Skip to Next Poll »
3
Love em or Dislike em how do you feel about Bill O'riley and the support he is offering Al Snyder?
In 2007 a father was burying his son,a US Marine killed in our current war,and a religious group showed up picketing ,the furneral. Their reason was all military is evil if they are fighting a country that supports homosexuality. their views are radical,and they say they have a right under the 1st admendment. Bill O'reiley is offering to pay the legal fees as the original ruling was overturned in an appeal.(the original ruling was in favor of the father of the fallen Marine.) Love em or hate em....what are your thoughts on this unreal story.  Does this group represent the 1st admendment? Are the father's rights being violated? Is this a moral issue or a legal issue or both? I personally am disgusted beyond belief,that a court would over turn the 1st decision. It is going to be heard by the Supreme Court.
| Closed on 07/01/10 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Current Events | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
18 Fans 
17%a. the group is within their 1st adment rights
61%b. the father has his rights violated
22%c. other

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#5 | 1573 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Considering how well known this case is in the legal community, I'm extremely disappointed that a whole regiment of legal teams hasn't offered their services to Mr. Sneider.  It reflects very poorly upon the legal profession in general.  Bill O'Reilly gets major respect for this act.
  
50 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1574 days ago

This group seeked out this local there fore violating the privacy of this family..All people have the right to privacy in their time of grief,and to let a radical group get away with this will set a tone for more radical actions to follow. i support bill on this one
the father has his rights violated  
#2 | 1574 days ago

Thank you Bill 
#3 | 1573 days ago

I'm with O'Reilly on this. I'm glad they are going to take the case to the supreme court. I think something good will come out of that.
other  
#4 | 1573 days ago

Never thought I would ever say this-----but I am with O'Reilly on this one as well.
other  
#5 | 1573 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Considering how well known this case is in the legal community, I'm extremely disappointed that a whole regiment of legal teams hasn't offered their services to Mr. Sneider.  It reflects very poorly upon the legal profession in general.  Bill O'Reilly gets major respect for this act.
#6 | 1573 days ago

I am glad Bill stepped up to do this but i think the church were within their legal right.  As someone who liverd thru the 60s and 70s, this was common place.  They were legally right but not morally right, sad to say.
the group is within their 1st adment rights  
#7 | 1573 days ago

(Edited by DeeRigga)
THAT, my friends, was the RIGHT answer.  But I would have said ALL of them

'You don't know me...don't bring this demonstration to my son's last respecting moment on this earth...'
I would have LAID WASTE to each person that was within earshot to this funeral proceeding.
the father has his rights violated  
#8 | 1573 days ago

marcus_nyce wrote:
I'm with O'Reilly on this. I'm glad they are going to take the case to the supreme court. I think something good will come out of that.
That's true LOL    
#9 | 1573 days ago

the father has his rights violated  
#10 | 1573 days ago
vindog (+)

Though I can't stand O'Reilly- Thanks for doing this!  This Religious NUT BAG Group needs to be destroyed altogether!
the father has his rights violated  
#11 | 1573 days ago
NMboyzfan (+)

Dear Westboro 'Baptist' Church,

   God also hates people that assume they have the right to do His job and judge other people.  I believe that He has reserved that task for Himself.

PS..God also hates people that purposefully f*ck with other people in a time of grief and trauma.

See you in hell,

Mike
#12 | 1573 days ago
vindog (+)

NMboyzfan wrote:
Dear Westboro 'Baptist' Church,

   God also hates people that assume they have the right to do His job and judge other people.  I believe that He has reserved that task for Himself.

PS..God also hates people that purposefully f*ck with other people in a time of grief and trauma.

See you in hell,

Mike
Even though I don't believe in God personally, that was VERY WELL SAID!
the father has his rights violated  
#13 | 1573 days ago

NMboyzfan wrote:
Dear Westboro 'Baptist' Church,

   God also hates people that assume they have the right to do His job and judge other people.  I believe that He has reserved that task for Himself.

PS..God also hates people that purposefully f*ck with other people in a time of grief and trauma.

See you in hell,

Mike
other  
#14 | 1573 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

 No doubt this group has probably been involved with abortion clinic bombings.

I too will take O'Reilly's side with this... while I seldom agree with him, he still looks like the picture of reason next to Rush and Beck (he was once a teacher, so maybe that has something to do with it).

The church does have rights, but there has to be a right to privacy also, especially for families on mournful occasions... the language of the First Amendment says "to assemble peacefully" and it's hard to argue there's anything peaceful about a demonstration clearly designed to incite people to rage, in one direction or the other...
the father has his rights violated  
#15 | 1573 days ago

Bill Riley is a cetifiable nut case, lives off of making things newsworthy, I spent 32 years in the Navy with 3 tours in NAM and one in the gulf as a medic,  too many young boys coming home in body bags and once again for no reason, all BS.  If everyone wants to get excited about something, stop the killing, bring all of our boys home now, been to Afghanistan, place looks worse than the moon and Iraq was the result of not really doing our homework and letting a crazy white house drag us into a war with lies.  I voted for Obama because I thought he would bring our boys home, but alas, same old same old.  I had crap thrown at me, and urine and who knows what, I had the VFW and American Legion tell me I was a drugged loser and not worthy of there organizations.  The cemetary should have restricted the crowd who attended, just reading all of this stuff makes me sick
#16 | 1573 days ago

navyman32 wrote:
Bill Riley is a cetifiable nut case, lives off of making things newsworthy, I spent 32 years in the Navy with 3 tours in NAM and one in the gulf as a medic,  too many young boys coming home in body bags and once again for no reason, all BS.  If everyone wants to get excited about something, stop the killing, bring all of our boys home now, been to Afghanistan, place looks worse than the moon and Iraq was the result of not really doing our homework and letting a crazy white house drag us into a war with lies.  I voted for Obama because I thought he would bring our boys home, but alas, same old same old.  I had crap thrown at me, and urine and who knows what, I had the VFW and American Legion tell me I was a drugged loser and not worthy of there organizations.  The cemetary should have restricted the crowd who attended, just reading all of this stuff makes me sick
it is sick,,that is the point....regardless of how we feel about the war or bill o'riley, him supporting a man who is being harrassed by as radical a group as any other radical religious group is wrong and sick.IF we do not nip this behavior in the bud, we are going to see ALOT more of this. Obama said he would pull our troops out of Iraq,and said he was going to concentrate on the war in afganastan...that is what he is doing.....weathe rwe agree or not we MUST support our troops and their rights and respects of their family and the fallen.  It about doing the right thing,,not about supporting a war  or a president..its about stopping radicals in our home land and giving the respect due to our fallen
the father has his rights violated  
#17 | 1573 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

