Hell has frozen over and pigs fly

and I agree with the Los Angeles Times’ editors.

32 Responses to “Hell has frozen over and pigs fly”

  1. Jersey McJones Says:

    I don’t. Not at funerals. That’s just going too far.

    If these people want to protest, let ‘em protest on the streets, not the funerals of soldiers. It’s inciting violence and is unpeaceable assembly. It’s a miracle that violence hasn’t broken out yet. But it seems to be just a matter of time. It would be grossly irrespobsible not to think otherwise.

    JMJ

  2. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Jersey, they were protesting on the streets…or rather, the sidewalk more than a thousand yards away from the Church where the funeral, in full compliance with the law. So far from being disturbed during his private time of grief at the funeral, the father was totally unaware of the protest until afterwards when he saw the thing on television. That’s what’s so nuts about this ruling. Disturbing the peace? That’s crazy. The attendees hadn’t the faintest clue that the protest was occurring. THAT’S why violence hadn’t broken out. By the time the father was aware of the protest, the protest was over.

  3. Paul Watson Says:

    Craig,
    You’re right. Hell has frozen over. Still at least that means I cna go ice skating when I get sent there.
    You’re also right that free speech means free speech for people saying the unsayable. To quote from the American President that says it quite well: “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”
    So, I fully acknowledge Mr Phelps’ right to free speech, even though I wish God would get pissed at the slander and intervene in a rather Old Testament fashion, I just wish some people would exercise their right to free speech and play the Village People at high volume outside their house non-stop, or non-stop ‘God hates Fred Phelps’ pickets? I’m just tossing out ideas here.

  4. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Paul,

    I second most of that, however playing the Village People at high volume outside their home WOULD be disturbing the peace and would draw unpleasant attention from the police, and the Phelpses wouldn’t be the only one’s complaining.

  5. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Not to mention that playing the Village People at any volume is just disturbing in and of itself.

  6. Dusty Says:

    Jeez..now I have YMCA going through my noggin..thanks guys! ;)

  7. Dusty Says:

    FYI, when your putting a link into your post..if you click the drop down window below it..you can have the link open in a new tab or window folks..that way people can read the link and not have to back track to comment here at BIO..

    I know that the whackjob Fred Phelps has first amendment rights..but I really would love to see him and his church go out of business..sorry but its how I personally feel. Just because you have the right to say it..doesn’t make it right. right?

  8. Paul Watson Says:

    Dusty,
    I thought that wishing God to get Old Testament on his arse made my feelings on that clear. Fred Phelps is free to be a thoroughly unpleasant, homophobic, stain on the arsehole of humanity. It doesn’t make him any less a thoroughly unpleasant, homophobic, stain on the arsehole of humanity, just that we have to put up with him. Well, you do. Fortunately he doesn’t travel.
    And apologies about the song. Although it could be worse. I won’t say how in case I lodge that one in your head too.

  9. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    I’d almost rather YMCA. I’ve had “Build Me Up, Buttercup” running through my head for a while now. I can’t figure why. It’s not like I’m a big fan of The Temptations or of the song, for that matter. Where it came from, I can’t imagine. I haven’t listened to the radio today. Weird.

  10. Dusty Says:

    Freddie Phelps and his ilk are breeding and raising an entire generation of ‘haters’. How is he any different than Hitler and the white supremacists? In my humble opinion he isn’t. and what he spews should not be allowed. Its hate and hate is never right.

    I say I hate Bush..but I know in my heart if I ever came face to face with him, I would not spit in his face or scream at him..I would try to humiliate him by begging him to read the teachings of Christ and to be more like him and less like Dick Cheney…who has no heart or soul..just a ticking time bomb for a heart.

    I also know if Georgie was hurt I would try to help him..then rip him a new one later ;)

  11. Dusty Says:

    Craig..I hate you right now..that song IS worse than YMCA ;)

  12. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    How is Fred Phelps any different than Hitler? Well, to my knowledge he’s never invaded another country or committed genocide in an attempt to rid America of homosexuals. Other than that, no difference worth mentioning.

    So how is “God Hates Fags” any worse than “Dusty Hates Craigs”? :^)

  13. Dusty Says:

    Craig m’dear friend..I didn’t expect you to point out the obvious..I was merely relating the fact that Hitler persecuted Jew’s and anyone else that wasn’t lily white and Christian.

