http://disqus.com/people/93430539b1dbf10362010898a66fd7f1/enWed, 04 Oct 2006 15:54:11 -0000http://msunderestimated.disqus.com/msunderestimated_raquo_blog_archive_raquo_fred_phelps_freaks_to_f_up_amish_girls8217_memorial_service/#comment-1580759I <a rel="nofollow">wondered this out loud at my blog</a>, and am really interested if anyone has an answer. If Fox News is accurate in reporting that Phelps-Roper stated:<br><br><blockquote>the church had planned to cancel the protests if given media time on radio and television as a platform to espouse Westboro’s beliefs.</blockquote><blockquote><br><br>then, could this be construed as either extortion or blackmail? Extortion because it sounds as if they demanded something of monetary value in exchange for them not carrying out a threat. According to the definition of extortion, the threat has to be violent and/or illegal. If it was determined that their right to protest was legal, under the first amendment, then it could be construed as blackmail, which involves an action that is legal unless money or property is conceded.<br><br>Now, if it were extortion or blackmail, couldn't this be actionable? I mean, I would love to see these people go down...and I hate it that the media is giving in to their tantrums for attention.</blockquote>caseyWed, 04 Oct 2006 15:52:53 -0000http://msunderestimated.disqus.com/msunderestimated_raquo_blog_archive_raquo_fred_phelps_freaks_to_f_up_amish_girls8217_memorial_service/#comment-1580760Wow, I really messed that html up...but I think you get the drift.<br>caseycaseyWed, 04 Oct 2006 15:54:11 -0000