^^^^^OOR for the day,but that deserves two.....well said.
#18 | 1572 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
^^^^^OOR for the day,but that deserves two.....well said.
thankyou sir norse! i take your respect in VERY high regard!
the father has his rights violated  
#19 | 1572 days ago

marcus_nyce wrote:
I'm with O'Reilly on this. I'm glad they are going to take the case to the supreme court. I think something good will come out of that.
I pray it does..or we are going to see a HUGE rise in radical religious crimes in this country.....
the father has his rights violated  
#20 | 1572 days ago

navyman32 wrote:
Bill Riley is a cetifiable nut case, lives off of making things newsworthy, I spent 32 years in the Navy with 3 tours in NAM and one in the gulf as a medic,  too many young boys coming home in body bags and once again for no reason, all BS.  If everyone wants to get excited about something, stop the killing, bring all of our boys home now, been to Afghanistan, place looks worse than the moon and Iraq was the result of not really doing our homework and letting a crazy white house drag us into a war with lies.  I voted for Obama because I thought he would bring our boys home, but alas, same old same old.  I had crap thrown at me, and urine and who knows what, I had the VFW and American Legion tell me I was a drugged loser and not worthy of there organizations.  The cemetary should have restricted the crowd who attended, just reading all of this stuff makes me sick
I am so sorry you had to endure radical disrespect..and i thankyou for your service ! This american is grateful..and i know that doesnt make it better ,however i hope you know there are more of us wh feel like i do than dont.......That is ALL the MORe reason we must NOt let this happen!
the father has his rights violated  
#21 | 1572 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
navyman32 wrote:
Bill Riley is a cetifiable nut case, lives off of making things newsworthy, I spent 32 years in the Navy with 3 tours in NAM and one in the gulf as a medic,  too many young boys coming home in body bags and once again for no reason, all BS.  If everyone wants to get excited about something, stop the killing, bring all of our boys home now, been to Afghanistan, place looks worse than the moon and Iraq was the result of not really doing our homework and letting a crazy white house drag us into a war with lies.  I voted for Obama because I thought he would bring our boys home, but alas, same old same old.  I had crap thrown at me, and urine and who knows what, I had the VFW and American Legion tell me I was a drugged loser and not worthy of there organizations.  The cemetary should have restricted the crowd who attended, just reading all of this stuff makes me sick
First, let me say- thank you for your service! Many people don't understand what it takes for a person to dedicate their life to this Country- I do know the sacrifice- and I salute you Sir!      Secondly, I would offer this fact to you: President Obama said he would bring the troops home from Iraq AND he would concentrate this U.S. effort in Afghanistan and add more troops there if his Generals needed them. So far, the troop level in Iraq has been brought down from 150,000+ service members to a little under 100,000 service members and President Obama has been in office for a little over a year. In my opinion- that's great progress considering the s%^t storm that is going on over there. Also he has raised the troop level in Afghanistan (just as he promised) to help that situation start moving again.  It's going to take time to resolve these issues as you should know from your experiences in Vietnam. So far, this President has stuck to his campaign promises and has done quite a bit in his short time as the President. He has drawn down troops in Iraq, increased troops in Afghanistan, signed a major arms draw-down pact with Russia, went against the "Liberal" Wing of his OWN PARTY and opened up off shore drilling to help with the energy crisis (which actually he was against during his campaign but re-thought the issue and sided with the Republicans), and passed Health Care Reform (whether you like it or not is not the issue, the issue is that he PROMISED the American people these things)!  I can't think of ANY President in my existence that has stuck to his campaign promises like President Obama has and the man STILL has at least 3 more years to go. Give him time......
the father has his rights violated  
#22 | 1572 days ago

vindog wrote:
First, let me say- thank you for your service! Many people don't understand what it takes for a person to dedicate their life to this Country- I do know the sacrifice- and I salute you Sir!      Secondly, I would offer this fact to you: President Obama said he would bring the troops home from Iraq AND he would concentrate this U.S. effort in Afghanistan and add more troops there if his Generals needed them. So far, the troop level in Iraq has been brought down from 150,000+ service members to a little under 100,000 service members and President Obama has been in office for a little over a year. In my opinion- that's great progress considering the s%^t storm that is going on over there. Also he has raised the troop level in Afghanistan (just as he promised) to help that situation start moving again.  It's going to take time to resolve these issues as you should know from your experiences in Vietnam. So far, this President has stuck to his campaign promises and has done quite a bit in his short time as the President. He has drawn down troops in Iraq, increased troops in Afghanistan, signed a major arms draw-down pact with Russia, went against the "Liberal" Wing of his OWN PARTY and opened up off shore drilling to help with the energy crisis (which actually he was against during his campaign but re-thought the issue and sided with the Republicans), and passed Health Care Reform (whether you like it or not is not the issue, the issue is that he PROMISED the American people these things)!  I can't think of ANY President in my existence that has stuck to his campaign promises like President Obama has and the man STILL has at least 3 more years to go. Give him time......
thankyou for reinterating my same comment  vin..,you just wen tin to a bit more detail:)
the father has his rights violated  
#23 | 1572 days ago

cuddles127017 wrote:
I am glad Bill stepped up to do this but i think the church were within their legal right.  As someone who liverd thru the 60s and 70s, this was common place.  They were legally right but not morally right, sad to say.
what about Al Synders rights?  what about the legal issue of freedom of his privacy?  they broke that , should have been arrested for excessive harrassment,stalking,since they mde a special trip to this spot with intent to harrass,and this doesnt even touc many other moral issues...this man has rights as well,and in the 60-70s many f these laws were not in effect yet..they are now...i pray the surpreme court upholds the original court decision and finds this radical church group in violation of this mans rights...god help us all if they don.t..i respect your views,jus tthe same:)
the father has his rights violated  
#24 | 1572 days ago
vindog (+)

Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
what about Al Synders rights?  what about the legal issue of freedom of his privacy?  they broke that , should have been arrested for excessive harrassment,stalking,since they mde a special trip to this spot with intent to harrass,and this doesnt even touc many other moral issues...this man has rights as well,and in the 60-70s many f these laws were not in effect yet..they are now...i pray the surpreme court upholds the original court decision and finds this radical church group in violation of this mans rights...god help us all if they don.t..i respect your views,jus tthe same:)
That is going to be the telling tale right there- The Supreme Court decision. We ALL know that right now (with President Bush's appointees of Justice Roberts and Alito) that the Supreme Court is "Republican Slanted" (basically it is a 5-4 advantage)- and we SAW what can happen when politics replace common-sense (and Constitutional Protection) with their recent decision of allowing BIG Companies to "donate" as much money as they want to political campaigns and advertisement- which is going to destroy the voting process altogether!  So this case is going to be a good test to see if the Supreme Court actually makes decisions based on Politics ( political beliefs)- or based on common sense and Constitutional Rights! Yes these Bible thumping TERRORISTS do have the Right to protest and assemble- but they DON'T have the right to infringe on another persons RIGHTS to privacy either!  We will see whether Religion is more important than personal Freedom in this Country!  My thoughts are that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the "Establishment" or "Church" and not the individual BECAUSE they ARE " Conservatively Biased" ......
the father has his rights violated  
#25 | 1572 days ago

I would love to take this radical group to my local V.F.W. and buy them a beer, I'm not saying they will make it out alive but hey !! we have a dumpster out the back , God bless America,
the father has his rights violated  
#26 | 1571 days ago

vindog wrote:
That is going to be the telling tale right there- The Supreme Court decision. We ALL know that right now (with President Bush's appointees of Justice Roberts and Alito) that the Supreme Court is "Republican Slanted" (basically it is a 5-4 advantage)- and we SAW what can happen when politics replace common-sense (and Constitutional Protection) with their recent decision of allowing BIG Companies to "donate" as much money as they want to political campaigns and advertisement- which is going to destroy the voting process altogether!  So this case is going to be a good test to see if the Supreme Court actually makes decisions based on Politics ( political beliefs)- or based on common sense and Constitutional Rights! Yes these Bible thumping TERRORISTS do have the Right to protest and assemble- but they DON'T have the right to infringe on another persons RIGHTS to privacy either!  We will see whether Religion is more important than personal Freedom in this Country!  My thoughts are that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the "Establishment" or "Church" and not the individual BECAUSE they ARE " Conservatively Biased" ......
gw actually implemented a law that was unaminously passed that said no group or people shall infringe on he privacy of a military persons buriel. There are also many state laws that insued the same rights. those are federal and state laws.We arent even covering the admission of this radical sick-o group admitting that they spend 200,000dollars annually seeking out military persional;s furnerals and flying there. that admission alone proves tha tthis groups stalks out and infringes on the rights to people right to privacy .Every legal and moral group should have lawyers on the side of thes emilitary families. This group admts they hate catholics, irish, jews military,and about every other religious and ethnic sector. I can not see ,even with a conservtive majority sitting on the bench that these laws will not be inforced. To intentionally target our military,because they do not agree is not a defence.Ys they have 1st admendment rights however they broke many other laws and will be charged on those..they may be found not guilty on the 1st admendment violations but will be found guilty on all other charges.wikepedia has a very in depth look at this whacked out group. the moral minority can not be allowed to rule this country
the father has his rights violated  
#27 | 1570 days ago

The intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion torts are inconsistent with the fundamentals of a free society and should be eliminated (I have written in the past that the right to inflict emotional distress via the written or spoken word free of criminal sanction or civil liability [I trust that I need not to explain why even as the First Amendment is an injunction of government alone, it precludes the operation of a civil schema in which conduct otherwise protected is made colorable {a proposition to which there are, I recognize, some exceptions; there is none theorized here, AFAICT}] is the single most sacred right one might have, and even if that's a bit hyperbolic, it's not grossly so, something, one imagines, the father of an individual who swore an oath to the Constitution would appreciate).  To be sure, as a militant atheist who has no objection at all to homosexuality and is always happy to support the expansion of LGBT rights (negative rights, that is), I am not in sympathy with Westboro's mission (I confess that I am not as disquieted by the tactics as some [in part, I suppose, because I can't understand why the family are so exercised], but certainly so by the message), but as a committed civil libertarian, I cannot conceive of a legal theory with which I am comfortable under which Snyder should come close to prevailing, and as an exponent of "loser pays" rules generally (if not categorically), I am altogether comfortable with the Fourth Circuit's reversal and with the subsequent imposition of costs and fees.  If you undertake to assert a frivolous claim, one in which you seek damages for having been made to feel bad, you should not be surprised to find yourself obliged to pay the costs of the individuals whom you forced to obtain the services of attorneys to defend their perfectly legal and non-actionable conduct, no matter how sympathetic a litigant you might be.  I fear that the grant of cert reflects an intention to reverse, and I suspect that so would others had they a sense of how broad might become the sphere of conduct relative to which it is proposed we subjugate our rights to the whim of juries and judges who are unable or unwilling to suppress their provincial notions of rightness, irrespective of the broader concerns.  
the group is within their 1st adment rights  
#28 | 1570 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

