a very narrow exception just for mr. snyder and a funeral and this church, yes, they can. bill: i hope they do. once the supreme court rules, it gets expanded by aggressive lawyers across the country to try to cover everything. and you wait until the people go in and say depiction of the cartoon mohammed are intentional inflection of emotional distress on me and i want that journalist arrested and targeted. bill: you know how we get around it court costs paid by frivolous lawsuit people. get around that and eliminate it. you and i are not ever going to agree on this. all right. bill: let s go to john edwards. the grand jury still after all of this time anything new there. now they are casting a wide net of new subpoenas to staffers and small-time associates and schedulers as well as some very big people with the campaign to try to get more information. it all boils down to whether he used campaign funds to pay off his mistress as hush money so she wouldn t tell the world sh
care whether or not you get health insurance. they don t care if you pay the fine or buy the health insurance. that means more revenue for them if you forego. bill: that s a cynical attitude. colmes, i know you care about the kids, right? yes, i do, bill. bill: you want to force them to eat fruits and vegetables with their happy meal, don t you? this is absurd. they shouldn t being telling you what goes this is not the government thing. i know there are some supervisors in san francisco. this does not represent liberals all over america. bill: you think it s crazy? it s nuts. this is not obama care. let s not tie this all together connect the dots all these liberals want to control. you know who is the biggest purveyor michael blerg nondemocratic republican elected mayor. bill: new york guy. more of this than anybody. he is not a democrat or liberal. bill: surely you have noticed, colmes, through the fog in which you live. thank you so much, bill. bill: that the
protesting at funerals or other people s private events. so i don t think that there is a huge concern that we re going to have people copycat this group sort of speak and go out and harass people at funerals. so, the slippery slope, at least as it pertains to funerals isn t really applicable in this case but the slippery slope does go both ways. if can you harass people at a funeral i suppose can you harass them at a wedding. you can harass them at their home, their school, their work place. bill: all right. now, mr. snyder, you have observed the opening arguments in the supreme court. what struck you as interesting? i think sean did a really good job. i think he touched on the major points, bill. i think that, you know, he laid out that this was harassment. and that s what it was. it was it was targeted. i think sean pointed that out right and like he said the slippery slope does have two sides. bill: now, do you understand
judgment was in maryland. it doesn t matter. the supreme court is bound by a whole host of federal, high court jurisdiction. jurisprudence that speaks to the issue of the first amendment. what i m telling you, bill. bill: they are adjudicating a state case here. go ahead. what i m telling you, bill, is if they say that outrageous speech can give rise to a claim like mr. snyder had, then you can you wait for the flow of lawsuits we re going to get over cartoons depicting the prophet mohammed. you wait for the flow that s speech. bill: i m not disputing that would lead to it? abortion clinic protests. those will be banned. protests outside of a mosque. speech to somebody as they are trying to attend their it opens. bill: you are doing the slippery slope thing. that s what the supreme court has to worry about. bill: fine. with all due respect it s not just about mr. snyder. bill: it is just about it because his case was an intentional infliction of emotional dist
church, all right, was libel to this lady because the lady committed a sin in the church s eyes. she was living with a guy or something like that. the church, the pastor went on the pulpit, up to the pulpit and said she is a sinner and named her. marianne gun. the courts ruled that that preacher, because he targeted her intentionally inflicted emotional distress and that church lost. what court was it? bill: this is oklahoma. yeah. it s not the u.s. supreme court. bill: it s not a federal case. that s the problem. no. bill: it s the targeted nature of it? there is no case on point here. the question is it s not whether it s targeted. the question is whether you can have there is a tort called intentional infliction of emotional distress. the question is whether that can apply when you are talking about speech. that s essentially what they did. bill: that s what happened here. you know what will happen if the court says yes to that, with the supreme court. that s o