tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post936261226352993881..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Anonymous, Westboro and free speech.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20651568747417950352011-03-02T15:54:54.165-06:002011-03-02T15:54:54.165-06:00The decision has been made: SCOTUS upheld the WBC&...The decision has been made: SCOTUS upheld the WBC's <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/court-westboro-baptist-gay-funeral-pickets" rel="nofollow">right to free speech.</a><br /><br />The only dissenter was Alito; some of his arguments are given in the article. The bright side is, of course, that free speech is upheld, and so will perhaps continue to be for such unpopular groups as we atheists. But, I do so feel for the Snyder family.<br /><br /><br />Humorous: a <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/25/westboro_baptist_church_anonymous_website" rel="nofollow">video</a> of Shirley Phelps and Anonymous. Shirley insults Anonymous during her rant, and so he shuts down one of her web sites then and there! LOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4138184508331988282011-02-28T20:26:36.812-06:002011-02-28T20:26:36.812-06:00Either way WBC church is back on the agenda and pe...Either way WBC church is back on the agenda and people all over are talking about them. They are hateful people no matter how many people go to their church. These people would exist without a church at least this way you know where they are and how best to avoid them. <br /><br />I do not get why anonnews came out with a media release: <br />We are Anonymous<br /><br />We are Legion<br /><br />We do not forget<br /><br />We do not forgive<br /><br />Expect us.<br /><br />I see this around and go huh they say all people are anonymous so really means there is no group or focus it is just people who find each other and work together. This is not an organization at all. A group of people did not like the WBC and decided to DDNOS them and as a result used anonymous name well guess what anyone of us can be anonymous. This is on their website as well. <br />This is our challenge:<br /><br />A peaceful revolution, a revolution of ideas, a revolution of creation. The twenty-first century enlightenment. A global movement to create a new age of tolerance and understanding, empathy and respect. An age of unfettered technological development. An age of sharing ideas and cooperation. An age of artistic and personal expression. We can choose to use new technology for radical positive change or let it be used against us. We can choose to keep the internet free, keep channels of communication open and dig new tunnels into those places where information is still guarded. Or we can let it all close in around us. As we move in to new digital worlds, we must acknowledge the need for honest information and free expression. We must fight to keep the Internet open as a marketplace of ideas where all are seated as equals. We must defend our freedoms from those who would seek to control us. We must fight for those who do not yet have a voice. Keep telling your story. All must be heard.<br />Someone must have written this, anonymous is a oxymoron as it is anyone and everyone. You talk or discuss as if anonymous are a collective organization they are not they are not even they. The WBC are considered a hate church and a cult. They are known for doing anything to raise any sort of publicity. Who know maybe they did this or just by being hateful raise publicity in fact this blog is raising some sort of awareness with the WBC.Punkmummahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08294822225294560753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89460106951259553852011-02-25T10:42:04.419-06:002011-02-25T10:42:04.419-06:00Again, if you disallowed this, you'd have to d...<i>Again, if you disallowed this, you'd have to disallow any other vocal protest.</i><br /><br />As I said, I don't know that i'd really want to disallow this in a government censorship capacity, so much as increase the individual family's right for reparations if harassment can be shown (understanding what I wrote about harassment in my last post of course. I'm just saying). Westboro would still have the right to say what they want, but there would be more (you may perhaps even say equal) consequences to what they say and their civil conduct in saying it, if they do target family funerals to their own divisive ends against the family's wishes and assuming they wanted to take it to court. However I try to look at it, I'm just still not down with crashing someone's funeral as being free speech. Whether this is actually legally possible based on what I've learnt is another question. Perhaps if this case had've been seriously fought earlier on (such as with the Matthew Shepard funeral before the no protest zones and the such like), the lines on what's ok and what's not would have been easier to define, but I guess we'll never know.<br /><br /><i>I don't think there's any case for incitement. Incitement to what?</i><br /><br />I'm not sure. I really didn't press the issue with my friend as by that point it was 9pm and I still hadn't started cooking dinner yet :P on the one hand it sounded like hate crime legislation, on the other hand, the way she was wording it, it still sounded like a civil grievance between to parties. I got the impression it was allot like the “intentional infliction of emotional distress” you made mention of, though I could probably ask her more about it next time I speak with her.<br /><br /><i>Defamation definitely not. First, what false statements have WBC made? That God kills soldiers? That God hates gay people? How would you prove these statements false? Second, defamation usually requires that the plaintiff actually suffer some damage to his reputation</i><br /><br />I meant this purely from the point of Australian law where we seem to have a different burden of proof in defamation. In that case, its not a mater of what statements Westboro have made that are able to be proven “false”, so much as how many of their statements they can actually back up with evidence as "true" which would equally be zero.<br />Obviously the "god hates gays" and “thank god for dead soldiers” aren't really directed an anyone and probably wouldn't count in any kind of capacity for an individual's case, despite their lack of evidentiary support. Snyder raising his son for the devil, maybe, though I'd be surprised if any reasonable person thought that one statement equated to $5million if that was their only legal grounds for damages... well.. maybe if they had Denny Crane.