To Marine's Father, Suit Is More Than Money

To Marine's Father, Suit Is More Than Money

www.nytimes.com

BALTIMORE, Nov. 1 —After a year and a half of anger, grief and legal maneuvering, the father of a marine killed in Iraq has said the success of his suit against a fundamentalist sect that picketed his son’s funeral means more than the jury’s $10.9 million damage award on Tuesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a sad story, and one I was surprised to see was not mentioned here.

Whether or not you agree about the war, I think we can all agree that families who loose someone in it are entitled to have some privacy. To protest at a funeral is one of the most heinous things I have ever heard of.

Can anyone here truly agree with these people, that they are guarnteed the right to make someones funeral into a spectacle?



www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have no sympathy for this church and its membership, quite frankly, i want them shut down (and i dont even live in the US!)

I think their actions are disgraceful and inhumane. They protest while a family greaves? They push their agenda of hate while a family suffered, now i hope their church will suffer as well.

They say the dying soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan are a result of the US tolerating homosexuals, well I say this ruling is a result of their beligerant hate-filled BS.

Hopefully their appeal will fail.

“They used very harsh words and they used very harsh signs, but they stood 1,000 feet away from the funeral. Anyone who wants to go out and protest should be very afraid now.”

First, so what if they were a 1000 feet away? I bet the family and friends still had to dirve by or threw their little shindig.
As for the bolded, i can understand the layers concerns, but hell, they protested at a funeral. This wasnt a political rally in front of congress, this was a private function of private citizens who lost someone.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
First, so what if they were a 1000 feet away? I bet the family and friends still had to dirve by or threw their little shindig.
As for the bolded, i can understand the layers concerns, but hell, they protested at a funeral. This wasnt a political rally in front of congress, this was a private function of private citizens who lost someone.

Ummm...wow.

The whole point of protecting speech is to protect things that you don't like, or things that others don't like, or things that I don't like. That means so-called "hate-speech" too, as the Supreme Court has ruled on at least one occasion.

Next, they were 1000 feet away. That's about the length of 3 football fields (including end zones), or about 2.5 Canadian football fields for our northern friends (again, including end zones). That is a long distance. Consider for a moment that the precedent set here suggests that if I dislike what you say, and you are 1,000 away from me, I can sue for invasion of privacy.

So, the next time an anti-Bush rally rolls down Connecticut Ave. in D.C., the Bush loyalists who live in the apartments along the protest route might be able to sue the protesters. In a more realistic example, offended people might be able to sue the Klan for invasion of privacy the next time it holds a rally in public, despite the fact that this is clearly protected speech.

People seem to rarely consider the ramifications of these judgments because of the emotional baggage the judgments carry. They think man I hate that church; I'm glad they lost. And that is understandable. But, I think it is dangerous to give in to that mentality.

For the record, while I think that this "church" is despicable and should lose its tax exemption (because I don't believe it is really a church, not because of what they say or do), I hope that they win on appeal.

Protected speech should stay protected precisely because you dislike it, not in spite of your dislike.

This story already exists and can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please post your thought and comments in the existing thread as this one is now closed

Thanks