Father of Slain Marine Forces to Pay Protesters' Legal Fees

[jmm99]

the purpose of Hill and its progeny was to make it more difficult for a public, political figure to sue for defamation and thereby silence political dissent vs that public figure. The Snyder-Phelps 4th CA decision turns that on its head since Snyder is indeed a private figure and Phelps is a public figure.

When lawyers and judges lose sight of the purpose underlying a rule, the rule will be applied blindly and even insanely. One of my law school profs called that "trained indifference" - adherence to the presumed letter of a doctrine without consideration of the doctrine's underlying rationale and its application to the particular circumstances of the case at hand.

Regards

Mike

[Firn]

Note that this case has turned into a freedom of religion and assembly (Snyder) vs freedom of speech case (Phelps) case (issue 2). Application of Hustler v Falwell to this situation seems questionable to this armchair observer.

The purpose of Hill and its progeny was to make it more difficult for a public, political figure to sue for defamation and thereby silence political dissent vs that public figure. The Snyder-Phelps 4th CA decision turns that on its head since Snyder is indeed a private figure and Phelps is a public figure.

When lawyers and judges lose sight of the purpose underlying a rule, the rule will be applied blindly and even insanely. One of my law school profs called that "trained indifference" - adherence to the presumed letter of a doctrine without consideration of the doctrine's underlying rationale and its application to the particular circumstances of the case at hand.

Regards

Mike

Seems that you wrapped it up pretty well. I see the logic of this juridical process and can only shake my head in disbelief.

That little that I gathered about this public figure Phelps stopped my small research short and left me wondering how this status can be attained by such a person. Words fail me as bigot and hypocrite sound far too weak.


Regards

Firn

[jmm99]

because he and his cohorts have made themselves public figures by placing themselves in the media's eyes via their outrageous statements. So long as they attack other public figures (e.g., the Pope), they can get away with it on First Amendment grounds (NYT-Sullivan 1964 and Time-Hill 1967; and, yes, Hustler-Falwell from later on) - as those cases are currently applied.

The real impact of the 4th CA decision is that loud, bully boys can inject themselves into the public spotlight and inflict damage on little people who do not desire that spotlight - and that those bully boys will not be punished for what they do. Viewed in that light, the 4th CA decision is pure bullsh$t.

Regards

Mike

[Wargames Mark]

There are laws that make harassment, certain forms/presentations of obscenity, slander, libel, threats, and loud music illegal. I can't see why doing this garbage at a funeral cannot be illegal.

BTW, when someone is as wrapped-around-the-axle as Phelps is over gays, you gotta wonder...

[Schmedlap]

Cases like this make me long for the days when a man could address a public insult by challenging the slanderer to a duel. The lack of consequence results in a lower level of discourse. Kind of like how we no longer let kids rough house on the playground. As a result, they are more prone to run their mouths and say stuff that, to some extent in my day, and to a greater extent in my father's day, would have merited and resulted in an ass-whooping.

[Pete]

Sometimes when courts render unusual rulings or verdicts it's a good idea to remember what one of Charles Dickens' characters said in the novel Oliver Twist--"The law is an a**." As an example, the following is from today's Irish Times, Dublin:

A High Court judge has ruled that a stone quarry that has been operated near the shores of Lough Corrib in Co Galway since the 17th century requires planning permission. Mr Justice Peter Charleton upheld Galway City Council’s decision that quarry owner Michael O’Reilly must apply for planning permission and submit an environmental impact assessment (EIA) if works are to be allowed to continue there.

Today's Daily Telegraph in London has a story on a proposed change to public decency law that is peculiar--click here to read it.