Nail on head.

I just saw this for the first time today. It's quite humorous.

haha my friend has all of the Awful Truth's on DVD.. pretty funny stuff

i'd love to see someone set up a metal festival next to their church

bring in all the bands with strong satanic themes to their lyrics

Aaaaand they wouldn't care.

'Nuff said

You're correct. Professional trolls sounds like a good name.

I also found this on TV Tropes:

Hahaha... you got problems when the KKK doesn't want to be associated with you

My whole family is filled with veterans. I'm the only person my age in my extended family not serving.

So you're just an ******* without an excuse then?

I'm going to school first before considering service.

I don't even think my grandfather would have been too terribly bothered by flag burning. But if he were alive he'd probably punch me for owning anything Japanese.

Harassment can mean a few different things in a legal context, but none of them are really applicable here. The claim that's closest to what you're thinking of (and the most important of the claims Snyder filed against Phelps) is intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's established when 1) there's outrageous conduct 2) that causes extreme emotional distress and 3) the person responsible for the conduct intends to cause that distress or knows it's likely that his conduct will cause that distress.

It'd be a perfect fit, except that it's almost certainly unconstitutional when applied to protected speech, and Phelps' speech is protected because, as ridiculous and offensive as it is, it's still political speech about a matter of public concern. The last thing we need is to have juries deciding whether political speech is "outrageous" and awarding huge damages ($5 million initially in this case) based on those determinations.

Snyder also sued for invasion of privacy. That doesn't work at all because he was totally unaware of the protesters' presence until he saw video of the protests on the news later that day.

As an aside, this case is a pretty good introduction to what's wrong with a generalized "loser pays" provision. Such provisions are supposed to discourage frivolous lawsuits, but there's already ample disincentive to file a frivolous lawsuit: litigation is expensive, and you're going to lose. Instead these provisions end up catching plaintiffs like Snyder. Snyder's going to lose, but 1) he won at trial, and 2) there was enough uncertainty over his claim that the Supreme Court is taking it up. So, um, way to go tort reform.

hey pot the kettle told me to let you know you're also black

It's still pretty scumbag douchery to me. Litigation cost governments lots of $$ and needlessly ties up the courts. A court can't turn down the lawsuit because otherwise, it could be argued that the court wasn't protecting their free speech. Which would open up a cluster****.

"Yeah we really didn't mean all that **** we said, we actually don't mind gay people. We just wanted to make money off of suing your asses"

I think that sounds like a good explanation for their unworthy cause, and its to bad that phelps (doesnt deserve capitalization) was a civil rights attorney. I know that two wrongs dont make a right but I think he needs to eat a bullet.

No i was sexually abused my pedophile priests as a young boy. That's my excuse

For almost certainly the first time in the history of Massassi, I'm in 100% agreement with Jon`C.

But anyway, the suffering they will receive in the afterlife will be infinitely greater than the suffering they've caused while on earth. In the mean time, all we can do is send our thoughts and prayers out to their victims.

I think that the real victims here are the children that are under their control. I think it's time we put an end to this concept that we have of children being the property of their parents as long as they're not physically harmed. It's unfortunate that our constitution supports the business of religion simply because Christianity & Deism were fashionable at the time. I hope that the pope gets what's coming to him so that we can let the religious around the world know that we're not putting up w/ your bull**** anymore. </RANT>

Really? I think they're surrounded by loving family members, have a lot of nice things, and will probably grow up to become lawyers making a hundred times whatever you make.

Who gets to decide what kinds of upbringings are abusive? The average American is white, straight, protestant and moderate-conservative. Should they get to decide? Why or why not?

i.e. In your ridiculous world you would not be allowed to raise your own children, because you're an atheist and you'll send your kids to hell.

The constitution exists to protect American citizens from a tyranny of the majority, not so you can use it as your personal wank rag.

Angry atheism is basically on the same level of sentience as evangelism, but knock yourself out you precious snowflake.

The word "snowflake" has been getting thrown around a lot. Good stuff.

He must have hated John Lennon.