As a civil libertarian, I can not agree with your above assessment.  The freedom of speech is absolute--unless the content of that which is said infringes upon the sovereign individual rights of another.  Freedom comes with responsibility and one must be accountable for one's actions as such pertain to the others concerned.  The free exercise of rights is equal to the protection of the freedoms of others.  Freedoms that exceed such go beyond the essence of equality, towards the spectrum of anarchy.
#29 | 1570 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
Jahiegel wrote:
The intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion torts are inconsistent with the fundamentals of a free society and should be eliminated (I have written in the past that the right to inflict emotional distress via the written or spoken word free of criminal sanction or civil liability [I trust that I need not to explain why even as the First Amendment is an injunction of government alone, it precludes the operation of a civil schema in which conduct otherwise protected is made colorable {a proposition to which there are, I recognize, some exceptions; there is none theorized here, AFAICT}] is the single most sacred right one might have, and even if that's a bit hyperbolic, it's not grossly so, something, one imagines, the father of an individual who swore an oath to the Constitution would appreciate).  To be sure, as a militant atheist who has no objection at all to homosexuality and is always happy to support the expansion of LGBT rights (negative rights, that is), I am not in sympathy with Westboro's mission (I confess that I am not as disquieted by the tactics as some [in part, I suppose, because I can't understand why the family are so exercised], but certainly so by the message), but as a committed civil libertarian, I cannot conceive of a legal theory with which I am comfortable under which Snyder should come close to prevailing, and as an exponent of "loser pays" rules generally (if not categorically), I am altogether comfortable with the Fourth Circuit's reversal and with the subsequent imposition of costs and fees.  If you undertake to assert a frivolous claim, one in which you seek damages for having been made to feel bad, you should not be surprised to find yourself obliged to pay the costs of the individuals whom you forced to obtain the services of attorneys to defend their perfectly legal and non-actionable conduct, no matter how sympathetic a litigant you might be.  I fear that the grant of cert reflects an intention to reverse, and I suspect that so would others had they a sense of how broad might become the sphere of conduct relative to which it is proposed we subjugate our rights to the whim of juries and judges who are unable or unwilling to suppress their provincial notions of rightness, irrespective of the broader concerns.  
In other words, you are siding with the "Church"on this one- at least that is what I'm gathering from your comment! 1ST Amendment Rights don't apply when Rights of others are infringed upon; in this case, the Fathers right to privacy were grossly infringed upon by this "Religious Group"!  The Father of the fallen soldier did NOT file the lawsuit because "he felt bad"- he filed because his rights to his personal privacy were challenged by the "Group of Protesters"! In other words, you can't put a security camera in a Public Restroom- nor can you yell Fire (if there is not one) in a crowded movie theater either! This is exactly what this group of Wackos have been doing- infringing on the rights of privacy by others!
the father has his rights violated  
#30 | 1570 days ago

Jahiegel wrote:
The intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion torts are inconsistent with the fundamentals of a free society and should be eliminated (I have written in the past that the right to inflict emotional distress via the written or spoken word free of criminal sanction or civil liability [I trust that I need not to explain why even as the First Amendment is an injunction of government alone, it precludes the operation of a civil schema in which conduct otherwise protected is made colorable {a proposition to which there are, I recognize, some exceptions; there is none theorized here, AFAICT}] is the single most sacred right one might have, and even if that's a bit hyperbolic, it's not grossly so, something, one imagines, the father of an individual who swore an oath to the Constitution would appreciate).  To be sure, as a militant atheist who has no objection at all to homosexuality and is always happy to support the expansion of LGBT rights (negative rights, that is), I am not in sympathy with Westboro's mission (I confess that I am not as disquieted by the tactics as some [in part, I suppose, because I can't understand why the family are so exercised], but certainly so by the message), but as a committed civil libertarian, I cannot conceive of a legal theory with which I am comfortable under which Snyder should come close to prevailing, and as an exponent of "loser pays" rules generally (if not categorically), I am altogether comfortable with the Fourth Circuit's reversal and with the subsequent imposition of costs and fees.  If you undertake to assert a frivolous claim, one in which you seek damages for having been made to feel bad, you should not be surprised to find yourself obliged to pay the costs of the individuals whom you forced to obtain the services of attorneys to defend their perfectly legal and non-actionable conduct, no matter how sympathetic a litigant you might be.  I fear that the grant of cert reflects an intention to reverse, and I suspect that so would others had they a sense of how broad might become the sphere of conduct relative to which it is proposed we subjugate our rights to the whim of juries and judges who are unable or unwilling to suppress their provincial notions of rightness, irrespective of the broader concerns.  
First of all..The group intentionally seeked out the snyder furneral...and gw bush as well as many other states passed legislation to protect military families rights to privacy, not to mentio his constitutional rights to privacy. This radical group stalked, harrassed and broke many laws..they may not be found guilty for one count ,their 1st admendment right but should and hopefully will be found guilty on all other charges.  the snyder family seeked damages under state law and the jury awarded them punitive damages as they saw fit.
  the appeals court didnt take in all other charges,except the 1st admendment rights...the federal law gw bush passed specifically made clea no one may infringe upon a military familys privacy,nor be within 300 feet of their surroundings. This group violated this law and many others. We can only hope the supreme court witholds all the laws..Ther eis more to this case than jst the churches 1st adment right..There are many counts to this suit..
the father has his rights violated  
#31 | 1569 days ago

(Edited by PJ88Fan)
I'm just happy to see that there was someone with a heart who is willing to help Mr. Snyder. One would think that there would of been several lawyers who would of jumped at the chance to help this man.  I guess it just goes to prove the theory that it's all about the money & not very many Lawyers were willing to dig out their wallets. That is pretty dang sad. This man's son gave his life for all of us and what happened was very disrepectful., how sad.
the father has his rights violated  
#32 | 1569 days ago

PJ88Fan wrote:
I'm just happy to see that there was someone with a heart who is willing to help Mr. Snyder. One would think that there would of been several lawyers who would of jumped at the chance to help this man.  I guess it just goes to prove the theory that it's all about the money & not very many Lawyers were willing to dig out their wallets. That is pretty dang sad. This man's son gave his life for all of us and what happened was very disrepectful., how sad.
actually beside bill O'riley many private citizens have sent money to help the synder family. there is a facebook page with over 17,000 people andhas raised money as well as other outlets to help him.People are giving,be sure of that! whats sad.is his rights were trampled by a group that admittedly goes after military families because they think america and our troops are evil...but they think about every ethnic and religious groups are evil as well...look up the church on wikipedia..there is some very scary facts about this group...
the father has his rights violated  
#33 | 1569 days ago

NMboyzfan wrote:
Dear Westboro 'Baptist' Church,

   God also hates people that assume they have the right to do His job and judge other people.  I believe that He has reserved that task for Himself.

