There may be Justice after all!

wilthrill · 11-01-2007, 08:25 AM

Two stories yesterday actually made me feel good about our system of justice.

Marine's dad wins suit against protesters*-*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

First, those DEGENERATES led by self-proclaimed "fag-hater" Fred Phelps were held liable for their outrageous conduct at the funerals of our service men killed in Iraq. I hope the judgment bankrupts that "church"!!!

Second, Judge Fancy Pants got fired yesterday.

WorldNetDaily: $54 million pants judge gets kick in pants

Yes folks I will state unequivocally that ANY judge who thinks one pair of pants is worth $54 million should be fired immediately because they obviously don't understand the law. Hell, even Dr Evil upon awakening from the 1960's had a better understanding of the value of money, said with pinky in corner of mouth "that will be one MILLION dollars, Mr. Powers".

there may be hope after all......

wilthrill · 11-01-2007, 08:53 AM

And here is another promising development....

WorldNetDaily: Court blasts district 'gay' appeasement policy

So in Kentucky a group of students wanted to start a gay/straight alliance club. A christian student disagreed and wanted to have his say but was told by the school to shut up. He sued claiming a first amendment right to express his view. The trial court granted a summary judgment for the school which means the school won. The court of appeals REVERSED the trial court and reinstated the kid's suit.

The school had put out a videotape explaining it's policy. From the article:
The ban on Morrison's expression of his faith was contained in the school policy, the ADF noted, then stated explicitly in the video the school prepared and presented to students about diversity.

"We all get self-centered and start to think that our way is the right way and our way is the correct way. We all want to believe that we have evidence that our way is the correct way…" a "clinical psychologist" appearing on the video stated.

"So … no matter where you go, no matter what you do, no matter who you meet, you are going to find people that you don't like. You're going to find people that you disagree with. You're going to find people that you don't like the way they act. It can't be avoided, not, not anywhere in the world, it can't be avoided. You're going to find people that you believe are absolutely wrong. You're going to think … That is so wrong … But here is the kicker, just because you believe, just because you don't like them, just because you disagree with them, just because you believe they are wrong, wholeheartedly, absolutely, they are wrong. Just because you believe that DOES NOT GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't require that you do anything. You just respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone. THERE IS NOT PERMISSION FOR YOU TO POINT IT OUT TO THEM."

Liberals used to say, "I may disagree with you but I will fight for your right to speak".

Now they say, "if you don't agree with us shut up".

So who is really INTOLERANT here????

Liberals are FAR MORE INTOLERANT than ANY conservative!!!!!

Mikael · 11-01-2007, 11:51 AM

I don't get it. Is the kid simply protesting this "alliance's" existence and getting in trouble for it? Or, is he getting in trouble for trying to stop this group from forming?
Good news on the other issues, though.

wilthrill · 11-02-2007, 08:11 AM

Actually this is a prior restraint case.

The gay/straight kids wanted to form the group. The school said no. The ACLU threatened to sue. The school compromised with the ACLU in that school still did not allow the group but put a "hate speech" code into place forbidding the expression of negative opinions about homosexuality. This christian kid saw that as a restraint on his speech and sued.

From the article:
The ACLU worked on the school's policies after officials refused to allow students to start a "Gay Straight Alliance" organization. In an agreement to end a lawsuit over the decision, the district adopted a speech code that defined harassment as "the use of language … in such manner as to be commonly understood to convey hatred, contempt, or prejudice or to have the effect of insulting or stigmatizing an individual," and prescribing punishment for such actions.

The speech code, however, triggered a lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Morrison, who feared punishment if he expressed his Christian-based disapproval of homosexuality.

The courts take a VERY DIM view of prior restraint of free speech. Now I know the court has allowed schools to censor some speech (t-shirts with pro-drug or pro gang messages etc) and the school can certainly stop INTIMIDATION (i.e. I'm gonna kill all you fags) but I don't see how any court can uphold the SILENCING of ONE SIDE of a controversial issue especially in advance with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a danger to the public, or the school.

