Steve Jobs is dead.

[Yygdrasil]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

Speaker for the Dead

[cidbahamut]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

It's been too long since I've read that, but re-reading Dune comes first.

[Taskmage]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

[Neverslip]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

I've not purchased any of his devices.

I've wanted almost all of his devices.

He was truly an inovator.

iRIP Steve Jobs.

[Mhurron]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

I've not purchased any of his devices.

You have most likely consumed products that he directly had a hand in basically allowing to be created.

Steve Jobs Pixar

[Murphie]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

So, I found this on videogum. Not unexpected, being that it's WBC, but still...

[Mhurron]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

So, I found this on videogum. Not unexpected, being that it's WBC, but still...

Go for the full lulz, her defense:

"Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell.God created iPhone for that purpose! "

Which leads to this great take:
Phelps Clan Tweets Intent To Picket Jobs Funeral Via iPhone - Slashdot

She's just confirming what Apple fans already knew: God works at Apple.

[Taskmage]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

WBC

Trolls: not just for the internet anymore. I think we should stop talking about these people other than to organize counter-protests and occasionally hold them up as an example of how religion can go horribly wrong. Giving them any more attention than strictly necessary only encourages them. It's too bad that unlike back in the day with Jack Thompson, there's no religious bar association to revoke WBC's right to claim to represent God. I'd say that less wacko Christian groups should picket their church, but again I'm afraid that would only encourage them.

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------

Can anyone explain to me how these protests do not fall into the bucket of criminal defamation?

[cidbahamut]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

something something first amendment something something

[Mhurron]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

[/COLOR]Can anyone explain to me how these protests do not fall into the bucket of criminal defamation?

Defamation suits are difficult in the US due to the First Amendment, although if you can prove defamation it is no longer protected speech.

It is possible WBC doesn't have to worry about this because they are expressing opinion. They don't say that Jobs gave it up the ass, they say (they believe) Jobs facilitated taking it up the ass. The statement Jobs is in hell is also an opinion as it has to stem from a religious belief.

United States defamation law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), the Supreme Court suggested that a plaintiff could not win a defamation suit when the statements in question were expressions of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea".'

[Taskmage]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

So what it sounds like is you can take any allegation of fact, no matter how malicious or dangerous, and turn it into protected speech, removing the burden of proof and legal liability without altering the nature of the message in any practical sense, simply by adding the words "we believe very strongly that" to the beginning of the sentence.

[Icemage]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

I would never advocate violence against people based on their religion, but I can't help but wistfully regret that some of those extreme radical terrorists couldn't see fit to target one of these WBC "pickets" instead.


Icemage

[cidbahamut]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

So what it sounds like is you can take any allegation of fact, no matter how malicious or dangerous, and turn it into protected speech, removing the burden of proof and legal liability without altering the nature of the message in any practical sense, simply by adding the words "we believe very strongly that" to the beginning of the sentence.

Isn't America awesome?

[Taskmage]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

Isn't America awesome?

It seems like there has to be a way to close that loophole and make people responsible for statements made with the intent to cause harm while not creating an oily waterslide into an Orwellian state. I mean, surely it's just as illegal to yell "I STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE IS A FIRE!" in a crowded theater as to yell "FIRE!"

Ehh and yet arguably there is no intent to cause harm. As with the anti-vaccination autism moms, just ignorant, unprovable or counterfactual statements loaded with potential to cause harm. Rrrgh it just seems like that crap should be criminal, but any attempt to define the behavior would run into an epistemological quagmire. /fume

[Mhurron]

Re: Steve Jobs is dead.

So what it sounds like is you can take any allegation of fact, no matter how malicious or dangerous, and turn it into protected speech, removing the burden of proof and legal liability without altering the nature of the message in any practical sense, simply by adding the words "we believe very strongly that" to the beginning of the sentence.

Defamation is an interesting section in US law. Unlike a number of other statutes, it is not in the plaintiffs (person claiming damage) favor and you have to show actual, real damage from the supposed infraction (hurt feelings don't count). There is no damage to Jobs reputation if WBC calls him a fag enabler, the estate isn't going to loose money over it. It will irritate people and reasonable people will know they're full of shit. No harm is done so the law does not see fit to curtail their First Amendment rights over it.

Freedom of Expression is one of the human rights held highest by the US Constitution. Laws that deal with its application are supposed to walk a very fine line of 'you better have a damn good reason' for enacting limits to it.