    Hate is too strong a word for what I feel about your choice of music..how about..strongly dislike, turns my stomach inside and out? ;)

    You just had to make it rhyme didn’t ya?

  14. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    On a more serious note, it’s possible that we would differ with respect to Hitler and white-supremacists, Dusty. I think a non-other-country-invading, non-genocidal Hitler and neo-Nazis deserve first amendment protection for their speech just as much as I think Phelps’s “God Hates Fags” speech does so that doesn’t advance us very far. I mean, I’ve never read Mein Kampf but I support the right to publish it and, while I deplore the racist crap the skin-heads spew (the speech, not the violence mind you), I think their right to spew must be protected and countered with speech less vile.

  15. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    That last parenthetical came out badly. I do not mean to say that I do not deplore the violence of skin-heads as much or more than I deplore their speech. I meant to say that, as much as I deplore their speech (and setting aside their violence entirely from consideration at the moment), I think it should be given first amendment protection. The violence is both deplorable and criminal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

  16. Dusty Says:

    Craig, hate speech and hate crimes go hand in hand do they not?

    How can one be protected by the constitution and the other be against the law when the former brings out the latter?

    There is no way to justify hate speech being a protected form of free speech in my pov. Sorry, but we will disagree on this one.

    I don’t know anyone personally that would protect Fred Phelps right to indoctrinate his parishioners about hating gays and lesbians. When you can make a connection between the free speech and a hate crime..then they ALL go down for it. It happened in CA against white supremacists a while back and I was damn happy about it.

  17. Jersey McJones Says:

    Craig,

    “Jersey, they were protesting on the streets…or rather, the sidewalk more than a thousand yards away from the Church where the funeral, in full compliance with the law.”

    I know. They do that at every funeral - on the street beside the cemetary or the church or the funeral home or whatever. It’s still too close, and the intent, given the rhetoric, is tangibly relevent to the place and event. You certainly wouldn’t deny that. Proximity should matter here. It’s one thing to have a protest on the Phelps front lawn every time a soldier dies, it’s another thing to come as close as possible to the memorial ceremony and directly protest with the memory of the deceased.

    “So far from being disturbed during his private time of grief at the funeral, the father was totally unaware of the protest until afterwards when he saw the thing on television.”

    If I’m not mistaken, he was shielded from the ruckus at the time without his knowledge, and he is not the only person relevent to his case - that is to say, the soldier’s funeral was about else and more than the father. Why do you think those bikers have to ride around from funeral to funeral? It’s to shield the mourners from the Phelpsians. Not just fathers.

    “That’s what’s so nuts about this ruling. Disturbing the peace? That’s crazy.”

    If that had happened with my family, believe you me, there would have been serious, serious violence. I’m not beating my chest, or bragging, or internet punking - I’m saying that if it happened to my family, there definitely would have been violence. I don’t care if it was a distant cousin or a friend, or the protest was a mile away or a block. There would have been violence. Had I been there, even as a peripheral actor, and known what was happening, I’d have immediately started physically assailing the protestors, and I’m an otherwise very, surprisingly very, peaceful man.

    “The attendees hadn’t the faintest clue that the protest was occurring. THAT’S why violence hadn’t broken out. By the time the father was aware of the protest, the protest was over.”

    Again, we’ll stay with this particular case as it is the point of your post. This issue is much bigger than just this one case, as you know - which is why you’re debating this, and for that I give you credit for intellectual guts. But from what I understand, other people at the ceremony were aware of the protest. And as for contemporality, the father did eventually become aware, thus changing his perspective and memory of that event. You certainly can’t deny that. A memorial, of any kind, is just that - a memory. If you alter that memory, you alter the event, and thus the whole point of the event. No?

    JMJ

  18. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Dusty,

    I don’t mean to suggest that no speech should be prosecutable. I mean to say that I am comfortable with the Supreme Court’s current stance with regard to speech. Speech that advocates hate is protected. Speech that is intended to and likely to lead to immediate violence or lawless behavior is unprotected. After all, the Declaration of Independence led to the violent expulsion of the legitimate government of England from the US. Does that make the Declaration of Independence into unprotected hate speech? Rhetorical question. Obviously not. Neither does “God Hates Fags” either advocate, is not intended (so far as I can tell) to lead to and does not, in fact, lead to immediate violence or lawless behavior. It does no more than express a point of view of the sort that the Court has protected.

