Marine Dad Ordered to Pay Legal Fees

**Red_Lizard2** · 03-31-10, 07:47 PM

Hate the WBC fuckers

technically i think the ruling is right on it being free speech, though not sure what the reasoning for making him pay their legal fees are? seem stupid to me.

3rd, so Texas is against the right to protest? I may think they are fucking stupid, worthless pieces of crap, but (sadly) like other groups they can protest if they please (among other groups i prefer not to use the right to protest)

**CivilWars** · 03-31-10, 08:03 PM

We dont oppose protest, just protest that prevents others from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. John Wiley Price, a Dallas city councilman I believe but know he was a politician, was arrested for not protesting properly, and impeding traffic several years ago.

**Red_Lizard2** · 03-31-10, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

We dont oppose protest, just protest that prevents others from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. John Wiley Price, a Dallas city councilman I believe but know he was a politician, was arrested for not protesting properly, and impeding traffic several years ago.

that iss impeding traffic though, why not sidewalks? i doesn't impede anyone if someone/people want to protest on a sidewalk

**CivilWars** · 03-31-10, 08:08 PM

Public property, and pedestrian traffic. Why do some cities have laws that you cant stand on certain sidewalks at certain times of day? Not saying I understand some of the rules, just reporting in on them.

**Red_Lizard2** · 03-31-10, 08:10 PM

trust me, it doesn't/shouldn't stop pedestrian traffic. try standing in the middle of a sidewalk in NYC and see what happens

**CivilWars** · 03-31-10, 08:11 PM

One person, no, but what about 20+ all at once? Anywho, the ruling was probably right, but still sucks.

**Red_Lizard2** · 03-31-10, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

One person, no, but what about 20+ all at once? Anywho, the ruling was probably right, but still sucks.

20+ stop in a middle of a sidewalk in NYC wouldn't stop anyone either

. but i don't think protesters on a sidewalk will really get in the way of many people, unless they try to do it on purpose (on which case would be a stupid way to try to make a point)

**deathgodusmc** · 03-31-10, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Blakeman

I don't see anything that specifically says they cannot protest at a funeral procession, it just limits where they can do it. If they get a ticket for 'obstructing a roadway' or what have you it is one thing, but to say that they cannot speak their mind on public property is one thing the Constitution will uphold.

I'm all for being picky about when these folks violate any other law, but their right to free speech still allows them to do this on public property.

Are there any successful cases where they have kept Westboro specifically out of towns for just the case against their protest? Or have they all been roundabout ways?

I just hope this doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass later when there are better things to speak out about.

A good lawyer could make a case for either one of these.

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

At a furneral emotions are to say the least high. The very nature of what they are doing can only have one purpose in my opinion and that would be looking for a fight. I know thats exactly what the would get if they showed up at one of my buddies funerals.

**Red_Lizard2** · 03-31-10, 10:03 PM

if i remember correctly, WBC (i think that was the group i found this out about) makes most of its money off lawsuits. Meaning "attacking them" would do nothing but make them money, so they could do this more, and put you in jail.

**Blakeman** · 03-31-10, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

if i remember correctly, WBC (i think that was the group i found this out about) makes most of its money off lawsuits. Meaning "attacking them" would do nothing but make them money, so they could do this more, and put you in jail.

It also gives them more publicity, which is what they crave for their agenda.

I don't think it is right to stop anyone from protesting on public property, after all it is there for public use. I also don't agree with being fined for not having permits etc as it is only a means for cities to make money, not really necessary.