1. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84530 by Icculus on November 2, 2007 at 9:23 am

I don't want to turn this into Law 101 or anything, but to piggyback on what hungarianelephant is saying, let's not conflate crime with civil liability. Nothing these people did is criminal. They weren't indicted by a prosecutor for the state for committing a crime. All crime in the U.S. is now statutory, and they were not charged for violating any statutes. Their actions just meet the requisite levels of civil culpability necessary to make out a civil cause of action rooted in common law.

2. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84237 by Icculus on November 1, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Elli beat me to it, but this isn't a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment prevents the Federal government from passing laws restricting speech (the Fourteenth Amendment placed this proscription on the states). This does not, however, mean that people cannot be held civilly liable for their conduct.

This is a prototypical IIED claim. When we first heard of this behavior, most of us responded by saying "Outrageous!" or something similar. That's basically the threshold issue in IIED. Not all states recognize it, but it appears this state does since the Plaintiffs were awarded an additional $2M for emotional distress.

Also, I've read comments questioning the "worth" of the damages as they pertain to the punitives. Punitive damages are not meant to compensate the plaintiff (compensatories take care of that). Rather they are meant to punish the defendant, and deter potential future actors from doing the same thing. I think a $6M slap in the face would do just that.

I'm curious as to what's being appealed, because most of the law on this is fairly straightforward.

3. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #82498 by Icculus on October 26, 2007 at 1:18 pm

The clearest evidence against this argument is the mountain of text written by the Framers negating it.

That said, the argument isn't offered to prove the truth or veracity of Christianity, at least most of the time. People assert this argument as a basis for social policy that otherwise would not pass Establishment Clause scrutiny (i.e. abstinence only sex education).

4. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71281 by Icculus on September 18, 2007 at 9:25 am

There's a good line from the movie "State and Main" which seems appropriate here -

Everybody makes their own fun. If you don't make it yourself, it isn't fun. It's entertainment.

Substitute community for fun in this case. Community is what you make it. You can commune at school, work, the bar, wherever. Church, or any secular equivalent, is merely community provided, or entertainment. There are other layers, or strings, attached. I'd rather make it myself and leave the strings aside. And as another post mentioned, grouping in a quasi-church environment will eventually morph closer to religion.

5. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68436 by Icculus on September 7, 2007 at 7:21 am

Happy Hominid - while Bush would certainly like to disband the Ninth Circuit, if he read his Constitution as much as his Bible, he'd see that he can't. That power is explicitly given to Congress. So, while someone may break it up, it's not the Executive's perogative to do so.

6. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68435 by Icculus on September 7, 2007 at 7:17 am

More of the same garbage. Hobson ignores the arguments that his alleged "cowards" make. Yoga and music can be perfectly moving and transcendent without religion. Also, while religious people have certainly contributed to society, it's nothing more than a totally secular person could have done. Keep setting up those straw men and knocking them down, Theo.

7. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66305 by Icculus on August 29, 2007 at 4:44 pm

I think the most firm pro-choice supporter can still say that abortion is an abomination. While the language may seem strong, no one wants people to have abortions, as the desired outcome would be no unwanted pregnancies. Mistakes occur, and sometimes people need to make a choice. Even when the choice to abort is objectively the right one, it is never easy, and those involved are forever changed. So yes, abortion is an ugly thing, but so are many of the choices we make, and are entitled to make.

8. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64968 by Icculus on August 22, 2007 at 2:06 pm

I think Nothing post #64952 is on to something. The name combined with the tone of the post also smacked of sarcasm to me.

9. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64730 by Icculus on August 21, 2007 at 1:25 pm

OhioAtheist - Now someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this contradict the official stance of the Catholic Church? I thought the Church held that the existence of God could be proven a priori by the ontological argument, and a posteriori by the arguments from teleology, cosmology, and moral law.

Mrs. Sweeney certainly would not be the first Catholic to pick and choose which parts of the official Catechism to accept and which parts to deny and/or not know. Catholics are renowned for their cafeteria style of religion. Realizing this, as a former Catholic, was my first step in becoming (or relizing that I was all along) an Atheist. Several former-Catholic Atheists I know had similar experiences.

10. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64704 by Icculus on August 21, 2007 at 12:00 pm

As to the use of the "Assault, Libel, and Slander" moniker for the complaint, that's just meant to refer to the tortious nature of the suit. In Federal Court pleading, the plaintiff need only make a general reference to the body of law invoked; the particulars come out later in the trial timeline. The facts the plaintiff has pleaded lend only to a defamation cause of action and not the common law Assault cause of action. It is just one complaint but he is seeking multiple remedies: declaratory relief, an injunction, and, of course, money.

11. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64702 by Icculus on August 21, 2007 at 11:56 am

Truth is a defense to defamation, but there is an exception for malice, so that's why the complaint states that PZ maliciously used the phrase crackpot. Malice is pretty hard to prove though, the complaint only makes note of PZ describing himself as "insensitive." Granted, more may come out of the discovery phase.

I also thought it was odd that the complaint cited a case in Mississippi where using "crackpot" was slanderous per se. This is in NY federal court, and since this is a matter of state law, chances are NY state law will apply, though I'm not up on my NY choice of law statutes. At any rate, I don't see how a federal judge in NY is going to care much about an intermediate appeals decision from Mississippi.

As for PZ counterclaiming for defamation, he would have a hard time doing so. I'm not sure this suit will really tarnish his reputation, if anything his blog is going to get some nice free media out of it. Also, I don't imagine his honest appraisal of a book will damage his career as a professor. His one matter of recourse would possibly be Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, but those are at best hard to get.

Welcome to the Litigious States of America!

12. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51838 by Icculus on June 25, 2007 at 9:11 am

Not to keep the digressions from spinning out of control, but you need not look to a search engine to see that abortions are legal in Arkansas, or in any state for that matter. Roe v. Wade holds that no state, or the federal government, may pass a law that bans abortion. States, South Dakota most recently, pass laws which do so as test balloons to see if the court will overturn Roe. This is stuff out of high school government class.

As for the video itself, the most infuriating part to me is how four Supreme Court justices can so flatly go against the plain language of the First Amendment. Mr. Tabash is absolutely correct in stating that the next election is most important because of what the next President can do to the Court.