If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Why suing can be good :)
Former Member
Posts: 1,875,648 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072404.stm
Really I wouldn't blame the father of the soldier if he smashed their heads in. Some people in the world are just mental.
Defence attorney Jonathan Katz's argument that the $2.9m in compensatory damages already far exceeded the defendants' net worth and would be enough to "bankrupt them and financially destroy them" was ignored.
Really I wouldn't blame the father of the soldier if he smashed their heads in. Some people in the world are just mental.
0
Comments
That is certainly the option I would take if I ever saw anyone picketing the funeral of a loved one...
Bingo. A sensible approach, but then when has the US 'justice' system ever gone for that.
If I remeber correctly there are such rules in certain states where the WBC have been causing problems.
I'm glad that somebody finaly got to those slimey little bastards. However, I am somewhat worried about the legal precedence that this sets for dealing with protesters.
If it now means you can be sued if you have caused someone else offence that's a legal gray area that can be used for a whole lot of other things.
exactly, the devil is in the details, particularly the reasons that the judge gave for his ruling.
Why try and poison the rat when you simply drive over it with your steamroller?
I agree with it, people breach restraining orders all the time, harder to get away with not stumping up several million in damages.
That said, though, the right to protest doesn't give you the right to libel or insult other people, and a few slander lawsuits might teach a few protesters a few lessons. Certainly companies are already starting to sue people on websites for slander, including the charming directors of Sheffield Wednesday FC.
it's not a law, it's only a ruling in a civil claims court. The trouble is that it (combined with other rulings) can set an example of how someone should interpret the law in future court cases.
But it's not simply compensation based on lost income, or whatever else you might expect of a civil claims court. The judge himself said that it was specifically about making it financially impossible for this group to operate. He's basically bankrupted them because he doesn't agree with what they say, which is bullshit.
I think that is somewhat questionable. The deffence attorney was the one who noted that this would bankrupt the church, not the judge in his official comments. The sum might very well be enough to bankrupt their organization, but that doesn't necisarily mean that was the intention of the ruling; it is very likely that the amount was figured by looking at prior cases dealing with a similar issue.
This was a private case between an individual and an organisation. Your right to free speech doesn't trump the rights of others to bury their loved ones with dignity.
that said I liked Aladdin's initial suggestion the best....
I read a third-hand account that it was the prosecution that suggested it. Could be wrong though. But I'm still struggling to see how picketing a funeral (presumably lawfully) leads to millions in damages. Hell, the people molested by preists in New York didn't get this much compensation of the Catholic church (though in this instance, the sheer number of claim did effectively bankrupt them).
Also, I believe people should have the right to protest, and the people should have the right to a dignified funeral, which is why the distance limit is such a good solution. I sure as hell wouldn't want to stop anyone protesting at Mr. Phelps' funeral.
Like I said, that's not so much of an issue of the ruling being aimed at destroying the organization. It's more that there's a legal precedence in the U.S. that most civil claims cases grant unreasonably large sums of money to the plantif, from the looks of things the ruling in this case was simply following in that tradition.
agreed.
that's exactly what it was based on...