Is Hate Speech Protected?

Is Hate Speech Protected?

Bill O'Reilly
Thursday, Oct 07, 2010

So put yourself in this position: You lose a son in Iraq. He is killed fighting for his country. You arrange a funeral for him, an event that is emotionally devastating for your family and friends. Outside that funeral, a group of people hold signs saying that God killed your son because he fought for a country that "tolerates" homosexuals. Some of the protestors curse at people attending the service.

That's exactly what happened to Albert Snyder and his family in Maryland. In response, Mr. Snyder sued the leader of the hate group, Fred Phelps, and a jury awarded him millions. But the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia overturned the verdict on appeal and even imposed court costs on the Snyder family. The judges rationalized their misguided ruling by writing, "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."

Reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps protest? Are you kidding me? Who exactly thinks God wanted Matthew Snyder dead because America does not persecute gay people? Osama bin Laden?

The federal court's ruling is a legal ruse, a bunch of pinheaded mumbo-jumbo that seeks to justify injurious behavior under the guise of free speech. Forty-eight attorneys general have filed an amicus brief in support of the Snyder family. These prosecutors well understand that words can be used as weapons designed solely to harm American citizens. There is no "reasonable" debate in what the vicious protestors did. They intentionally wanted to inflict emotional distress on the grieving family of a dead soldier. That is against civil law.

One footnote: When Albert Snyder told the court he could not pay the court costs, Phelps told the press he should use his son's death benefits to satisfy the judgment. I hope those judges are sleeping well.

If Phelps and his crew had put forth that God wanted a soldier to die because his family was part of a minority group, the federal court ruling might have been different. Hate crime legislation was attached to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the legal system takes hateful action against minorities very seriously, as it should.

The Supreme Court is now hearing the Snyder-Phelps case and the outcome is important for all Americans. With the rise of the internet, cyber-bullying and threatening behavior has become a plague upon the land. Kids are committing suicide because they are humiliated on the net and anyone can be targeted by sick individuals. Inflicting emotional distress on another human being is just a mouse click away.

I well understand the slippery slope free speech argument being put forth by those who believe the federal judges did the right thing constitutionally. I make my living under the First Amendment, and I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't say. But evil is evil, and attacks are attacks. The Snyder family has a constitutional right to privacy and the pursuit of happiness. The despicable Phelps mob infringed on those rights.

Bill O'Reilly wrote:One footnote: When Albert Snyder told the court he could not pay the court costs, Phelps told the press he should use his son's death benefits to satisfy the judgment. I hope those judges are sleeping well.

O'Reilly told the Snyder family that he will pay all court costs if this case is lost at the USSC.

Phelps and his family really are lower than pond slime. I make no apologies, except to real pond slime, to compare this piece of shit to that substance.

100% agreement on that.

Is there a chance that this appeal can be appealed? I don't understand the American system.

As for O'Reilly, it was good of him to offer to pay the court costs, I don't generally have a good opinion of the man - he's a blow hard who doesn't let people express themselves properly when he interviews them, but that was a very decent gesture.

It's difficult to judge what can be allowed under the banner of Free Speech and what must be prosecuted because it is harmful or dangerous - but there must be some distinction and some legislation. As the reporter said, had the attacks been upon a minority group it is unlikely the decision would have been overturned. I don't know what the appeal court was thinking when it made this decision.

Phelps is a despicable man, it's time that he and his clan of intolerant nut jobs were brought to order. Protesting outside funerals is indefensible - when he dies, it would be fitting if a gay pride march went past the grave yard.

BecMacFeegle wrote:when he dies, it would be fitting if a gay pride march went past the grave yard.

No doubt it will be in his own church, otherwise I might suggest the funeral take place within a stone's throw of the largest mosque in the state.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Is there a chance that this appeal can be appealed? I don't understand the American system.

It can be. A lower court upheld the ruling that the church had the right to do this. Now it's at the US Supreme Court... our highest court.

It's a slippery slope as you indicated. On one hand, this bunch is doing emotional damage to this family when they protested at the funeral. On the other hand, they are exercising free speech. I think it'll be overturned in favor of the family. It also will go by a vote of 5-4 with the conservatives judges for and the liberal judges against. Seems to be that way lately with the judges.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Is there a chance that this appeal can be appealed? I don't understand the American system.

As for O'Reilly, it was good of him to offer to pay the court costs, I don't generally have a good opinion of the man - he's a blow hard who doesn't let people express themselves properly when he interviews them, but that was a very decent gesture.

It's difficult to judge what can be allowed under the banner of Free Speech and what must be prosecuted because it is harmful or dangerous - but there must be some distinction and some legislation. As the reporter said, had the attacks been upon a minority group it is unlikely the decision would have been overturned. I don't know what the appeal court was thinking when it made this decision.

Phelps is a despicable man, it's time that he and his clan of intolerant nut jobs were brought to order. Protesting outside funerals is indefensible - when he dies, it would be fitting if a gay pride march went past the grave yard.

As Tex noted, this decision can be appealed, however, once it reaches the US Supreme Court, any decision they make is final and cannot be appealed. That is why their decisions are so critical. Once made they become precedent for a large number of other similar cases.

This is why the selection of Supreme Court Justices (a judge on the Supreme Court is referred to as an Associate Justice, the head of the court is called the Chief Justice) is such a contentious affair today. They wield an enormous amount of power in that the Court's decisions are final, cannot be appealed and have the full force of the law.

And as Tex also noted, our Supreme Court is split down the middle ideologically, with a swing juror who could go either way.