OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 03:25:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
 31 
 on: Today at 01:48:34 PM 
Started by xariskai - Last post by Jonathan Gress
"I thought the point of that was that public figures cannot sue for libel or slander. The parents of the fallen marine could hardly be called public figures."

You are applying apples to oranges. How and whether you can sue for libel or slander depends on whether the Defendant is a public figure. Or not. Many other defenses may apply as well.

Whether you can sue for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (hereinafter "IIED") uses a different analytical schemata. IIED is not concerned with the truth or falsity of a statement,  but focuses on the subjective EFFECT that conduct or expression has on its target. Even att first blush, it would seem obvious that IIED could be easily used to to evade the strictures erected to protect speech on matters or "public concern" or where the person is a "public figure" or "public person." And that is precisely what the Supreme Court saw its way past. The mere form of the law used to restrict speech cannot not so easily be used to evade the First Amendment.

So it is irrelevant from the standpoint of grieving relatives whether or not they are "public figures," since the rotten, disgusting "speech" of the Westboro Baptist Church cannot reasonably be seen as "truth" or "falsity" as applied to the deceased combat hero.

I'm afraid I don't understand your reply. You're saying that Rev Falwell cannot sue for emotional distress since he is a public figure; you admit that was SCOTUS' reasoning for overturning the lower verdict in his favor. But then you contradict yourself when you say the family of the fallen marine had no standing to sue for emotional distress on the grounds that they were private individiuals.

 32 
 on: Today at 01:43:24 PM 
Started by MarianCatholic - Last post by Paisius

Ok, I have decided to attend the Divine liturgy at Sunday.
I look forward to it, but have to admit that am a bit anxious about the whole thing too as I haven't been to an Orthodox Church ever before...

Is there anything I need to keep in mind upon attending?
And how do I approach the priest afterwards?
 
Does he walk into the sanctuary after the liturgy and all I have to do is to walk up to him or is it like I have to walk to his office?

I'm a bit introverted so this isn't easy for me to be honest...
Feedback is highly appreciated:)

Thanks.





I would probably just stand in the back and expect a lot more "busyness" than what you see at a typical Mass. People will be walking in, lighting candles, bowing and crossing themselves constantly, facing different directions, kissing icons etc. Also don't worry about doing something wrong. If you aren't behaving like everyone else no one notices and no one will be offended. As to meeting the priest if you can work up the courage to kiss the cross after liturgy that's a great place to say hi. Unless it's a really large parish he will recognize you are new and may find you afterwards. If not just hang around and grab him after liturgy.

 33 
 on: Today at 01:43:14 PM 
Started by xariskai - Last post by LarryP2
"I thought the point of that was that public figures cannot sue for libel or slander. The parents of the fallen marine could hardly be called public figures."

You are applying apples to oranges. How and whether you can sue for libel or slander depends on whether the Defendant is a public figure. Or not. Many other defenses may apply as well. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress protects hurt feelings. It does not prohibit false statements like libel and slander.

Whether you can sue for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (hereinafter "IIED") uses an entirely different First Amendment analytical schemata than does libel and slander. IIED is not concerned with the truth or falsity of a statement,  but focuses on the subjective EFFECT that conduct or expression has on its intended target. Even at first blush, it seems obvious that IIED could be easily used to to evade the strictures erected to protect speech, as applied to other types of odious speech.  And that is precisely what the Supreme Court saw its way past. The mere form of the law used to restrict speech cannot not so easily be used to evade the First Amendment.

So it is irrelevant from the standpoint of grieving relatives whether or not they are "public figures," since the rotten, disgusting "speech" of the Westboro Baptist Church cannot reasonably be seen as "truth" or "falsity" as applied to the deceased combat hero. It is not libel to condemn a combat hero to hell. It is designed to inflict emotional pain and suffering. The First Amendment does not protect your feelings. It is too important for that.

 34 
 on: Today at 01:36:09 PM 
Started by EkhristosAnesti - Last post by minasoliman
While on earth, we build the house which will be ours when we enter heaven.  We build it with our life, our deeds, our attitude, and our strife.

HG Bishop Youannis of Gharbia, 1974 (+1987)

 35 
 on: Today at 01:34:49 PM 
Started by MarianCatholic - Last post by MarianCatholic

Ok, I have decided to attend the Divine liturgy at Sunday.
I look forward to it, but have to admit that am a bit anxious about the whole thing too as I haven't been to an Orthodox Church ever before...

Is there anything I need to keep in mind upon attending?
And how do I approach the priest afterwards?
 
Does he walk into the sanctuary after the liturgy and all I have to do is to walk up to him or is it like I have to walk to his office?

I'm a bit introverted so this isn't easy for me to be honest...
Feedback is highly appreciated:)

Thanks.


 36 
 on: Today at 01:32:02 PM 
Started by xariskai - Last post by Jonathan Gress

Consider this: shouting offensive slogans at someone's funeral ought to be considered "intentional infliction of emotional distress", a tort under civil law and not protected by the First Amendment. It's not obvious to me that the WB's behavior at those funerals should have been allowed or that they should have been protected from a lawsuit.

WRONG!

Read Jerry Falwell v. Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, et al. In that case, Hustler magazine - that fine paragon of journalistic integrity - ran an "advertisement" alleging the Rev. Jerry Falwell once got dead drunk, then had sex with a goat and his own mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued Hustler for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" and won a sizable money judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and ruled that the First Amendment clearly protects such appalling and disgusting "journalism." The tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress could not be used to skirt around the Court's jurisprudence that held that traditional torts of libel and slander are now frequently protected speech under the First Amendment.