11-01-2007, 08:25 AM	#1 (permalink)
wilthrill Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 818 Rep Power: 44	There may be Justice after all! Two stories yesterday actually made me feel good about our system of justice. Marine's dad wins suit against protesters--*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper First, those DEGENERATES led by self-proclaimed "fag-hater" Fred Phelps were held liable for their outrageous conduct at the funerals of our service men killed in Iraq. I hope the judgment bankrupts that "church"!!! Second, Judge Fancy Pants got fired yesterday. WorldNetDaily: $54 million pants judge gets kick in pants Yes folks I will state unequivocally that ANY judge who thinks one pair of pants is worth $54 million should be fired immediately because they obviously don't understand the law. Hell, even Dr Evil upon awakening from the 1960's had a better understanding of the value of money, said with pinky in corner of mouth "that will be one MILLION dollars, Mr. Powers". there may be hope after all......

11-01-2007, 11:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mikael Band Member Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Down In a Hole Posts: 905 Rep Power: 43	I don't get it. Is the kid simply protesting this "alliance's" existence and getting in trouble for it? Or, is he getting in trouble for trying to stop this group from forming? Good news on the other issues, though. __________________ I just saved a ton of money on car insurance by switching to no car insurance!!! www.myspace.com/13468360

11-01-2007, 08:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
wilthrill Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 818 Rep Power: 44	And here is another promising development.... WorldNetDaily: Court blasts district 'gay' appeasement policy So in Kentucky a group of students wanted to start a gay/straight alliance club. A christian student disagreed and wanted to have his say but was told by the school to shut up. He sued claiming a first amendment right to express his view. The trial court granted a summary judgment for the school which means the school won. The court of appeals REVERSED the trial court and reinstated the kid's suit. The school had put out a videotape explaining it's policy. From the article: The ban on Morrison's expression of his faith was contained in the school policy, the ADF noted, then stated explicitly in the video the school prepared and presented to students about diversity. "We all get self-centered and start to think that our way is the right way and our way is the correct way. We all want to believe that we have evidence that our way is the correct way…" a "clinical psychologist" appearing on the video stated. "So … no matter where you go, no matter what you do, no matter who you meet, you are going to find people that you don't like. You're going to find people that you disagree with. You're going to find people that you don't like the way they act. It can't be avoided, not, not anywhere in the world, it can't be avoided. You're going to find people that you believe are absolutely wrong. You're going to think … That is so wrong … But here is the kicker, just because you believe, just because you don't like them, just because you disagree with them, just because you believe they are wrong, wholeheartedly, absolutely, they are wrong. Just because you believe that DOES NOT GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't require that you do anything. You just respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone. THERE IS NOT PERMISSION FOR YOU TO POINT IT OUT TO THEM." Liberals used to say, "I may disagree with you but I will fight for your right to speak". Now they say, "if you don't agree with us shut up". So who is really INTOLERANT here???? Liberals are FAR MORE INTOLERANT than ANY conservative!!!!!

11-02-2007, 08:11 AM	#4 (permalink)
wilthrill Band Whore Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 818 Rep Power: 44	Actually this is a prior restraint case. The gay/straight kids wanted to form the group. The school said no. The ACLU threatened to sue. The school compromised with the ACLU in that school still did not allow the group but put a "hate speech" code into place forbidding the expression of negative opinions about homosexuality. This christian kid saw that as a restraint on his speech and sued. From the article: The ACLU worked on the school's policies after officials refused to allow students to start a "Gay Straight Alliance" organization. In an agreement to end a lawsuit over the decision, the district adopted a speech code that defined harassment as "the use of language … in such manner as to be commonly understood to convey hatred, contempt, or prejudice or to have the effect of insulting or stigmatizing an individual," and prescribing punishment for such actions. The speech code, however, triggered a lawsuit by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Morrison, who feared punishment if he expressed his Christian-based disapproval of homosexuality. The courts take a VERY DIM view of prior restraint of free speech. Now I know the court has allowed schools to censor some speech (t-shirts with pro-drug or pro gang messages etc) and the school can certainly stop INTIMIDATION (i.e. I'm gonna kill all you fags) but I don't see how any court can uphold the SILENCING of ONE SIDE of a controversial issue especially in advance with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a danger to the public, or the school.