Westboro Baptist church loses suit; damages $2.9 million

[Temporal Renegade]

I believe Nelson said it best, when he said:

"HAW HAW!"

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story

[Apology]

Could not have happened to a better congregation.

[Temporal Renegade]

Love to see the appeal: "Your Honor, we're a CHURCH! Being sued is a very non-Christian thing to do!"

Does this place even *have* $2.9 million?

[Fnord]

About time!

It's one thing to express disapproval over some nasty policy. It's quite another to exacerbate the grief of a family over something that has nothing to do with original cause of that family's grief.

2.9 megabucks compensatory ... I can hardly wait to see what the punitive damages will be!

[Temporal Renegade]

About time!

It's one thing to express disapproval over some nasty policy. It's quite another to exacerbate the grief of a family over something that has nothing to do with original cause of that family's original grief.

2.9 megabucks compensatory ... I can hardly wait to see what the punitive damages will be!

May I be the first to say,

"Where is your God NOW?!?!"

...they should have been Fnordites....

[J. Arthur Hastur]

This proves it, God hates Christians.

[Fnord]

May I be the first to say,

"Where is your God NOW?!?!"

...they should have been Fnordites....


Oh, their God is still around ... at least, the one they may have started out with is. But I'll bet that He's no longer the one they worship, so what difference does it make?

Besides, the Fnordites first directive is "Do No Harm."

[Temporal Renegade]

Oh, their God is still around ... at least, the one they may have started out with is. But I'll bet that He's no longer the one they worship, so what difference does it make?

Besides, the Fnordites first directive is "Do No Harm."

All Hail the Fnord; the Fnord is Wise and Just.

[Fnord]

This proves it, God hates Christians.


No, He loves Christians!* He just hates what most of us have become.

(* - Your opinions may vary.)

[FenrisWolf]

I admit to a feeling of schadenfreude, since these people are offensive idiots who had it coming.

But, the thing about freedom of speech is, it's only valuable if it applies to everyone, even the offensive idiots. So I kind of wish they'd tossed out the case.

[Temporal Renegade]

I admit to a feeling of schadenfreude, since these people are offensive idiots who had it coming.

But, the thing about freedom of speech is, it's only valuable if it applies to everyone, even the offensive idiots. So I kind of wish they'd tossed out the case.


I see your point, but sometimes, I feel people just need a slapdown every now & then. To protest at a funeral of someone who died in a war--while the 'church' people aren't even in the armed forces at all, for whatever reason-- just seems callous and cruel to me.

[Aoidoi]

I suspect it will get tossed on appeal, but can't say I mind seeing that group getting some of their own medicine. Apparently they are wildly litigous on their own, so even though I think the verdict is questionable I have to appreciate the irony. Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit, and all that.

Even if the verdict stands I'd be shocked if they ever paid a dime. They're not the kind of people who live up to their obligations.

[Fnord]

I suspect it will get tossed on appeal, but can't say I mind seeing that group getting some of their own medicine. Apparently they are wildly litigous on their own, so even though I think the verdict is questionable I have to appreciate the irony. Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit, and all that.

Even if the verdict stands I'd be shocked if they ever paid a dime. They're not the kind of people who live up to their obligations.


The case is likely to be tied up in appeals, so I don't expect to see any Baptists going into hock over this any time soon.

[Darth Rotor]

This proves it, God hates Christians.
Nope. This verdict might, however, prove that God loves United States Marines. ;)

The more likely conclusion is that even a hand selected jury can rain disdain down upon http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar812_25.gifs.

To rephrase what the jury's sentiments indicate with their verdict:

Phuque Phelps and the Donkey He Rode In On.

DR

[KingMerv00]

I admit to a feeling of schadenfreude, since these people are offensive idiots who had it coming.

But, the thing about freedom of speech is, it's only valuable if it applies to everyone, even the offensive idiots. So I kind of wish they'd tossed out the case.


