Phelps

[HoreTore]

Filming is not free speech, your arguement here is nothing more then an irrational strawman.

Once again Free Speech allows me to state what I will with certain limitations within any public venue - to include the public property that passes in front of your house - ie the street.

(Limitations on free speech have generally be noted to be the advocation of violence against another.)

Yes. You may state what you wish. But you can't state it in a way that invades my privacy, on my property or not. Like the judge found to be the case here.

If you didn't like my camera example, here's another you; you can't legally stand just outside my property and yell things to me. That would still be an invasion of my privacy, even though you're not actually on my property. Where to draw the line however, is something that our politico's and/or judges have to decide. In this case, I'd say it's all very good. It's a funeral, not a street parade passing through his house, which would be something else.

[Redleg]

Yes. You may state what you wish. But you can't state it in a way that invades my privacy, on my property or not. Like the judge found to be the case here.

Almost correct - this is a ground breaking decision that might hold up and might not. However your missing one key word about the decision - expectations of privacy. That is not a hard definition, its one that will have to be proven by each individual in each case.

For instance if your a public figure - your expectations of privacy will be different in the eyes of the public and the courts then say a citizen who remains outside of the public scope.

If you didn't like my camera example, here's another you; you can't legally stand just outside my property and yell things to me. That would still be an invasion of my privacy, even though you're not actually on my property. Where to draw the line however, is something that our politico's and/or judges have to decide. In this case, I'd say it's all very good. It's a funeral, not a street parade passing through his house, which would be something else.

Again look to the historical cases - this is the first case that has been ruled toward an expectation of privacy, and is primarily based upon the use of incorrect hate filled rethoric and that an individual soldier - who is not in the public eye expectation of privacy. Unfortunately as the case is reviewed - and the father just stated that he expected the service to have coverage on the news on the day of the furneral, would indicate that the family did not have an expectation of privacy as one would think from the court ruling. However that is just spectulation on my part right now.

One does have an expectation of privacy as it regards their private property - however that expectation of privacy does not always include areas that are public even when its just outside of your home.

Now the reason that Phelps most likely lost the case is not just because of the location or the expectation of privacy, but because the speech was factually incorrect as it relates to the Marine's death. As the article clearly pointed out that there was two arguements present.

The courtroom fight came down to whether Westboro had a legal right to demonstrate at Snyder's funeral or whether the protesters crossed the line because their message impugned the grieving family's reputation and unlawfully invaded the Snyders' privacy.

Location, impugnedment of reputation and expectation of privacy all were part of the reason for the verdict.

It shall be interesting reading to see how the courts eventually rule on this issue. However remember one thing civil tort actions does not necessarily equate to hard and fast law.

[Kralizec]

It's probably not a good thing for society when millions of dollars are routinely awarded in damages everytime someone feels hurt in whatever degree or fashion. Initially I was inclined to say that the defendents had it coming. 10 million bucks is an incentive to stop whatever it is you're doing, but since the article mentioned that their possessions are worth only a tiny fraction of that amount it's obviously overkill. And while the late soldier's relatives went through a terrible thing, it's a big stretch to say that they're entitled to become millionaires.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes. You may state what you wish. But you can't state it in a way that invades my privacy, on my property or not. Like the judge found to be the case here.

If you didn't like my camera example, here's another you; you can't legally stand just outside my property and yell things to me. That would still be an invasion of my privacy, even though you're not actually on my property. Where to draw the line however, is something that our politico's and/or judges have to decide. In this case, I'd say it's all very good. It's a funeral, not a street parade passing through his house, which would be something else.

Actually, Virginia law would allow me to stand on the street in front of your home; to take pictures of the exterior of your home, and to talk to you (including insults). This behavior may be rude and/or suspicious, but is not illegal (of itself).

If I were loud and/or vulgar, I might be hauled off for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly behavior" but this would be as a public nuisance, not as a contravention of your property or person.

If I threatened you, that would constitute assault and would get me arrested. If I lead a mom-violent protest against you, marching up and down the street in front of your home, I am only in trouble if I have failed to secure the requisite permit.

[Boyar Son]

Where did the money come from? that false church that praises death?

If they did pay up I hope they go bankrupt and drafted into the military, where they will be posted in the company with the most homosexuals in it.