PS..God also hates people that purposefully f*ck with other people in a time of grief and trauma.

See you in hell,

Mike
Great job!!  That was very well said and probably a very accurate statement. HOO RAH for you!  
the father has his rights violated  
#34 | 1569 days ago

Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
actually beside bill O'riley many private citizens have sent money to help the synder family. there is a facebook page with over 17,000 people andhas raised money as well as other outlets to help him.People are giving,be sure of that! whats sad.is his rights were trampled by a group that admittedly goes after military families because they think america and our troops are evil...but they think about every ethnic and religious groups are evil as well...look up the church on wikipedia..there is some very scary facts about this group...
I restated my comment because I know there are a whole lot of good decent people who are more than willing to help Mr. Snyder. I was juat shocked that there weren't any Lawyers who offered their services. That is sad.
the father has his rights violated  
#35 | 1569 days ago

Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
First of all..The group intentionally seeked out the snyder furneral...and gw bush as well as many other states passed legislation to protect military families rights to privacy, not to mentio his constitutional rights to privacy. This radical group stalked, harrassed and broke many laws..they may not be found guilty for one count ,their 1st admendment right but should and hopefully will be found guilty on all other charges.  the snyder family seeked damages under state law and the jury awarded them punitive damages as they saw fit.
  the appeals court didnt take in all other charges,except the 1st admendment rights...the federal law gw bush passed specifically made clea no one may infringe upon a military familys privacy,nor be within 300 feet of their surroundings. This group violated this law and many others. We can only hope the supreme court witholds all the laws..Ther eis more to this case than jst the churches 1st adment right..There are many counts to this suit..
IIRC, the complaint set out five causes of action: defamation, intrusion upon seclusion (invasion of privacy), IIED, publicity given to private life, and conspiracy to commit the former.  The publicity given and nebulous defamation claims were dismissed at summary judgment, leaving the jury to consider IIED, intrusion, and conspiracy, such that I don't know that there were "many counts" (you will concede, I'm sure, that here [although, I recognize, not always, a curiosity that has always perplexed me, but IANAL] if the underlying conduct cannot give rise to a verdict, the conspiracy to commit that conduct, too, must go unredressed).  It is true that some states have enacted laws restricting protesting around military funerals, on the constitutionality of which conflicting pronouncements have, as you will recognize, been made, but none of those, at least AFAIK, was at issue here (the federal law, it should be said, was not enacted until months after the protest that gave rise to this action); as the district court's opinion on the award noted, "[i]t was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions with respect to being a certain distance from the church".  Finally, although I am a persistent critic of law enforcement, I've to believe that had Phelps, et al., broken "many laws" here, an indictment, given the prominence of the case and the disfavor with which all sane people look upon the Westboroites, would have been sought.  
the group is within their 1st adment rights  
#36 | 1569 days ago

as i said before  they have 1st admendment rights however the family has rights under the 4th & 5th admendments... There are also stalking laws in every state,and this group admitteditly seeked this furneral out.   there are also harrassment laws ....this group also admitted spending annually 200,000 dollars to seek out military familys to "harrass them... you can not break privacy rights using your right to the 1st admendment......there are restrictions on that....and the defamation liabel and slander will all come into play..this is not a family that said waa you called me names..its a famly that has rights to lay their son peacefully and privately to a military ceremony. this group broke civl and criminal laws ,and intentionally cause pain and suffering to this family....I hope they the WBC rot in a place worse than hell. they condem everyone and everything american..exxcept what they feel is acceptable...and that is NOT what America stands for
the father has his rights violated  
#37 | 1569 days ago
vindog (+)

Jahiegel wrote:
IIRC, the complaint set out five causes of action: defamation, intrusion upon seclusion (invasion of privacy), IIED, publicity given to private life, and conspiracy to commit the former.  The publicity given and nebulous defamation claims were dismissed at summary judgment, leaving the jury to consider IIED, intrusion, and conspiracy, such that I don't know that there were "many counts" (you will concede, I'm sure, that here [although, I recognize, not always, a curiosity that has always perplexed me, but IANAL] if the underlying conduct cannot give rise to a verdict, the conspiracy to commit that conduct, too, must go unredressed).  It is true that some states have enacted laws restricting protesting around military funerals, on the constitutionality of which conflicting pronouncements have, as you will recognize, been made, but none of those, at least AFAIK, was at issue here (the federal law, it should be said, was not enacted until months after the protest that gave rise to this action); as the district court's opinion on the award noted, "[i]t was undisputed at trial that Defendants complied with local ordinances and police directions with respect to being a certain distance from the church".  Finally, although I am a persistent critic of law enforcement, I've to believe that had Phelps, et al., broken "many laws" here, an indictment, given the prominence of the case and the disfavor with which all sane people look upon the Westboroites, would have been sought.  
Typical response for a Defense Lawyer.......  I can't believe people actually make money off of Defending Monsters in Court! WOW
the father has his rights violated  
#38 | 1569 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

In fairness, and to reflect upon a case very similar in history is the case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (Illinois) 432 U.S. 43 (1977).  This case wasn't focused upon freedom of speech inasmuch as it was focused upon the essence of freedom of assembly.

For those who are not aware of the particulars, this is the case where the American Nazi Party sued for the right to march through Skokie, IL; this area was highly populated with a high percentage of World War II Holocaust survivors.  A Jewish lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union took the case on behalf of the NSPA--and won the case.  The screwed up progression of this case is that the NSPA did not originally target this community.  Over and over, their petitions to arrange marches and/or gatherings were denied by the city and satellite towns surrounding Chicago.  Attributed to this, the town of Skokie was chosen by the Nazis to make a stand..

The difference in the above case versus the current case being considered is that the Westboro Baptist Church specifically targets areas in proximity to military funerals to hold their rallies--thus, taking a posture of harassment as their focus.  In short, their intent is to target individuals and communities feeling the loss of a son or daughter; that is the malicious intent being sued.

