (or, say at a military funeral),
who suggest that their loved ones were wounded or killed in
On Nov 2, 2007, at Friday,November 2, 2007,7:14 AM, Scarberry, Mark
wrote:
I don't know that it's possible to discuss whether fighting words
are involved without discussing outrageousness. It is largely the
outrage caused by personally targeted speech that potentially makes
it
No, we don't all agree on a rigid speech-conduct distinction.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:43 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Speech and conduct
Setting
1. Much as Michael and I disagree, at least our disagreement is
*not*, I think, about whether the speech touches on a matter of public
concern. My post, to which Michael responds, focuses on that question,
and challenges Alan's claim that this speech can be dismissed as not on
a matter
RE: IIED and vaguenessI've been following this issue with great interest as a
conservative evangelical who considers the Phelps gang (I refuse to call them a
church) truly evil and indefensible and who (and I realize this is probably not
Christ-like love) likes to contemplate Mr. Phelps
Could you please provide a full and complete factual description of the
Code Pink conduct? I need to understand how it is analogous, in
concrete, factual terms, with the behavior of the Phelps group.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David has it right: a compelling governmental interest in protecting a
discrete and insular minority -- one that is routinely victimized.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cruz
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:12 PM
To: Law
Wow, that really is a remarkable First Amendment position: The
government is constitutionally permitted to ban antigay speech (all
antigay speech? some antigay speech? only antigay speech at funerals?),
but I take it constitutionally forbidden from banning progay speech,
anticapitalist
1. The Phelps group is doing more than just arguing a point of
view regarding sin and homosexuality.
2. There is a difference between saying God bless American
soldiers and Bush killed this soldier. The second clearly is meant
to insult. The relevant question is whether, in the
The Phelps case is easy because of the unique facts. I don't think that
the Code Pink protests come close to matching the Phelps' protests.
Several writers in this thread have made the point that there is
something special about funerals, and ceremony, and ritual, and grief,
and that the law
No, not remarkable.
Viewpoint neutrality is a chimera and an illusion, in my opinion. I do
agree that the Court is not likely to agree, but that does not mean that
the Court is right, but merely that the Court has spoken --
wrongheadedly.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My understanding is that Code Pink demonstrators deployed mock caskets and held
up signs saying that soldiers had died or been maimed for a lie along with
other attacks on the war in Iraq, describing it, for example, as a war for oil.
Here is one description:
Eugene's comments have really helped me to think about this issue. I
think part of what makes this issue complicated for me (obviously I
can't speak for Eugene) is that the protestors are really engaged in two
communicative acts.
1. There is the message to the mourners. The core of that message
That's easy for YOU to say.
At 11:33 AM 11/1/07 -0500, you wrote:
Bsog
Joel L. Sogol
811 21st Ave.
Tuscaloosa, ALabama 35401
ph (205) 345-0966
fx (205) 345-0971
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have
evidence rules in U.S. courts.
The judgment against Westboro and Phelps was $11 million. Someone said that
the jury picked this number to make sure that Westboro loses all its assets. I
don't know whether that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me, and I would expect
a sensible plaintiff's attorney to have suggested as much
OK, let me present it from a different perspective: Many
traditionalist Christians have argued that civil rights victories for
the gay rights movement mean losses for traditionalist Christians -- in
particular, loss of free speech and the right to spread their religious
views. Many have
Two major victories for public prayer in Jesus' name were just declared in
the Indiana and Ohio legislatures, but three new battles rage in Pennsylvania,
Florida and North Carolina where legislators are considering banning Jesus
prayers.
Please enjoy my WND commentary, pasted
I appreciate Dan's point; but I think that if the mere presence
of strangers is a factor here, it's a small factor indeed. If there
were a half dozen people standing on the street corner near the funeral
talking to each other, the attendees to the funeral might be very
slightly put off,
A content-based ban on speech isn't a conduct ban just because
speech in other places, other times, other means is not banned or
sanctioned. It's just a content-based restriction rather than a
categorical content-based prohibition. And that it leaves open ample
alternative channels is
Picking up on Marci's comment, suppose a town enacted an ordinance that
prohibited the display of signs or banners that held the decedent up to
contempt or ridicule (or expressed the message that the decedent deserved to
die or was unworthy to be mourned) within 1000 feet of a burial service.
28 matches
Mail list logo