    If “God Hates Fags” is made unprotected speech, then the Bible needs to be banned for those “abomination” passages regarding laying with men as one lays with women. Then any Pastor preaching that homosexuality is a sin can be prosecuted because, while expressed differently, the idea is exactly the same. In other words, if Phelps can be punished with an $11 million dollar law suit, then so can a whole lot of pastors and just plain old Christians and Bible publishers be punished. No thanks. Give me a robust first amendment that protects speech.

    After all, the Phelpses have been doing this for years and, so far as I know, exactly no incidents of violence or lawless behavior has been spawned, hand in hand or otherwise.

  19. Dusty Says:

    Craig, just because you personally dont know of any incidents of violence doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

    Does the name Tom Metzger ring a bell?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Metzger
    The group was eventually bankrupted as the result of a civil lawsuit centered on its involvement in the 1988 murder of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian man who came to the United States to attend college. In 1988, racist skinheads affiliated to WAR were convicted of killing Seraw and sent to prison. Kenneth Mieske said he and the two others killed Seraw “because of his race.”[7] Metzger declared that they did a “civic duty” by killing Seraw.[8] Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a civil suit against him, arguing that WAR influenced Seraw’s killers by encouraging their group East Side White Pride to commit violence.[9][10]

    At the trial, WAR national vice president Dave Mazzella testified how the Metzgers instructed WAR members to commit violence against minorities. Tom and John Metzger were found civilly liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability, in which one can be liable for a tort committed by a subordinate or other person taking instructions. The jury returned the largest civil verdict in Oregon history at the time—$12.5 million—against Metzger and WAR.[11] The Metzgers’ house was seized, and most of WAR’s profits go to paying off the judgment.

    In May 1991, Metzger had to agree to stop selling T-shirts of Bart Simpson in a Nazi uniform with the words “Pure Nazi Dude” and “Total Nazi Dude”.[13] He was convicted in 1991 of burning a cross in 1983, and sentenced to six months in prison and 300 hours community service working with minorities.[14] He was released from prison 46 days into his sentence to be with his critically ill wife, who died after the seizure of his home.[15] In 1992, Metzger and his son violated a court order not to leave the country and entered Canada to speak to the Heritage Front. Soon afterwards, he was arrested for violating Canadian immigration laws by entering the country to “promote racial hatred”.[16] He was summoned at US Treasury Department inquiries concerning racist messages on back side of fake dollar bills.

    Metzger appeared on a 2003 documentary by Briton Louis Theroux, titled “Louis and the Nazis”.

    In recent years, Metzger has advocated the “lone wolf” method of organization for white nationalist groups, which states that a person should not outwardly display his/her racist ideology, but must act covertly.[17] Metzger hosts a weekly radio talk show called Insurgent Radio, on the Internet-based Turner Radio Network (not affiliated with the Turner Broadcasting System) in Temecula, California.
    Metzger still makes payments to Seraw’s family.[18]

    Metzger is a P.O.S..and thankfully the SPLC figured out a way to sick it to him. I hope that they do the same to Freddie Phelps and his clan.

  20. Dusty Says:

    Thats: Stick it to him btw..sorry.

  21. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Jersey,

    Hi! You wrote:

    It’s still too close, and the intent, given the rhetoric, is tangibly relevent to the place and event. You certainly wouldn’t deny that. Proximity should matter here. It’s one thing to have a protest on the Phelps front lawn every time a soldier dies, it’s another thing to come as close as possible to the memorial ceremony and directly protest with the memory of the deceased.