<br /><br />I think I will have to concede this argument to you. I must say however this argument has left me a bit shaken on the constitutional right to free speech. One of the things I use to get into huge arguments with my mother about, was that the constitutional right to free speech was one of the things I thought you guys got right (I don't mean that half compliment as an offence to any American personally. I like your country, but there do appear to be some oversights, as i'm sure there are with my country also.) but now i'm not so sure. If some of what you say is true about the first amendment's reach, and its apparent switching of the burden of proof in defamation and slander cases, i'm wondering if a bit more flexibility afforded by an implied right to free speech might not actually be better? I may have to read up some more on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27395618885597391902011-02-25T08:45:06.520-06:002011-02-25T08:45:06.520-06:00As for punitive damages, hoo boy. The jury in the...As for punitive damages, hoo boy. The jury in the Snyder case awarded $10.9 in damages against the church in total; I think $8 million was punitive. The judge cut the total down to $5 million. So punitive damages awards can be quite large, though that's unusual. (The large amount was probably motivated by the quite-understandable hatred most people have for the Phelps clan.)<br /><br /><i>I still think Westboro are in the wrong, and I'm still not thrilled at all, about the apparent reach and burden of proof switcheroo of first amendment Free Speech laws.</i><br /><br />I think they're on the wrong side of reality, but not necessarily the law. What the Supreme Court says in the Snyder case will clear that up a lot. <br /><br /><i>But I felt I had to make this post in the name of honest argument.</i><br /><br />I hope I'm arguing as honestly as you are.Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47149727724527144022011-02-25T08:44:00.913-06:002011-02-25T08:44:00.913-06:00That's true, of course they target individual ...That's true, of course they target individual funerals. I still think you're inflating their effectiveness somewhat, though. Even where there are no time, place, and manner restrictions, they're just a few people with signs and their own, unamplified voices. WBC usually (perhaps always, I don't know) gets permission to do their protests, or protests somewhere they know it will be allowed. Again, if you disallowed this, you'd have to disallow any other vocal protest.<br /><br /><i>"WBC posted an "epic" on its website which denounced Albert Snyder and his ex-wife for raising their son Catholic, stating they "taught Matthew to defy his creator", "raised him for the devil" and "taught him that God was a liar"</i><br /><br />The epic is a closer question, good on you for bringing it up. For a few years WBC wrote an epic after every protest. Curiously enough, the Snyder epic is no longer available on WBC's website, but most of the others are. You should check one out for yourself. Its 95% bible verses, 4% biblically based aspersions that the subject of the latest protest is "of the devil," and 1% publically available facts about that person. In the Snyder epic, WBC made much of the fact that Snyder was Catholic, that he was divorced, and that his son died in service. Everything else is biblical vitriol. You may find that enough to sustain a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (as the District of Maryland did), or not. I think it's a stretch. Calling me "the devil" neither wounds me nor picks my pocket.<br /><br /><i>I don't know that I really made any factual statements about harassment law in Australia, so much as I simply stated that I thought Westboro's actions should be considered harassment.</i><br /><br />I think I understood that you weren't trying to slot their action into any preexisting legal pigeonhole. That's why I repeated the dictionary definition of harassment you supplied. Nothing in WBC's activity seems repeatedly directed at specific individuals.<br /><br /><i>In a nutshell, blanket harassment: probably not. Some other brand of harassment or incitement of hate on religious grounds: maybe.</i><br /><br />I don't think there's any case for incitement. Incitement to what? As far as I know (and I can't invoke my limited legal background here, because I've never studied it) an incitement charge requires that the speaker specifically advocate violence. A hate speech charge my work in some countries, but not in the U.S. The First Amendment is a strong barrier in place of that. As for religiously motivated harassment, I still think you have the problem that WBC never hits the same target more than once.<br /><br /><i>Slander and defamation: probably, though on that charge alone once fault has been established, there probably isn't a huge amount of punitive damages in the name calling the westboro have thrown at the Snyders.</i><br /><br />Defamation definitely not. First, what false statements have WBC made? That God kills soldiers? That God hates gay people? How would you prove these statements false? Second, defamation usually requires that the plaintiff actually suffer some damage to his reputation (unless damages are presumed, and I'm not sure how prevalent that is at the present.) For example, Snyder's defamation claim was dismissed because no reasonable person would think less of him because of WBC's protests.<br /><br />The language you point out in the epic is a closer question, of course. The district court found that saying Snyder raised his son "for the devil" was essentially slander, and the Fourth Circuit found that that language was just rhetorical hyperbole (don't snort too hard, there's a lot of Supreme Court case law protecting rhetorical hyperbole.) It wil be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says on the matter.Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59331036048433542552011-02-25T08:42:27.389-06:002011-02-25T08:42:27.389-06:00The most striking this about all of this is that I...<i>The most striking this about all of this is that I am becoming deeply deeply concerned that an atheist (and i'm making a fairly bold assumption that you also align with the skeptic movement) would think this situation is a good thing. </i><br /><br />I do like to think of myself as an atheist and a skeptic. I'm not sure what situation you imply that I think is a good thing. I'm not thrilled that there are people picketing at funerals to denounce the decedent to hellfire. I just think the proper response is more speech, not legal action (as long as no other laws are violated, including civil harassment, of course.)