By the way, Larry Flynt in all of his various wins before the Supreme Court on First Amendment cases, also set the record for convictions for contempt. He hated judges and judges hated him, but they both agreed that the First Amendment must be inviolate.

I thought the point of that was that public figures cannot sue for libel or slander. The parents of the fallen marine could hardly be called public figures.

 37 
 on: Today at 01:27:22 PM 
Started by EkhristosAnesti - Last post by minasoliman
The Church does not serve society, but serves faith, serving Christ in the person of thsoe naked, hmliated, and homeless.

Fr. Matta al Maskeen, 1963 (+2006)

 38 
 on: Today at 01:25:44 PM 
Started by Ilwain - Last post by Mor Ephrem
Quote
And we know that Christ Himself is called the first fruits in I Cor. 15:20 - "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep." And for the Orthodox the Paschal celebration centers upon that resurrection of our Lord, moreso than upon His death.

No, it doesn't.
Can you elaborate on this, Mor?  I always thought Holy Week was the time that we contemplated the suffering and death of Christ and then Pascha was when we celebrated the Resurrection.

The problem is that we--as individuals and communities--tend to think of these events as specific points on a time line, and so we celebrate them in that way.  But the liturgical texts and rites presume that, even while focusing on a particular "moment", we have the whole in mind.  So it's not surprising to see "Lenten/Holy Week" texts which celebrate the Resurrection, and "Paschal" texts which speak of the Passion and the Cross.  Not only is it not surprising, but it is necessary.  When we separate these too much, we misunderstand each as well as the whole.  The common stereotype, for example, is that Roman Catholicism is more focused on the Passion and Orthodoxy on the Resurrection, and this may be true on a popular level, but in terms of the liturgy, it's true for neither.  We need to recover that balance wherever it has been lost.   

 39 
 on: Today at 01:25:30 PM 
Started by xariskai - Last post by LarryP2

Consider this: shouting offensive slogans at someone's funeral ought to be considered "intentional infliction of emotional distress", a tort under civil law and not protected by the First Amendment. It's not obvious to me that the WB's behavior at those funerals should have been allowed or that they should have been protected from a lawsuit.

WRONG!

Read Jerry Falwell v. Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, et al. In that case, Hustler magazine - that fine paragon of journalistic integrity - ran an "advertisement" alleging the Rev. Jerry Falwell once got dead drunk, then had sex with a goat and his own mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued Hustler for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" and won a sizable money judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and ruled that the First Amendment clearly protects such appalling and disgusting "journalism." The tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress could not be used to skirt around the Court's jurisprudence that held that traditional torts of libel and slander are now frequently protected speech under the First Amendment.

By the way, Larry Flynt in all of his various wins before the Supreme Court on First Amendment cases, also set the record for convictions for contempt. He hated judges and judges hated him, but they both agreed that the First Amendment must be inviolate.

"Extreme homophobes like the Westboro Baptists" are NOT "tolerated precisely in order to give traditional morality a bad name." They are "tolerated precisely" because the First Amendment could not be any clearer. They are "tolerated" because their rotten behavior is absolutely, unequivocally LEGAL.

 40 
 on: Today at 01:18:17 PM 
Started by xariskai - Last post by LarryP2
^ Thank you Larry. Unfortunately, people today want to believe opinion, no matter how absurd or wrong it might be, rather than facts in modern America when the facts don't fit into their narrative. Facts are messy things that get in the way of what we want to believe.  It seems as if most people today live in parallel universities, getting news and information not from objective journalists, but from any two bit jerk with an opinion, a blog  and the internet who shares the same opinions.

I've found a few simple rules of thumb usually apply. If the "news source" is only trumpeted by one "side" and not even perphererally addressed by main stream sources, there is probably less going on than you want to believe. Or if adversarial parties "report" on the same events in wildly divergent terms (like Russian or Ukrainian ones ), neither is likely to be completely accurate.

Common sense and prudence should apply before one reacts like Chicken Little. Or as Presiident Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify."

Thanks again .



I guess I just cannot compute how an Orthodox Christian can be carried away with those waves of nonsensical screaming headlines. In my mind, Orthodoxy is an absolutely-bulletproof rock of serenity in our present chaotic world of ambiguity and subjectivity. I cannot fear or panic: that is contrary to Orthodoxy at its very roots.

Orthodoxy easily overcame my most cynical skepticism. Hey, I was TEC for 15 years and was the darling attorney for the Serrano, Sinaloa and Beltr├ín-Leyva Cartels. Cynicism and skepticism ran through my veins, pre-Orthodoxy.  I am not arguing that Orthodoxy resembles the shallow and vapid, air-headed "prosperity Gospel of" Victoria Osteen. Orthodoxy by contrast runs 10 miles deep but three inches wide. 50 million Orthodox Christians were hideously murdered (and tortured sometimes) by the combination of the Ottoman Empire and the old Soviet Union from about 1800 until 1991. And yet I bet for the majority of them, their last words were "Hey, no biggee. Tomorrow's gonna be a better day."

So whenever you hear that the long dark night of fascism is about to set on America, just remember one thing: It always.....ALWAYS ......sets on Europe or the Middle East instead.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 17 queries.