    It is the distance that the SC has set that protesters at abortion clinics must be away from abortion clinics. They have a right to protest. They have the right to protest in the vicinity of the clinic. They do not have a right to block access to the clinic. I suggest that the Supreme Court would (and should) take the same principle in overturning the lawsuit. Look. Every protest group gets as close to the location that is the focus of their protest into consideration when planning a protest. The location is important; perhaps equally as important as the speech involved. It wasn’t enough that the neo-Nazis march; they had to march in Skokie, IL where there is a large community of holocaust survivors. The ACLU, of which you once told me that you are a card-carrying member, defended that group’s right to protest in Skokie. Remember the GOP Convention in NY? Remember when protesters were told where they could and could not protest, i. e., the free-speech zones that the government set up for protesters? It wasn’t enough that those protesting the GOP Remember bitching that telling protesters that they could not protest outside the Convention Center was bullshit? OK. How then do you justify that there should be such zones for the Phelpses? For the record, I think protesters should not have been allowed to block entry to the Convention Center but should have been allowed to protest near enough to be seen and heard by those entering the Convention.

    So

  22. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Rats. the comment got submitted before I was finished. Picking up from “It wasn’t enough that those protesting the GOP…”, I intended to continue with “…protest the GOP; they wanted to protest at the convention site and bitched to high heaven when they were denied that and forced to stay in special “free speech zones. Remember bitching that telling protesters that they could not protest outside the Convention Center was bullshit?…”

  23. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Dusty,

    At the trial, WAR national vice president Dave Mazzella testified how the Metzgers instructed WAR members to commit violence against minorities.

    To me, this is the difference. The Phelpses aren’t even suggesting that anyone should kill anyone, let alone instructing them to do so. And the fact that some nutcase might say that he took “God hates fags” to be an instruction to him that he should kill fags is a long, long way for illogic to travel. The Phelpses are not advocating violence or lawlessness so far as I can tell. If they were, if they said, “Kill All Fags” rather than God hates fags, I’d agree with you but they don’t and anyone taking their speech as an instruction to kill anyone is doing violence to logic and reason. Fred Phelps is not legally responsible for acts of violence against homosexuals any more than the American Bible Society or The Gideons are responsible for such violence for printing and distributing Bibles. There must actually be violence advocacy for such responsibility to be legally attached.

    At least that’s my understanding of current first amendment jurisprudence and that is my position on the matter.

    And yes, as far as I know their speech has not led to any violence but I take it that goes for as far as you know, too, or you would have linked to a report of violence directly connected to the Phelpses protests. In any case, to my knowledge, the rule is that the speech must be such that it is likely to lead to violence or lawlessness. In my opinion, the fact that these protests have been going on for years with neither of us being aware of any violence being immediately caused by such protests is facial evidence that such protests do not, in fact, lead to immediate violence or lawlessness.

  24. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    That last paragraph should read, “In any case, to my knowledge, the rule is that the speech must be such that it is likely to lead to immediate violence or lawlessness.” That is to say, things like inciting riots by shouting “Let’s burn this town to the ground” to an angry crowd of people, saying “Let’s lynch the n****r from the nearest tree” to a gang of bigots inclined to do so, or “We whites must kill blacks if our society is to survive; go do it!” That sort of thing.

  25. Jersey McJones Says:

    Hi Craig,

    “It is the distance that the SC has set that protesters at abortion clinics must be away from abortion clinics.”

    Abortion and funerals are two different things. People die. Embryos are aborted. You can’t memorialize someone who’s never existed.

    Let’s stick with the particulars of these cases. Also, I would love you to address some of the other questions I raised, like the contemporality of memorium.

    JMJ

  26. Jersey McJones Says:

    Oh, and also, a funeral, by definition, is a personal family ceremony, not a public event albeit usually “in” public. I can not see where the right to public protest falls into private ceremonies.

    JMJ

  27. me Says:

    Abortion and funerals are two different things. People die. Embryos are aborted. You can’t memorialize someone who’s never existed.

    And in being aborted, a living organism dies. Sorry Jersey, but your denying that anything dies in an abortion doesn’t make it so but that is entirely beside the point that I am making. What is important to me here is the enumerated constitutional right to (a) peacefully assemble, (b) express one’s point of view, (c) engage in religious expression and (d) seek redress of grievances from the government, all four of which the Phelpses are doing. There is no law that the Phelpses cannot do these things near a Church that is conducting a funeral and if there were such a law, assuming the Phelpses were not blocking entrance to the Church or protesting loudly such that the din they were making made the conduct of the service difficult to impossible, that law would be unconstitutional. The Phelpses took pains to stay away from the Church at least the same distance that abortion protesters have been required to stay away from clinics, i. e., given the current rulings from the Supreme Court, they did everything they could be expected to do to make sure that their protest was a lawful one. Beyond that, I don’t see any room for us to draw to any agreement. You think that the fact that the Phelpses are protesting near a Church at which a funeral is being conducted is sufficient cause to infringe upon the Phelpses first amendment rights (four, count them, four of them) and I do not. There is no enumerated constitutional right not to have jack-asses protest outside of a Church in which a funeral is being performed. That is no more than a cultural norm, one that the Phelpses are thumbing their noses at, no question about it, but they are absolutely exercising their Constitutional rights.