<br /><br /><i>This idea that Phelps and his band of wingnuts can do what ever they want including harass people, and its all protected by the first amendment right to free speech, unless you can legally prove his god doesn't exist, sounds (to an admitted layman in a country on the other side of the world) remarkably like a legal version of Carl Sagans invisible garage dragon!</i><br /><br />You retreated somewhat in your last post, so if this sentence doesn't represent your position anymore, I apologize. I wanted to clear something up and correct something I misstated above. Of course WBC doesn't have the right to do whatever it wants. Harassment is harassment. I said above that the First Amendment could be a defense against a harassment suit, but I actually don't know if that would work. My knowledge of First Amendment law is pretty narrow. I've just been studying the Snyder case for moot court.<br /><br />You mention below that truth is an absolute defense to defamation. This is true in the U.S. as well. Another such defense is that the speech cannot be proven true or false, which is why I made a big deal about WBC's speech being religious. You can't call God to the courtroom and ask him if he really does hate gay people. It also makes a difference whether the target of the speech is a public figure. WBC tried to argue just that in the Snyder case, but they lost on that point in both lower courts.<br /><br /><i>Forth Circuit Court of Appeals have said Westboro haven't legally committed harassment</i><br /><br />The Fourth Circuit didn't actually say that, but only because Snyder didn't sue for harassment. I don't know whether anyone has ever brought a harassment suit against WBC.<br /><br /><i>First of all, as I briefly touched on this in previous posts, I think it is a huge mistake to use Snyder as the only example, and I have a problem with your objections' presupposition that we should ignore both Westboro's history and the correspondence that occurs outside the events of a specific protest, To say that they are 'near the funeral and not 'at' the funeral ignores that that is only by government mandate of a 300+ foot no protest zone.</i><br /><br />If I implied that I think we should ignore what WBC has done in the past, I apologize. I don't think that. In fact, I think their past history demonstrates that whay they do comes from their sincere religious beliefs. Their compliance with local rules (many of which were enacted specifically with them in mind) helps support this, I think. In the past where this rule wasn't enforced, they have been right there at the front steps and on the cemetery lawns heckling mourners. Which sort of segues into my second point.<br /><br /><i>These aren't just regular random street corner protests. Can we be honest enough to admit that they don't just show up to some place, and there just happens to be a funeral there? Its not by random chance. They are there because the funeral is there, and they make a very public song and dance about this fact in the media. They are targeting the funeral and the family and explicitly say so, even if the message they actually present on the day, on location, is the same as other protests.</i>Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63177862062864998342011-02-25T06:19:42.116-06:002011-02-25T06:19:42.116-06:00Ok, so i've just been on the phone for about a...Ok, so i've just been on the phone for about an hour with a friend that has a Masters Degree in ethics law, and I feel a couple of clarifications/concessions are in order as I don't want to spread incorrect information, even if it means I was wrong and look like an arse.<br /><br />Re: burden of proof under slander/defamation/libel in Australia.<br />She said that apparently I didn't word things very well at all. Its not so much that an assumption of recklessness is made. Being a civil action, legally the plantif has still brought a positive case of grievance against the defendant. Truth is an absolute defence in this case, but it is the defendants responsibility to establish that truth.<br />I kindof mucked up the wording, but what I said was <i>essentially</i> correct. For all intensive purposes in Australian libel/defamation/slander law, the burden of proof still rests on the person who made the original accusation(s).<br /><br />Re: Harassment in Australia.<br />Without reading back over the gargantuan mess of pages that I've written, I don't know that I really made any factual statements about harassment law in Australia, so much as I simply stated that I thought Westboro's actions should be considered harassment. However I feel as though it might have been implied.<br />Apparently my friend said that even under Australian law its not as easy a situation as I think. There is no blanket legal definition of Harassment in Australia. Apparently it is actually quite a hard thing to establish here too. A neighbour who's harassing you and your family just because he's an arsehole is apparently almost impossible to deal with legally. However she did say that we do have a bunch of laws about harassment on grounds of sexuality, race, and religions, and that possibly the last one would cover the actions of the Phelps mob.<br />Also that there are laws in Australia such as incitement of hate/violence, which for all intensive purposes are harassment laws (though under a different name) which may cover the actions of the Westboro church.<br />In a nutshell, blanket harassment: probably not. Some other brand of harassment or incitement of hate on religious grounds: maybe. Slander and defamation: probably, though on that charge alone once fault has been established, there probably isn't a huge amount of punitive damages in the name calling the westboro have thrown at the Snyders.<br /><br />I still think Westboro are in the wrong, and I'm still not thrilled at all, about the apparent reach and burden of proof switcheroo of first amendment Free Speech laws. But I felt I had to make this post in the name of honest argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72890435450332010092011-02-25T03:28:03.202-06:002011-02-25T03:28:03.202-06:00O Oh Spaghetti Oh... looks like the spam Engine ha...O Oh Spaghetti Oh... looks like the spam Engine has chewwed up my first post as well. I'd request you wait until Russell has retrieved it before replying <br /><br />Ironic that the spam filter would axe it for being a malicious evil spam troll message considering it starts of with an apology :PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66933754749561038452011-02-25T03:23:39.920-06:002011-02-25T03:23:39.920-06:00First of all, as I briefly touched on this in prev...First of all, as I briefly touched on this in previous posts, I think it is a huge mistake to use Snyder as the only example, and I have a problem with your objections' presupposition that we should ignore both Westboro's history and the correspondence that occurs outside the events of a specific protest, To say that they are 'near the funeral and not 'at' the funeral ignores that that is only by government mandate of a 300+ foot no protest zone. In the past where this rule wasn't enforced, they have been right there at the front steps and on the cemetery lawns heckling mourners. Which sort of segues into my second point.