Comments on: It’s OK to ban ‘God Hates Fags’ protests http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/10/21/it%e2%80%99s-ok-to-ban-%e2%80%98god-hates-fags%e2%80%99-protests/ the gay community's news source Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:16:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Skeeter Sanders http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/10/21/it%e2%80%99s-ok-to-ban-%e2%80%98god-hates-fags%e2%80%99-protests/#comment-6322 Skeeter Sanders Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:42:52 +0000 http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=13875#comment-6322 That the Snyder v. Phelps case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court points to the two biggest loopholes in our existing laws on libel, slander and defamation of character: 1) They don’t allow sanctions for intentionally defaming the soldiers and inflicting emotional distress on their families, even if the targets of such defamation aren’t mentioned by name, and 2) they don’t allow class-action lawsuits.

Were it not for those two loopholes, Snyder and the relatives of other soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan could have sued Westboro for defamation. Their protests at the soldiers’ funerals clearly defamed the soldiers character and that of the soldiers’ families.

]]> By: Doctor Whom http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/10/21/it%e2%80%99s-ok-to-ban-%e2%80%98god-hates-fags%e2%80%99-protests/#comment-6228 Doctor Whom Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:22:41 +0000 http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=13875#comment-6228 The issue isn’t whether rationality in public discourse is a good thing or a bad thing. The issue is whether government should act as a gatekeeper. You refer to “sensible restrictions” and “sane restrictions,” but whom do you trust to define “sensible” and “sane” and to enforce those definitions? Would a rule that any positive mention of homosexuality is per se obscene qualify as sensible and sane? Until 1958, the US Government answered that question in the affirmative.

]]>