- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,724
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
These people are exactly the reason why I would fully support re-legalizing dueling.
I thought from your statement that this was assumed.
My guess is that any psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor will concur that such actions would almost definitely inflict some degree of emotional damage upon the bereaved (who are already in a weakened emotional state as it is). I would guess it will be almost impossible to find one that would say that it wouldn't inflict an emotional wound of some sort upon them.
Hmm. Seems to me, with this, that just about any sort of offensive language may fall under 'causes harm'.My guess is that any psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor will concur that such actions would almost definitely inflict some degree of emotional damage upon the bereaved (who are already in a weakened emotional state as it is). I would guess it will be almost impossible to find one that would say that it wouldn't inflict an emotional wound of some sort upon them.
Hmm. Seems to me, with this, that just about any sort of offensive language may fall under 'causes harm'.
How would you measure it, though, given that grief itself inflicts such a tremendous physical toll on people?
Yep, I've always said the national bird should've been the middle finger, even though the eagle is beautiful flipping the bird just feels more right.Our country is doomed. Offensive language is part of what made this country great.
Specifically, such protests interfere with the "closure" aspect of a funeral which is a necessary step in the grief process. By having this step "desecrated" as such, including derogatory statements about the deceased, the resulting emotional woulds would very likely involved a prolonging of the grief process because it can act as an interruption to the process.
Also, the reason everyone almost universally finds these actions despicable is the innate understanding that these behaviors are hurtful to those who are bereaved.
Hmm. Seems to me, with this, that just about any sort of offensive language may fall under 'causes harm'.
Protesting at a funeral but in particular the words and signs used could easily fall under category three and four.
Libel and Slander: Libels are damages to reputation expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs; slander damages reputation by spoken words.
The target of the slander/libel is DEAD. He or she cannot be damaged further.
But do they cause lasting harm that is measurable? And if not, how would a jury award damages?
I think that there is a clear difference involved here due to the nature of grief and the fact that the words in question are designed to degrade the deceased.
Words such as these, uttered at a funeral are going to inflict harm "by their very utterance". The same cannot be said about "any" sort of offensive language, but certainly about specific types of offensive language.
My concern here is that the subjective nature of all of this will eventually lead to the notion that we have a "freedom from being offended", because to cause offense is to bring harm.
My concern here is that the subjective nature of all of this will eventually lead to the notion that we have a "freedom from being offended", because to cause offense is to bring harm.
Fighting words, libel, slander, etc are all legitimate restrcitions -- they cause measureable harm or place people in a state of clear and present danger.It has been like this for quite a while. People just don't know. Look at fighting words or profanity or obscenity all of these things are not protected, some argue it is a slippery slope. I can understand that.
The target of the slander/libel is DEAD. He or she cannot be damaged further.
Time/Place/Manner. They have every right to do this, but if they are infringing on the right to hold a respectful funeral(freedom of religion) then they are in the wrong.
Time: 12P EST anyday of the week; Place: Main st. business district; Manner: Waving signs shouting obscenities......no problem. vs. Time: During a private funeral; Place: Within earshot/plain view of the rite; Manner: Shouting obscenities/offensive written expressions then the family they directly inflicted harrassment upon should have legal recourse, this falls under harrassment, fighting words, and potentially incitement to riot, as well as disturbing the piece.
Is this the 3rd time you've agreed with me today?That is my concern, as well. And, the Phelps group are particularly appropriate for being used for this purpose because they are so universally reprehensible.
I personally don't see why people care if others think they are going to Hell. Why is that so annoying to people?
Okay, and your point is?
I think that it would only bother a super religious person.
Yet there are laws and regulations concerning the treatment of a corpse.
On that note - since they're dead what's the point of protesting? These people use the fallen soldier as direct access TO large numbers of military personnel - you cannot try to convince me, not even for a second, that they only do it in regard to the fallen soldier without having any intention of insulting, offending, hurting or commiting slander and libel to the family and friends present.
You said you didn't think they interfered with the funeral.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?