<br /><br />These aren't just regular random street corner protests. Can we be honest enough to admit that they don't just show up to some place, and there just happens to be a funeral there? Its not by random chance. They are there because the funeral is there, and they make a very public song and dance about this fact in the media. They are targeting the funeral and the family and explicitly say so, even if the message they actually present on the day, on location, is the same as other protests.<br /><br />And that brings up one of my biggest concerned that you're choosing to over look. The harassment campaign isn't just them turning up at the funeral, but includes the unwanted media shit-storm they intentionally use it to cause, and the things they publicly say about the targeted family both before and after the funeral. To re quote a snippet from wikipedia in my previous messages:<br /><br /><i>"WBC posted an "epic" on its website which denounced Albert Snyder and his ex-wife for raising their son Catholic, stating they "taught Matthew to defy his creator", "raised him for the devil" and "taught him that God was a liar"</i><br /><br />This is not the same message as their usual protests. These are specific allegations levelled personally at Albert Snyder, his ex-wife, and his dead son. You cannot possibly argue this isn't targeted personal. As I've already mentioned, under Australian law, (and the laws of formal logic), the burden of proof would, and should, be Phelp's responsibility to back up his allegations with evidence. If he can't do that he should be liable for damages. Its not Albert Snyder's responsibility to prove that he isn't in fact working for the devil. Phelps would not get away with this kind of shit in Australia. If as you say, under American law and the first amendment, the burden of proof is legally shifted to the other party (essentially making it Snyders responsibility to disprove the existence of Phelps' god, lest he gets carte blanche), then all I can say, is that I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope as a result of your completed law degree you work hard in the field towards rectifying this hideous oversight.<br /><br />As you say, many of these things may be settled as matters of American law. Honestly, I am ignorant to the letter of American law, and I can't necessarily argue those facts if they are indeed facts (i'm fine with taking your word that they are). What I will say, is that if they are settled in law, then I think that law is clearly wrong and should be reviewed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69465338963429910152011-02-25T03:21:55.715-06:002011-02-25T03:21:55.715-06:00In regards to your question on whether Westboro ha...In regards to your question on whether Westboro have 'legally' committed harassment, all I can do is refer back to my original response to you when you asked about legally recognised injury. No, the Forth Circuit Court of Appeals have said Westboro haven't legally committed harassment or defamation etc. That's just a fact. However my point has been that if its not legally recognised I think it should be. Maybe the Supreme Court will change this. Maybe not. I don't know. I disagree, with the Forth Circuit's ruling, but my disagreement doesn't change the legally recognised interpretation of the law as it currently stands.<br /><br /><i>”They generally show up to places, stand around for a few hours, and then go somewhere else. If that's harassment, then all those anti-globalization protesters are guilty of harassment, all those tea-baggers are guilty of harassment, and so one. You would make the right of the people peaceably to assemble into harassment.<br />[sic]<br />Let's imagine that the Church showed up near some event you had arranged, [sic]”</i><br /><br />Anti-globalization protesters have a right to rally outside the G8 summit. They don't have the right to egg Richard Branson's house, prank call him at all hours of the night, shoot his dog with a BB gun and let down the tires on his car.<br /><br />Animal rights protesters have a right to boycott fur and leather clothing or hold general protesting. They don't have a right to vandalise department stores that sell those clothes, or break into and trash medical research facilities that do animal testing.<br /><br />The tea party has a right to rally in a public area and put forward their ideas on politics and society, as fascist and racist as those ideas may be. But when Glen Beck singles out a specifically named democratic politician who disagrees with his position, and starts hypothesising on live television, about what it would be like to break into their house at night and kill them in their sleep, that is not the same thing.<br /><br />Likewise, Westboro have the right to say what they want, in public areas if they wish. I don't believe they do (or should) have the right to try and crash a family funeral. As best as I can tell, your only arguments against this behaviour being grounds for legal recourse for the family (and feel free to add to this list if I have infact overlooked a major point of relevance you've put forward) is that 1) they are 'near' the funeral not 'at' the funeral, and 2) that they protest with the same message where ever they go, so there is no indication that anyone is actually being targeted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84538590015297237772011-02-25T03:21:22.096-06:002011-02-25T03:21:22.096-06:00The most striking this about all of this is that I...The most striking this about all of this is that I am becoming deeply deeply concerned that an atheist (and i'm making a fairly bold assumption that you also align with the skeptic movement) would think this situation is a good thing. <br /><br />This idea that Phelps and his band of wingnuts can do what ever they want including harass people, and its all protected by the first amendment right to free speech, unless you can legally prove his god doesn't exist, sounds (to an admitted layman in a country on the other side of the world) remarkably like a legal version of Carl Sagans invisible garage dragon! The dragon exists until you prove it doesn't.