    As to your point about funerals being private, again, I disagree. Even if the funeral were a private affair taking place in a private home, the Phelpses were not in the home or in the Church. They were outside of the Church in a completely public place: the sidewalk, a place that has been recognized both in statute and in case law as a public forum for the airing of opinion. I know you disagree with me and I am not, at this point, trying to convince you that I’m right and you are wrong; I’m merely pointing out my reasons for thinking the way that I do on this particular issue. As I said, I see no hope of our agreeing on this matter. I’ll just say that this is what I think and why I believe that, if the case gets appealed, the jury’s ruling will be overturned and why that overturning will be upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.

    We disagree and I’ll leave it at that.

    I’m not sure what you mean by the contemporality of memorium. If you explain, I may have a better idea what you mean and why you think it relevant.

  28. Jersey McJones Says:

    “And in being aborted, a living organism dies”

    A funeral is a memorial ceremony for one who has already passed. It is not an excution. Abortion and funerals have nothing in common.

    “What is important to me here is the enumerated constitution al right to (a) peacefully assemble, (b) express one’s point of view, (c) engage in religious expression and (d) seek redress of grievances from the government, all four of which the Phelpses are doing.”

    A) It is not peaceable, and it is a miracle that no violence has erupted yet.

    B) FIne.

    C) Fine.

    D) They are not petitioning the government for redress. They are harrassing people at funerals.

    “There is no law that the Phelpses cannot do these things…”

    Soon there will be. In the meantime, harrassment suits should do.

    “As to your point about funerals being private, again, I disagree.”

    One can have privacy in a public place. In your car, in your personal spce, etc. This is not new to the law.

    “They were outside of the Church in a completely public place: the sidewalk, a place that has been recognized both in statute and in case law as a public forum for the airing of opinion.”

    They are intentionally harrassing funeral processions, Craig. Distance here may be arguable, but it is inarguable what they are doing and what is their intent. Distance can be regulated and has been.

    “I’m not sure what you mean by the contemporali ty of memorium. If you explain, I may have a better idea what you mean and why you think it relevant.”

    What I mean is that the memory of a memorial is part and parcel of that memorial. Whether the memorial is ruined at the time, or later, either way it has been abused.

    JMJ

  29. me Says:

    Jersey,

    Regarding (a), in my opinion, so long as the Phelpses are not rowdy, riotoous or excessively noisy (and I’ve been witness to some pretty loud and rowdy protests; what the Phelpses are doing is nohwere near it), their assembly is peaceable. The fact that you would start a fight over their protest does not make their assembly anything other than peaceable. It makes your behavior unpeaceable and, likely, unlawful and actionable in court.

    Regarding (d), I simply disagree. Their protest is not really with the soldier who died or with the family of the soldier. What they are protesting is that America is so accepting of homosexuals. That is their stated reason for protesting, for believing that soldiers are dying. That means that the Phelpses’ protest is at least partially with the laws and policies of the government so they are seeking redress of grievances. The reason that they are protesting at funerals rather than at the White House or Capital building is, presumably, that that is where they feel their protest will get the most publicity and have the greatest effectiveness. They may be mistaken in this belief but I’m pretty sure that that’s their rational. In Washington, they’d be just one more group of protesters. Near a funeral, they’re news (or more likely to be news). So I still count four rights being exercised by the Phelpses but even by your count, they’re exercising two so I really don’t see how you think you’ve gained any ground here. Even if it were only one right, a right’s a right and it trumps the cultural norm that their protest offends.

    And, as I say, in my opinion, any laws passed to outlaw what the Phelpses are doing are unconstitutional and will be found to be such by the Court. The Supreme Court is just way more solicitous of protesters’ rights than you seem to think. Free speech is about as absolute a right as exists in law. It isn’t absolute but there’s very few exceptions and this just isn’t anywhere near being one in my opinion.