Some would argue that both cases deal with the fundamental elements of the questions of freedom of speech and assembly.  However, I would in turn argue that it is the intent of the organizations that comes into question.  Both focused upon attaining maximum attention for their actions; the NSPA attributed to their denial of freedom of assembly by the City of Chicago and surrounding communities; the Westboro Baptist Church because their focus is to use the tragedies of a lost military member to further inflict damage upon the individuals concerned with inflammatory and hateful rhetorical celebration for the death being mourned.  The Westboro Baptist Church's purpose is not to present their rhetoric and beliefs.....it is to punish others in the midst of mourning a personal tragedy for not believing as they do.

Just my two copper pieces...
#39 | 1569 days ago

vindog wrote:
Typical response for a Defense Lawyer.......  I can't believe people actually make money off of Defending Monsters in Court! WOW
Well, I'm not a defense lawyer (or a lawyer at all, although I did once get away with pretending to be one for in municipal court), but I'm happy to be counted amongst those who stand up for free speech even for those whose views are unpopular (or worse), a number in which you have many times counted yourself here, admirably following the "defend to the death" credo of Voltaire (I recognize that the language isn't actually Voltaire's, but the world long ago agreed to overlook that detail), in view of which I am surprised at your position here.  We are very different Democrats (you, I think it is fair to say, are a populist with center-left social views, while I am an anarcho-capitalist, as fiscally conservative as one might be, but extremely socially liberal), but we have always been in step on free speech issues (I know that this is styled by some as a privacy issue, but under that theory almost all public speech can be restricted on IOP grounds), and it strikes me that we are opposed here only because you find the speech sufficiently pernicious as to merit our setting aside our settled values, by which proposition I am deeply troubled. 
the group is within their 1st adment rights  
#40 | 1569 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
In fairness, and to reflect upon a case very similar in history is the case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (Illinois) 432 U.S. 43 (1977).  This case wasn't focused upon freedom of speech inasmuch as it was focused upon the essence of freedom of assembly.

For those who are not aware of the particulars, this is the case where the American Nazi Party sued for the right to march through Skokie, IL; this area was highly populated with a high percentage of World War II Holocaust survivors.  A Jewish lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union took the case on behalf of the NSPA--and won the case.  The screwed up progression of this case is that the NSPA did not originally target this community.  Over and over, their petitions to arrange marches and/or gatherings were denied by the city and satellite towns surrounding Chicago.  Attributed to this, the town of Skokie was chosen by the Nazis to make a stand..

The difference in the above case versus the current case being considered is that the Westboro Baptist Church specifically targets areas in proximity to military funerals to hold their rallies--thus, taking a posture of harassment as their focus.  In short, their intent is to target individuals and communities feeling the loss of a son or daughter; that is the malicious intent being sued.

Some would argue that both cases deal with the fundamental elements of the questions of freedom of speech and assembly.  However, I would in turn argue that it is the intent of the organizations that comes into question.  Both focused upon attaining maximum attention for their actions; the NSPA attributed to their denial of freedom of assembly by the City of Chicago and surrounding communities; the Westboro Baptist Church because their focus is to use the tragedies of a lost military member to further inflict damage upon the individuals concerned with inflammatory and hateful rhetorical celebration for the death being mourned.  The Westboro Baptist Church's purpose is not to present their rhetoric and beliefs.....it is to punish others in the midst of mourning a personal tragedy for not believing as they do.

Just my two copper pieces...
I was going to raise Skokie here, because I regard the principle (theoretical, not legal) as indistinguishable from that that should govern the instant case; although I do not believe that any fair analysis should undertake to adjudge motives, I do not accept that the Westboroites (who, it is my firm sense, do what they do not to harass and punish, but, instead, to inflame, and thereby to expand recognition for a cause in which they sincerely believe) mean to inflict emotional distress any more than did the neo-Nazis (about the history of whom I'm not sure we're on the same page--although Skokie was chosen after permits for a march/gathering in Chicago was denied, its selection followed from its composition; it was chosen, at last, at least in part because it was home to many Holocaust survivors).  In Skokie, as here, the conduct clearly did not fall within the "fighting words" exception (one that, I should say, I would remove; both as a normative matter and as a matter of constitutional interpretation, I am a free speech absolutist, and I cannot conceive of any speech at all, including threats (or other assault), perjury, theft by fraud effected solely by use of the spoken word, incitement to violence, and slander, that I should make subject to criminal or civil liability), and I fear that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to reverse what has been a decades-long restriction of the doctrine (again, even as there is no governmental action here, a reinstating of the award will permit the government to achieve, through the enforcement of civil judgments, the restriction of speech that it could not complete on its own). 
the group is within their 1st adment rights  
#41 | 1569 days ago

Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
as i said before  they have 1st admendment rights however the family has rights under the 4th & 5th admendments... There are also stalking laws in every state,and this group admitteditly seeked this furneral out.   there are also harrassment laws ....this group also admitted spending annually 200,000 dollars to seek out military familys to "harrass them... you can not break privacy rights using your right to the 1st admendment......there are restrictions on that....and the defamation liabel and slander will all come into play..this is not a family that said waa you called me names..its a famly that has rights to lay their son peacefully and privately to a military ceremony. this group broke civl and criminal laws ,and intentionally cause pain and suffering to this family....I hope they the WBC rot in a place worse than hell. they condem everyone and everything american..exxcept what they feel is acceptable...and that is NOT what America stands for
I am compelled to note once more no serious legal thinker proposes that anything the group did here was illegal, and no criminal prosecution for harassment could be sustained.  Neither, it should be said, does any serious person believe that a defamation (of which slander and libel are classes) claim could be sustained here, and that that was advanced in the lawsuit was dismissed.  Finally, although invasion of privacy is made actionable under common law principles and by statute, the Fourth Amendment (I confess that I fail to understand the relevance of the Fifth Amendment here) constrains only actions by the federal and (as incorporated) state governments and, strictly speaking, does not apply to private actors.
the group is within their 1st adment rights  
#42 | 1569 days ago
vindog (+)