<br /><br />In Australia we don't have a bill of rights. We don't have a first amendment. We don't have a constitutional right to free speech. What we have is an implied right to free speech. What this means is that you can still say whatever you want, but what you say (and do if you want to extend the first amendment to cover actions as well) has consequences. There is no get out of gaol free speech card. In other words, for all intensive purposes reckless disregard is assumed in Australian defamation law. Likewise, as I've said previously, stern belief and ignorance, does not equal fact, and therefore does not give you clemency under Australian law. You're still free to say whatever you want, about whoever you want, but if that person calls you on it, you'd better have the fucking evidence to back it up your claim. If you can't back it up as true, then you're liable.<br /><br />For example, if you were to launch a public smear campaign that a certain person is the devil, it doesn't matter how strongly you believe that accusation. What matters is whether you can back the accusation up with evidence. If not then you're liable for damages. Its not the victims responsibility to prove they aren't really the devil (or that a gay hating god doesn't really exist, assuming that its even relevant to the charge which in this case I don't think it is). The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations, not the victim of those allegations.<br /><br />One of the mains points of the atheist/skeptic movement (and this Texan talk back show in particular), is that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claims. Its not our responsibility to disprove their god. This is a fairly fundamental premise of logic which we all seem to subscribe to here, on all matters other than this one, and I would have thought a fairly fundamental principle in the “innocent until proven guilty” judicial system as well. I just wonder why that burden of proof is magically flipped to the other side whenever the first amendment is invoked (especially when we both seem to be agreeing to some extent, that it's not really even relevant to the charge of harassment in the first place) and why you don't seem to see a problem with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69140186788337788572011-02-25T03:20:45.233-06:002011-02-25T03:20:45.233-06:00@Christopher Petroni
I sincerely apologise if I g...@Christopher Petroni<br /><br />I sincerely apologise if I got a bit carried away with myself in the last reply. I just get really agitated when people claim I'm advocating something which I'm clearly not (or at least I think I'm clearly not). I don't like broad government censorship any more that you do. In what I advocate, the government would serve as no more than an arbiter of mediation, for grievances between two individual parties, as in any other civil action, but the individual would have more rights to protect themselves from harassment.<br /><br />I'll start off by just saying that I'm a layman. I really can't pretend otherwise. My official training is actually in fine arts, majoring in painting and sculpture, and I now work in television commercial production, in roles ranging from direction, editing, graphic design, animation, camera operation etc. That being said I'm probably more well read than average Joe in the street. But I'm not a law expert by any stretch of the imagination.<br /><br />I think we're much more on the same page now, which means it should be allot easier for us to point out our objections to each others arguments. The two most glaring at this point I think, are the limitations and boundaries on how far free speech reaches and what constitutes harassment. Specifically in this case, have Westboro committed harassment, and is that still covered by free speech.<br /><br /><i>”Despite your unflattering allegations, <b>I have not failed to grasp your point that whether the Church believed its speech or not has no bearing on whether their activities are harassment. This is undoubtedly true.</b><br />[sic]<br />If you wanted to sue WBC, you would have the burden of proving that their activities meet all the requirements of liability for harassment. <b>The content of the Church's speech has no relevance to a claim of harassment.</b><br />[sic]<br /><b>As you aptly pointed out, this defense has nothing to do with the legal definition of harassment. It's simply a shield the Church tries to raise against liability.</b> In cases where the defense has been applied (up to now, only for claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is why I've made much of them), the Supreme Court has usually required that the plaintiff prove that the speech was false and that the defendant was somehow at fault. I've argued that the Church was not at fault, because it believed its speech was true and there exists no way for its beliefs to be objectively verified. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in the Snyder case.<br />[sic]<br /><b>So, in short, the Church's speech doesn't have anything to do with the harassment claim, but everything to do with the First Amendment defense it raises against that claim. </b>”</i><br /><br />Would I be jumping to conclusions based on some of the things you've written here that you (at least to some extent) agree with me that the charge that Westboro have committed harassment has little to no relevance with their first amendment right to free speech? So why are they able to use it as a defence at all? This is my problem. Free speech should give you free speech. It shouldn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, but as best as I can see, that's exactly what you claim it does in the American first amendment.<br /><br /><i>”(Though in the U.S., even if their speech amounted to harassment, the First Amendment right of free speech may give them a defense.)”</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37699928220564994082011-02-25T01:46:51.294-06:002011-02-25T01:46:51.294-06:00And..now they have hacked the WBC servers? (http:...And..now they have hacked the WBC servers? (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9211305/Anonymous_hacks_church_Web_site_during_live_interview)<br /><br />WTF.Badger3khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04008838430274720250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14363860402329484372011-02-24T22:53:40.660-06:002011-02-24T22:53:40.660-06:00Thanks Russell! I almost wish you hadn't resu...Thanks Russell! I almost wish you hadn't resurrected my first post, though; it was both poorly written and muddied by petulant whining. I apologize for that, Murphy. If you're still interested in this exchange (I hope you are!) you'd probably be better off ignoring the post beginning "I have been reading what you've written" and just go on to the next two, in which all the same points are put more concisely.Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90000155340964408842011-02-24T15:43:22.042-06:002011-02-24T15:43:22.042-06:00Sorry Chris, the spam filter has some problems it...Sorry Chris, the spam filter has some problems it and ate your posts. I've freed them but you might get some duplicates now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78846931043236774722011-02-24T15:09:24.117-06:002011-02-24T15:09:24.117-06:00Oh no. I could have sworn that the first part of ...Oh no. I could have sworn that the first part of my post was published, but now it seems to be gone. So the angry three paragraphs I mentioned above don't seem to exist, nor does the rest of what I typed.<br /><br />Sorry Murphy; I'll try briefly to recreate the first half of my post so the second half (what you see above) makes sense.<br /><br />Let's imagine that the Church showed up near some event you had arranged, adorned as always in full "God Hates Fags" resplendency. You decide to file suit for harassment. If your suit goes to court, you will have to prove that the Church's conduct meets all the legal elements of harassment. As you correctly observed, freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether the Church's activities are harassment.<br /><br />Even if you can prove this, however, you might not necessarily win. The Church can (and does) raise the First Amendment as a defense. If certain conditions are met, you must not only prove that they have harassed you, but also that their speech was false and that they were somehow at fault. In my opinion you wouldn't be able to do this. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me on this in the Snyder case, but then the District Court ruled the other way. We still don't know what the Supreme Court will say.<br /><br />After reading this, my above post should make a little more sense (I hope). And again, I really don't mean anything offensive by asking about what legal studies you might have done. (Though, as you pointed out, what one intends and what results are not always the same!)Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27811375464532375732011-02-24T14:58:36.849-06:002011-02-24T14:58:36.849-06:00(Crap. I meant to cut the first three paragraphs;...(Crap. I meant to cut the first three paragraphs; I was a bit annoyed at your (Murphy's) rather insulting tone, and I wrote them mostly in that mood. This continuation may be a bit repetitive.)<br /><br />Which brings us to your repeated imputations of harassment to the Church. You seem intent on characterizing the Church's campaign as one of harassment. Here's the <i>argumentum ad Webster</i> you posted:<br /><br /><i>ha·rass·ment<br /><br /> /həˈræs, ˈhærəs/ Show Spelled[huh-ras, har-uhs] Show IPA<br /><br />–verb (used with object)<br /><br />1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.<br /><br />2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid. </i><br /><br />To disturb <i>persistently.</i> To bother <i>continually.</i> To trouble by <i>repeated</i> attacks. Here's what you have not established: Who is the church disturbing persistently? Who is subject to repeated attack? As far as I can see, the Church protests at one place, moves on, and protests somewhere else. How is that harassment?<br /><br />Can I ask what legal training you might have? I'm not trying to claim authority, because I only have a semester and a half of law school, but I've noticed that you seem largely ignorant of free speech law in the U.S. (Not surprising, of course, and I don't mean that pejoratively; your grasp of American law is certainly stronger than my grasp of Australian law.) A lot of the things you're arguing against are settled law. I'm not sure you really understand the nature of the Church's activities, either. They generally show up to places, stand around for a few hours, and then go somewhere else. If that's harassment, then all those anti-globalization protesters are guilty of harassment, all those tea-baggers are guilty of harassment, and so one. You would make the right of the people peaceably to assemble into harassment.Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36424982806960263302011-02-24T14:54:55.992-06:002011-02-24T14:54:55.992-06:00@Murphy,
I have been reading what you've writ...@Murphy,<br /><br />I have been reading what you've written. Perhaps you should question whether you're communicating effectively. I'm wondering whether I'm failing to do so, because you seem repeatedly to fail to grasp what I'm trying to say.<br /><br /><br />Despite your unflattering allegations, I have not failed to grasp your point that whether the Church believed its speech or not has no bearing on whether their activities are harassment. This is undoubtedly true. (Though in the U.S., even if their speech amounted to harassment, the First Amendment right of free speech may give them a defense.) I don't think I ever claimed otherwise, though if I did I happily retract. If the Church's activities meet the legal definition of harassment, then they can be held liable for harassment. I don't know the legal definition of harassment, unfortunately. Do you?<br /><br />I spent time on defamation because most of the U.S. Supreme Court cases on free speech deal with it, but I noted also that the test the Court applies has been used for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is what the Church is being sued for in the Snyder case. (Not harassment, notably.) That test is one of "actual malice:" the plaintiff can't recover damages if the speech was made with knowledge that it was true, or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. (No, recklessness is not presumed in a defamation case. At least, not in the U.S.) It therefore matters tremendously whether the Church believed its speech sincerely. If they believed it, they did not have knowledge that it was false. Similarly, because the speech implicates their religious beliefs, it would be difficult to find them reckless, because religious beliefs generally can't be proven true or false in a courtroom.<br /><br />I'll try to sum up:<br /><br />In a suit of, say, harassment, the person bringing the suit has to prove the legal elements of harassment. If you wanted to sue WBC, you would have the burden of proving that their activities meet all the requirements of liability for harassment. The content of the Church's speech has no relevance to a claim of harassment.