God Hates Fags
There are actual legal definitions that are on the books and have been around for years about harassment. And other cases that set precedence as well. This one ruling is not going to change our world as we know it.Mandy wrote:The government can twist the argument about what constitutes harassment to effectively bar all protests, demonstrations and free speech.
The government might be doing some things it shouldn't right now, and it always has. But there are certain things they cannot do. I am sorry, but I look at our time right now in American history and I don't see it being as bad as it was during the McCarthy era. Not to mention too many Americans are aware of what is being done wrong and have been open about it.
They are not killing the Constitution with this ruling. If anything they are making sure that everyone is being allowed "their pursuit of happiness" as represented in the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of speech is allowed yes, but it should not go this far. It is no longer freedom of speech and becomes harassment.
I am a Naomi Wolfe fan. She made a speech
"Fascist America, in 10 easy steps"
https://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
I think it is covered in the Galloway thread.
Rulings like this, and acceptance (and even promotion) of the ruling by the left is part of the process oiling the wheels of the machine pushing America deeper into fascism.
"Fascist America, in 10 easy steps"
https://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
I think it is covered in the Galloway thread.
Rulings like this, and acceptance (and even promotion) of the ruling by the left is part of the process oiling the wheels of the machine pushing America deeper into fascism.
I think they will appeal and win. Though Bush is in a dilemma whether to support the war families, or the Christian fundamentalists who are his core supporter (but are now likely to defect to Hilary Clinton). Actually, Bush doesn't care about the families .. so that tells you the cunts will win in the courts.
And the problem is we on the left are looked upon as cunts by the right wing. We are next.
And the problem is we on the left are looked upon as cunts by the right wing. We are next.
I won't be protesting at any funerals, or anything else that is equally as distasteful. The law in Scotland can already deal with such situations quickly and easily - through the use of the offence of 'Breach Of The Peace' which can be applied to any situation really.
It works well enough in as much as we don't get scum like Phelps parading about. In fact, if they tried it here in glasgow they wouldn't need to be laws to protect the public - the public would set about them and that would be that.
It works well enough in as much as we don't get scum like Phelps parading about. In fact, if they tried it here in glasgow they wouldn't need to be laws to protect the public - the public would set about them and that would be that.
Didn't they try to make protests illegal at Gleneagles when there was some G7 or other "top-level" meeting ?faceless wrote:through the use of the offence of 'Breach Of The Peace' which can be applied to any situation really.
They may very well have used that same "Breach of The Peace" law.
FYI, if all else has failed, then protesting at a funeral (e.g. if protesting to get all troops out to save more soldiers lives) might be defendable if it would stir the establishment, and get media coverage. After all, million + marches had no effect.
They insist these days that a licence is applied for and given. But that's only relevant if the situation gets out of control. I used to take part in the unofficial May Day march that was on here every year and while the police knew it was happening, there was never any real trouble so it was tolerated and because it wasn't organised by anyone in particular there was no one to charge as such.
The police know that if you don't let people have a chance to let off steam that it can ferment, though one time they lost their cool and tried to charge me with 'malicious littering' of all things.
The police know that if you don't let people have a chance to let off steam that it can ferment, though one time they lost their cool and tried to charge me with 'malicious littering' of all things.
-
eefanincan
- Admin
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:05 pm
- Location: Canada
"injury to feeling is a sick joke"?????? Just because you can't see or touch "feelings" does not make them any less important or valid than "real physical suffering". In my opionion it's even more damaging than a physical injury. Physical injuries leave visible scars, sores, etc. whereas those with emotional injury are often left to bear it in silence --- and for years and years after the "physical suffering" you mention heals. That doesn't make it any less real or damaging. Will millions of dollars heal that? Probably not, but if it lessens some other worries for the individuals who were granted the award, then so be it. More power to them.Mandy wrote: The news is so full of real hurt and real injury, that injury to feeling is a sick joke to me when there is so much real physical suffering out there.
But where did the money go? Did it all go to this one guy who sued? Or was it a fine, in which case it goes to the state?Mandy wrote:I meant that the news is so full of real hurt and real injury, which ALSO leads to injury to feeling, that giving millions in damages for "just" injury to feelings is a sick joke.
I can honestly say that most of the money probably goes to lawyer fees. They wouldn't have come cheap. Then it depends on how it is all settled.nekokate wrote:But where did the money go? Did it all go to this one guy who sued? Or was it a fine, in which case it goes to the state?Mandy wrote:I meant that the news is so full of real hurt and real injury, which ALSO leads to injury to feeling, that giving millions in damages for "just" injury to feelings is a sick joke.
30% to 50% probably goes to lawyers if they were hired on a contingency basis, else if on a straight fee basis then probaly $100,000 - $1M would go to lawyers.
Rest goes to the person who sued .. and NOT to the state.
As a measure of relative value : "In a groundbreaking move, the Pentagon is compensating servicemen seriously hurt when an American tank convoy forced them off the road"
https://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st ... ss&feed=12
The US government paid approx £100,000 each to :
Staff Sergeant Rogerson suffered head and spinal injuries. Allahou, who lives in Folkestone, Kent, with his British wife and had volunteered to work as a translator for the army, is said to be suffering long-term effects. Corporal Smith has made a good recovery and is now serving in Afghanistan.
Then after deducting the lawyers' fees, they probably got VERY LITTLE.
This is the injustice / inconsistency in the US : If you are suing the "establishment", you get peanuts, whilst if you get sued when you are anti-establishment, then you get these huge fines.
And here we have some who cheering a minority being possibly bankrupted (and effectively saying "serves them right") because we don't like that minority ourselves. We have to defend that minority's civil/constitutional rights in order that, when minorities we support are similarly fined, then we are not accused of hypocrisy when we THEN complain.
Rest goes to the person who sued .. and NOT to the state.
As a measure of relative value : "In a groundbreaking move, the Pentagon is compensating servicemen seriously hurt when an American tank convoy forced them off the road"
https://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st ... ss&feed=12
The US government paid approx £100,000 each to :
Staff Sergeant Rogerson suffered head and spinal injuries. Allahou, who lives in Folkestone, Kent, with his British wife and had volunteered to work as a translator for the army, is said to be suffering long-term effects. Corporal Smith has made a good recovery and is now serving in Afghanistan.
Then after deducting the lawyers' fees, they probably got VERY LITTLE.
This is the injustice / inconsistency in the US : If you are suing the "establishment", you get peanuts, whilst if you get sued when you are anti-establishment, then you get these huge fines.
And here we have some who cheering a minority being possibly bankrupted (and effectively saying "serves them right") because we don't like that minority ourselves. We have to defend that minority's civil/constitutional rights in order that, when minorities we support are similarly fined, then we are not accused of hypocrisy when we THEN complain.
30% to 50%? Most lawyers in these cases take 60% to 80% depending on if they were paid before. That's why you even see the ads on TV "no fee unless you win". A lot of lawyers on these big cases will take a retainer fee (and not a large one) and then not be paid until after the case. So if you win, they take more than 50%.Mandy wrote:30% to 50% probably goes to lawyers if they were hired on a contingency basis, else if on a straight fee basis then probaly $100,000 - $1M would go to lawyers.