Jahiegel wrote:
Well, I'm not a defense lawyer (or a lawyer at all, although I did once get away with pretending to be one for in municipal court), but I'm happy to be counted amongst those who stand up for free speech even for those whose views are unpopular (or worse), a number in which you have many times counted yourself here, admirably following the "defend to the death" credo of Voltaire (I recognize that the language isn't actually Voltaire's, but the world long ago agreed to overlook that detail), in view of which I am surprised at your position here.  We are very different Democrats (you, I think it is fair to say, are a populist with center-left social views, while I am an anarcho-capitalist, as fiscally conservative as one might be, but extremely socially liberal), but we have always been in step on free speech issues (I know that this is styled by some as a privacy issue, but under that theory almost all public speech can be restricted on IOP grounds), and it strikes me that we are opposed here only because you find the speech sufficiently pernicious as to merit our setting aside our settled values, by which proposition I am deeply troubled. 
We are out of step on this one because I don't believe that "Free Speech" includes trampling on the Rights of others either. As I said (hypothetically) you can't yell Fire in a crowded movie theater, if there is no fire, causing a panic in which a person is trampled to death- and then claim "Free Speech"!  This "group" HATES everything that there is about this Country and it's Freedoms (as one person stated, they HATE basically everybody who doesn't agree with them)-yet HIDES BEHIND the protections that this Country provides them because of FREEDOM!  I'm sorry, but "Free Speech" only goes so far before it infringes on the rights of others.  These people are NO BETTER than any Islamic Fundamentalist Group that wants to destroy this Country.... In my honest opinion (and as one who supports the Constitution of the U.S.), I do NOT view these acts as Free Speech- I view them as an attack on anothers freedoms.
the father has his rights violated  
#43 | 1569 days ago
NMboyzfan (+)

vindog wrote:
We are out of step on this one because I don't believe that "Free Speech" includes trampling on the Rights of others either. As I said (hypothetically) you can't yell Fire in a crowded movie theater, if there is no fire, causing a panic in which a person is trampled to death- and then claim "Free Speech"!  This "group" HATES everything that there is about this Country and it's Freedoms (as one person stated, they HATE basically everybody who doesn't agree with them)-yet HIDES BEHIND the protections that this Country provides them because of FREEDOM!  I'm sorry, but "Free Speech" only goes so far before it infringes on the rights of others.  These people are NO BETTER than any Islamic Fundamentalist Group that wants to destroy this Country.... In my honest opinion (and as one who supports the Constitution of the U.S.), I do NOT view these acts as Free Speech- I view them as an attack on anothers freedoms.
G*d dammit vin, sometimes you bring a tear to my conservative eye.
#44 | 1569 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
NMboyzfan wrote:
G*d dammit vin, sometimes you bring a tear to my conservative eye.
LOL!  I'm about as "Conservatively Hardcore" as it gets when it comes to Constitutional Rights- but a lot of people misinterpret that as being a Liberal because I support Gay marriage and Abortion (the Constitution covers EVERY AMERICAN) - which is actually pretty funny! But, in this case, I can't let the Rights of Free Speech (as this group is claiming) interfere with the Rights of Privacy either! Hell, I don't even believe in God- but if a man is having a "religious" ceremony for his fallen Son- he should at least have his rights to privacy and protection from Wackos like the Westboro Witches! Rights to Free Speech (and peaceful assembly), are thrown out the window when the "purpose" of your assembly is too incite anger and violence!
the father has his rights violated  
#45 | 1569 days ago

Jahiegel wrote:
I was going to raise Skokie here, because I regard the principle (theoretical, not legal) as indistinguishable from that that should govern the instant case; although I do not believe that any fair analysis should undertake to adjudge motives, I do not accept that the Westboroites (who, it is my firm sense, do what they do not to harass and punish, but, instead, to inflame, and thereby to expand recognition for a cause in which they sincerely believe) mean to inflict emotional distress any more than did the neo-Nazis (about the history of whom I'm not sure we're on the same page--although Skokie was chosen after permits for a march/gathering in Chicago was denied, its selection followed from its composition; it was chosen, at last, at least in part because it was home to many Holocaust survivors).  In Skokie, as here, the conduct clearly did not fall within the "fighting words" exception (one that, I should say, I would remove; both as a normative matter and as a matter of constitutional interpretation, I am a free speech absolutist, and I cannot conceive of any speech at all, including threats (or other assault), perjury, theft by fraud effected solely by use of the spoken word, incitement to violence, and slander, that I should make subject to criminal or civil liability), and I fear that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to reverse what has been a decades-long restriction of the doctrine (again, even as there is no governmental action here, a reinstating of the award will permit the government to achieve, through the enforcement of civil judgments, the restriction of speech that it could not complete on its own). 
WBC admitted in news interviews and in newspaper they proudly spend 200,000 annually to intentionall go and pickett military families ,as "our military is supporting homosexual behavior....thse are direct quotes ..go wikipedia the articles..i dont care f you are left or right.....Freedom of speech is only held up when used in anon malicious way..you may not yell fire ,in a theatre just to see a stampede of scared peope..there are limits to every right we have..and a reason they are amended to uphold right and wrong....dont throw your conservative politics into this...thi sisnt about political views,its about upholding constitutional rihts and wrongs and people's rights to privacy over how far a 1st admendment may go....the whoe asole point of this whole thing is becaus eWBC intentionally ,with malice inflicted mental and emotonal suffering on innocent people becaus ethey dont agree with what our country is doing.....If he yhave issues with this war i sugges tthey take that 200,000 and go pickett the petagon or white hous eand leave private familes to grieve. you being a conservative should appreciate the 5th andement and the right to privacy more than anyone especially since you beiev3 in a liberal lifestyle.....now to address your comment about Vin....He wore a USMC uniform and fought for your freedom of speech and your freedom and right to privacy..how dare you insult him or anyone who wears a uniform for our right to express a point of view. You wan tto say anythig regarding this case feel free..but DO NOT attack some one for their belief ,especially someone who risked their life for you and I
the father has his rights violated  
#46 | 1569 days ago