    You call it harassment, I don’t. I call it peaceable assembly and protest. By your definition, protesters outside the White House are harassing the President. Protesters outside the Capital building are harassing Congress. I don’t see it. So long as they are not blocking the procession to or from the Church or graveyard, they aren’t harassing anyone. They are exercising their enumerated constitutional rights.

    As you say, distance can be regulated. I agree. So far, the Court has set the distance at which protesters may be kept from the place of their protest. They haven’t spoken with regard to proximity to funeral services and they may decide to set a minimum distance that is different from the distance that they’ve set from abortion clinics. I doubt that they will but my crystal ball is on the fritz at the moment so I can’t say with any kind of certainty but I believe that they will keep the same distance for funeral protests as they have for abortion clinic protests. Why? Just because I really don’t see them making up a separate rule. If they do, they do. If they do, the Phelpses will abide by the rule just as they currently abide by the current rules and laws.

    So then, by your contemporainity doctrine, even if the Phelpses protested a soldier’s funeral from their own front lawn, a thousand miles away from the site of the funeral, if the news broadcast a story about the protest and the family saw the new broadcast, their memorial would be ruined and they could sue the Phelpses. If that’s the case, then it really doesn’t matter how far away the Phelpses are, by your rule, the Phelpses simply cannot protest soldiers’ funerals from anywhere on earth because there is some chance that news of their protest might get back to the family, ruin their memorial after the fact and be legally open to suit. That’s just way, way too far. Even the Phelpses have rights in this country. I don’t buy that notion at all.

  30. me Says:

    Of course, I’m not a lawyer, let alone an expert in Constitutional law. Eugene Volokh, on the other hand, is both. He, in fact, is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law where he teaches, among other things, free speech law. That would make him an expert in exactly the field of first amendment law that I am arguing here. He agrees with me…okay, I’m kidding. He’s the expert. I agree with him. Agree with him about what? Eugene has posted a bunch of posts, all collected here and posted in chronological order of posting, explaining why

    (a) the intentional infliction of distress tort law, if applied to the sort of speech that the Phelpses have engaged in, is unconstitutional on first amendment grounds;

    (b) ably explains why the intentional infliction of distress tort law is unconstitutionally overbroad;

    explains why nothing in the case “involves the sort of disclosure of highly embarrassing personal information (e.g., medical or sexual history) generally required for liability[]”;

    (d) why none of the Phelpses speech qualifies as fighting words;

    (e) why laws against what the Phelpses do would be unconstitutional;

    (f) why jury discretion in such cases leads to very bad consequences that go well beyond the Phelps case;

    (g) why tort awards in law suits of this sort entail the first amendment even though it is a civil suit by a private person against another private person (i. e., even though the government is not a party in the suit or prosecuting a criminal case);

    and (h) why allowing such a judgment as that against the Phelpses to stand could be a very slippery slope.

    Not only does Professor Volokh explain the law and consequences much better than I, he does it much more authoritatively than I. That is, whereas you can ignore everything I say on the basis that I’m an ignoramus who knows not his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the issues that I’ve been discussing (guilty as charged), Prof. Volokh cannot so easily be dismissed (unless you happen to be a ConLaw prof. at, say, Harvard or Yale). You may still be unpersuaded by his arguments but his arguments must at least be taken seriously and argued away on at least as authoritative a basis as the arguments he offers.

    With this, I believe I’ll withdraw from the argument. I have nothing to add to Professor Volokh’s posts. If you wish to argue with him, his blog allows comments and he, his fellow bloggers and the many legal scholars who comment will, I’m sure, be more than happy to discuss these issues with you if you are civil and serious in your comments and questions. I mean, how often do you get to discuss constitutional law with an honest to God constitutional expert from a university that charges students real money to sit in his class and learn from him? You get to learn for free.

    What a bargain!

  31. me Says:

    Yes, yes, I failed to label the third point with the label (c).

  32. Jersey McJones Says:

    Mark my words, Craig, the ruling will stand. This is harrassment and inciting of violence. You can rationalize this all you like, but it still stands as harrassment and incitation. It is as obvious as the nose on your face (I assume you have one).

    JMJ

Leave a Reply


Fish.Travel