<br /><br />The Church, of course, probably wouldn't sit idly by and hand over a damages award. Since its activities are centered on speech, it would (and does) raise a First Amendment defense, claiming that its speech is protected. As you aptly pointed out, this defense has nothing to do with the legal definition of harassment. It's simply a shield the Church tries to raise against liability. In cases where the defense has been applied (up to now, only for claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is why I've made much of them), the Supreme Court has usually required that the plaintiff prove that the speech was false and that the defendant was somehow at fault. I've argued that the Church was not at fault, because it believed its speech was true and there exists no way for its beliefs to be objectively verified. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in the Snyder case.<br /><br />So, in short, the Church's speech doesn't have anything to do with the harassment claim, but everything to do with the First Amendment defense it raises against that claim.Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85313331442692819792011-02-22T22:56:43.072-06:002011-02-22T22:56:43.072-06:00I read a very cool article about that church: Fred...I read a very cool article about that church: <a href="http://kanewj.com/wbc/" rel="nofollow">Fred Phelps is a con man</a>Alenônimohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06508986742571193773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14820462946314857692011-02-22T21:09:50.089-06:002011-02-22T21:09:50.089-06:00Finally, their speech can't be proven reckless...<i>Finally, their speech can't be proven reckless (or even negligent), unless you think courts are capable of instructing the jury to find out whether God exists, and if so, whether he does in fact hate fags. These things are not capable of being proven true or false in the context of the law. Add that to the fact that these are sincere religious beliefs, and you have no basis for finding fault.</i><br /><br />No. Just no ok. I don't know how may times I can say this: their right to free speech isn't even remotely relevant to this situation. <br /><br />I am an atheist. I see no evidence of a god and I find religion to be harmful and divisive. That's my right to believe and say. When I fire somebody for being a Christian, the court doesn't have to establish whether my beliefs about religion and the universe are true, to determine that harm has legally been done. <br /><br />Joe Douchebag may really believe he's gods gift to women. The jury doesn't need to be instructed to find out whether this belief is actually true to determine whether sexual harassment has taken place. <br /><br />Did Manson really believe in helter skelter? Were the jury instructed to determine if helter skelter really existed?<br /><br />Likewise Phelps' beliefs about god and his actual statements about gay hating aren't relevant in determining whether harassment has taken place against a family who's funeral he targets. What you're arguing for here is completely asinine.<br /><br /><i>Some Western countries have broad prohibitions on certain categories of speech, such as Holocaust denial or promotion of Nazism, or "hate speech" in general. In the United States, we've been very suspicious of such broad swipes at the freedom of speech. To approach WBC's protests as you advocate would be to allow the state broad power to censor speech that the majority finds distasteful.</i><br /><br />I've said it again and again so I don't know if you didn't bother reading what I've written, or you're just being intentionally obtuse. What I'm “advocating” is not about freedom of speech at all, but about protecting people from harassment. Not once have I mentioned or even alluded to a state board power to censor ideas that the majority finds distasteful, so please don't try to put fucking unicorns in my mouth. What I'm talking about is legal limitations for an individuals right to protect themselves should they be the target of directed bullying and harassment by other individual(s). The message content is irrelevant. Westboro can gay hate. They can deny the holocaust, and promote Nazism, or general “hate speech” if they wish. They have the right to say their message, I don't think they have the right to try and usurp the lives of other unwilling participants as a means of publicising that message. You have a right to free speech, not a right to fuck with other peoples personal and private lives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25609581377260024692011-02-22T21:09:13.269-06:002011-02-22T21:09:13.269-06:00You call the Phelps' protests a campaign of ha...<i>You call the Phelps' protests a campaign of harassment. How so? These protests are nothing more than 3-5 people standing on the street holding signs and singing obnoxious songs. No one has to look at them. In the Snyder case, no one COULD look at them, because they were shielded from view.</i><br /><br />Ok so its come to this....<br /><br /><i><b>tar·get·ed</b><br /><br /> /ˈtɑrgɪt/ Show Spelled[tahr-git] Show IPA<br /><br />–noun<br /><br />2. any object used for this purpose.<br /><br />5. an object of abuse, scorn, derision, etc.; butt.<br /><br />–adjective<br /><br />10. that is or may be a target or goal: The target group consisted of college graduates who earned more than $50,000 a year.<br /><br />–verb (used with object)<br /><br />11. to use, set up, or designate as a target or goal.<br /><br />12. to direct toward a target: The new warheads can be targeted with great precision.<br /><br />13. to make a target of (an object, person, city, etc.) for attack or bombardment. <br /><br /><br /><br /><b>cam·paign</b><br /><br /> /kæmˈpeɪn/ Show Spelled[kam-peyn] Show IPA<br /><br />–noun<br /><br />2. a systematic course of aggressive activities for some specific purpose: a sales campaign.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>of</b><br /><br /> /ʌv, ɒv; unstressed əv or, especially before consonants, ə/ Show Spelled[uhv, ov; unstressed uhv or, especially before consonants, uh] Show IPA<br /><br />–preposition<br /><br />6. (used to indicate specific identity or a particular item within a category): the city of Chicago; thoughts of love.<br /><br />9. (used to indicate the objective relation, the object of the action noted by the preceding noun or the application of a verb or adjective): the ringing of bells; He writes her of home; I'm tired of working.