Jahiegel wrote:
I am compelled to note once more no serious legal thinker proposes that anything the group did here was illegal, and no criminal prosecution for harassment could be sustained.  Neither, it should be said, does any serious person believe that a defamation (of which slander and libel are classes) claim could be sustained here, and that that was advanced in the lawsuit was dismissed.  Finally, although invasion of privacy is made actionable under common law principles and by statute, the Fourth Amendment (I confess that I fail to understand the relevance of the Fifth Amendment here) constrains only actions by the federal and (as incorporated) state governments and, strictly speaking, does not apply to private actors.
i am as serious as a heart attack and i take EVERY freedom we as Americans enjoy the privlidge and right to! there are laws that preceed other laws.....and tha tis the point....Great you use many legal terms and words,opposed to my laymen terms...but dont underestimate my serious thinking or facts....or my love for this country an dour rights and freedoms we enjoy becaus eothers die for them..
the father has his rights violated  
#47 | 1569 days ago

Jahiegel wrote:
I am compelled to note once more no serious legal thinker proposes that anything the group did here was illegal, and no criminal prosecution for harassment could be sustained.  Neither, it should be said, does any serious person believe that a defamation (of which slander and libel are classes) claim could be sustained here, and that that was advanced in the lawsuit was dismissed.  Finally, although invasion of privacy is made actionable under common law principles and by statute, the Fourth Amendment (I confess that I fail to understand the relevance of the Fifth Amendment here) constrains only actions by the federal and (as incorporated) state governments and, strictly speaking, does not apply to private actors.
when a person say NO, it means no,,andwhen people show no respect to that no and invades their privacy and rights it is a violation to the 4th admendment.....the 5th admendment covers their rights under the military statures of upholding the legal rights of all military persoanl...thus both the 4th and 5th admendments are injeopardy here.....the 1st admendment gave the right to the WBc to pickett,however not ina clos ediatanc eand with malice and premeditated agenda to inflict pain and suffering on someone.....please dont insult my passion and seriousness because i may not hold a law degree and do not recite formal statures..but i know when and what the admendments uphold and dont.....
the father has his rights violated  
#48 | 1569 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Jahiegel wrote:
I was going to raise Skokie here, because I regard the principle (theoretical, not legal) as indistinguishable from that that should govern the instant case; although I do not believe that any fair analysis should undertake to adjudge motives, I do not accept that the Westboroites (who, it is my firm sense, do what they do not to harass and punish, but, instead, to inflame, and thereby to expand recognition for a cause in which they sincerely believe) mean to inflict emotional distress any more than did the neo-Nazis (about the history of whom I'm not sure we're on the same page--although Skokie was chosen after permits for a march/gathering in Chicago was denied, its selection followed from its composition; it was chosen, at last, at least in part because it was home to many Holocaust survivors).  In Skokie, as here, the conduct clearly did not fall within the "fighting words" exception (one that, I should say, I would remove; both as a normative matter and as a matter of constitutional interpretation, I am a free speech absolutist, and I cannot conceive of any speech at all, including threats (or other assault), perjury, theft by fraud effected solely by use of the spoken word, incitement to violence, and slander, that I should make subject to criminal or civil liability), and I fear that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to reverse what has been a decades-long restriction of the doctrine (again, even as there is no governmental action here, a reinstating of the award will permit the government to achieve, through the enforcement of civil judgments, the restriction of speech that it could not complete on its own). 
One thing is for sure, it is a very tough bend in the river to approach.  Even when taking into consideration the essence if a non-infringement of the rights of groups and individuals, it seems that the focus of the modern legal structure is to manipulate the black and white letter of the law (based upon perception) and intent of the law.  In the end, IMHO, it doesn't matter as to the agreement with such individuals (I too am adherently and passionately dedicated to the essence of freedom), but the application of how such is exercised so that such does not breech the freedoms and rights of others.

Not to diminish the importance of the discussion, but a common saying in modern society is that "the sad thing about people today is that the practice of common courtesy is anything but common anymore".  In some ways, issues such as this come down to just such a consideration.  Is the intent of ones actions malevolent or malicious, benevolent or charitable, or in some cases actions that contradict their original purpose.

A long (long), time ago I used to say that all politicians should be philosophers, and only philosophers should be politicians.  I think it would be more appropriate for that to be applied to the judiciary; in today's process of jurist prudence, judges seem to act more like analysts than guardians of justice.
#49 | 1568 days ago

cuddles127017 wrote:
I am glad Bill stepped up to do this but i think the church were within their legal right.  As someone who liverd thru the 60s and 70s, this was common place.  They were legally right but not morally right, sad to say.
the church was far from within their legal rights...and i lived through the 60s and 70s as well and what protestors did was both morally and legally wrong....tha tis why laws were changed.....  as much as bill likes to talk just to hear himself..he is doing a very rightous thing and i applaud him
the father has his rights violated  
#50 | 1555 days ago

(Edited by qtowndogg)
This 'church' should not call themselves Christians if they are acting in hate.  A Christian is a follower of Christ, and are to strive to be like Him.  Christ would never display hate towards anyone.  In fact, he has no tolerance for hatred of others:

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.  (I John 3:15)" 

As a Christian, I am ashamed of what these people from Westboro have been doing.  Personally, I don't agree with homosexuality, but what does that have to do with a fallen soldier's funeral?  Who are we to judge whether a specific sin caused someone's death?  We are all sinners, but only God knows the reason for each individual's death, and that is not up to us to judge.  "Judge not, that you be not judged. (Matthew 7:1)"
other  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
What is the craziest thing you have ever seen on a hunting trip
Asked by huskerdoug2009 | Locker Room, Current Events | 1 questions asked 12/05/12
12 opinions | 9 comments | Last by KSbengals99
F/E 7/22
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Yesterday
5 opinions | 9 comments | Last by woody050681
F/E 7/23
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Today
6 opinions | 29 comments | Last by woody050681
Phryday Philter Errr
Asked by marcus_nyce | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 07/18/14
7 opinions | 15 comments | Last by Beaneaters
F/E 7/21
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 07/21/14
7 opinions | 9 comments | Last by Debi_L