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>ha·rass·ment</b><br /><br /> /həˈræs, ˈhærəs/ Show Spelled[huh-ras, har-uhs] Show IPA<br /><br />–verb (used with object)<br /><br />1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.<br /><br />2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid. </i><br /><br />Now if your definition of “targeted campaign of harassment” has a bunch of additional qualifiers. Like there having to be more than 3-5 people. That the harassers need to be seen at a certain place, at a certain time, on a certain day, by certain people. That all other correspondence before and after a specific day doesn't count. That there must be pitchforks and touches as well as signs. That there must be alien probing experiments. That there must be a man with a funny moustache and spinning bow-tie. Etc... then sure. Its not harassment.<br /><br />To me the classifications of this set of actions seems unmistakably clear, but if any standard set of dictionary definitions isn't good enough for you, then I really don't know what else I can say.<br /><br /><i>And as you aptly point out, the Church presents the same message at all of its protests, often many times a day. In what sense are the protests targeted at specific individuals if they're displaying the same message, even the same signs, wherever they go?</i><br /><br />Really? A nude model in an art studio is not the same thing as a flasher in the street ok. You can't equate the situational context as being identical because the messages on the placards they hold are the same. That would be a compositional fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88676316523597222872011-02-22T21:08:41.734-06:002011-02-22T21:08:41.734-06:00@Christopher Petroni
Scatter shot indeed...
When...@Christopher Petroni<br /><br />Scatter shot indeed...<br /><br /><i>When you drink and get behind the wheel of the car, your culpable mental state is not intent, but recklessness. You are aware of the risk of harm your action poses (or the law presumes you aware), and yet you undertake that activity anyway.</i><br /><br />As the law also presumes recklessness (or some other equivalent legal term) in the case of harassment and defamation. As I said, I don't know what the laws are in America, but here in Australia ignorance does not buy you legal clemency from the damage you cause. Intent or not.<br /><br /><i>Under the law of defamation, recklessness with regard to whether your speech is true or not is grounds for a damages award. This standard has never been applied on its own to intentional infliction of emotional distress based on speech, which is why Snyder v. Phelps is so interesting.</i><br /><br />I would argue in the case of sexual harassment it has already been shown that intentional (or “presumed recklessness” if we can at least agree on that) infliction of emotional distress can be based solely on speech. Maybe Joe Douchebag really does have a horse sized 'appendage', but whether the harassers speech is true or not has no bearing over the fact that harassment is taking place. In fact, truth statements don't even need to be made at all. Joe Douchebag could just be repeatedly asking is target out to dinner again and again and again. Its not a great step to get from there to Phelps's conduct. Which is why I keep using the word harassment despite the fact that you keep using the word defamation. There are similarities to be sure, but its not the same thing. Which is why I actually use the words I do and not the ones you try to paraphrase with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68826341686866350632011-02-22T18:02:18.939-06:002011-02-22T18:02:18.939-06:00It's looking more and more like the Anonymous ...It's looking more and more like <a href="http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/20514-hacktivists-deny-attack/" rel="nofollow">the Anonymous letter may have been utterly bogus and set up by WBC themselves.</a> It's known to many that the whole WBC schtick is about trying to goad people into retaliatory actions WBC can sue them for. This could be one such con.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4012078477751405492011-02-22T11:11:41.503-06:002011-02-22T11:11:41.503-06:00@Murphy
I fear this will be somewhat scatter shot...@Murphy<br /><br />I fear this will be somewhat scatter shot! I apologize for that.<br /><br />When you drink and get behind the wheel of the car, your culpable mental state is not intent, but recklessness. You are aware of the risk of harm your action poses (or the law presumes you aware), and yet you undertake that activity anyway.<br /><br />Under the law of defamation, recklessness with regard to whether your speech is true or not is grounds for a damages award. This standard has never been applied on its own to intentional infliction of emotional distress based on speech, which is why Snyder v. Phelps is so interesting.<br /><br />You call the Phelps' protests a campaign of harassment. How so? These protests are nothing more than 3-5 people standing on the street holding signs and singing obnoxious songs. No one has to look at them. In the Snyder case, no one COULD look at them, because they were shielded from view.<br /><br />And as you aptly point out, the Church presents the same message at all of its protests, often many times a day. In what sense are the protests targeted at specific individuals if they're displaying the same message, even the same signs, wherever they go?<br /><br />Finally, their speech can't be proven reckless (or even negligent), unless you think courts are capable of instructing the jury to find out whether God exists, and if so, whether he does in fact hate fags. These things are not capable of being proven true or false in the context of the law. Add that to the fact that these are sincere religious beliefs, and you have no basis for finding fault.<br /><br />Some Western countries have broad prohibitions on certain categories of speech, such as Holocaust denial or promotion of Nazism, or "hate speech" in general. In the United States, we've been very suspicious of such broad swipes at the freedom of speech. To approach WBC's protests as you advocate would be to allow the state broad power to censor speech that the majority finds distasteful.Christopher Petronihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02001596705103400952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19066070865240274872011-02-22T07:33:44.649-06:002011-02-22T07:33:44.649-06:00While you are essentially right
I have to be hones...While you are essentially right<br />I have to be honest and would never defend the Phelps full stop.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12888157943103381869noreply@blogger.com