The freedom of speech is not unlimited. I suspect they were sued for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That is a very high legal bar to reach but I think they've done it. I hope it doesn't get tossed.

[CptColumbo]

IMO it's never cool to protest at a funeral.

Especially when the connection to your actual subject is very thin. Then you're just being a [rule 10].

[VulcanWay]

As much as it makes me smile to think that those Wesboro bastards finally got just a small fraction of what they had coming, freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

The Free Speech Zones around the President where you can't protest against him or criticize him, as I understand it, were a good start to eroding the right to free speech. And this case sets at least a civil precedent for others to be sued for voicing their beliefs.

I'd pay big bucks to be a fly on the wall in their church right after this decision, though...

[Normal Dude]

This made my day.

[Irony]

I admit to a feeling of schadenfreude, since these people are offensive idiots who had it coming.

But, the thing about freedom of speech is, it's only valuable if it applies to everyone, even the offensive idiots. So I kind of wish they'd tossed out the case.


I understand your concern, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of harassment. There are limits to the amount of abuse anyone should be allowed to subject others to, and Phelps goes over those limits regularly.

[Redtail]

As a Patriot Guard Rider and (in general) a decent human being I say HAH!


BTW Darth: God can't be a Marine. Look at all of the useful things he gave women. Their incredible minds, their ability to give birth, the ability to feed their young... The most useless thing on a woman is a Marine.;)

[Darth Rotor]

As a Patriot Guard Rider and (in general) a decent human being I say HAH!

BTW Darth: God can't be a Marine. (joke follows)

Heard it before. Thanks for the nostalgia trip. :)

Might be true, but my remark was that the data pointed to God loving Marines.

From the hymn:

If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines

So, maybe He welcomed another guard into his garrison. Far be it from me to ask what in Heaven needs guarding, and from whom, but perhaps to avoid mischief, keeping the Marines busy wth guard duty prevents a few too many liberty incidents in Heaven. :D
DR

[Redtail]

Heard it before. Thanks for the nostalgia trip. :)

Might be true, but my remark was that the data pointed to God loving Marines.

From the hymn:

If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines

So, maybe He welcomed another guard into his garrison. Far be it from me to ask what in Heaven needs guarding, and from whom, but perhaps to avoid mischief, keeping the Marines busy wth guard duty prevents a few too many liberty incidents in Heaven. :D
DR

LOL! You just brought back 4-5 bar fight memories. It never ceased to amaze me how quickly Army and Marines who were just beating the hell out of each other can band together against frat boys then run to another bar to celebrate.:D

[Palimpsest]

It took this news to get me to delurk after months of silence.

As Kids Today say, w00t! Also, PWNED!

[JoeEllison]

This is a loss for the First Amendment, and is nothing to be particularly happy about.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

2.9 megabucks compensatory ... I can hardly wait to see what the punitive damages will be!

$8 million more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html

[Puppycow]

This is a loss for the First Amendment, and is nothing to be particularly happy about.

I hope that was sarcasm.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is a loss for the First Amendment...

No it isn't.

...and is nothing to be particularly happy about.

Yes it is.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

This is a loss for the First Amendment, and is nothing to be particularly happy about.

I'm not sure, are we entitled to crash a private function simply to make a point? Is that protected by free speech? I agree that they should be able to say whatever they want, but their rights end where the grieving families rights begin.

I mean, if you crash a wedding, or a party and do it without a political message, you'd be arrested for trespassing, disturbing the peace and any other number of misdemeanors. Just because you are carrying political or religious placards, does this insulate you from technically disrupting a private function?

I don't think there is an easy constitutional answer for this.

[Tanstaafl]

Harrassment /= Free speech

That's my view of the first amendment issue, although any restrictions on speech do make me a bit nervous. I hope this doesn't come back to haunt us.

But as stated before, this couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of low-lifes. I hope they are forced to disband their "church" and go out and get real jobs.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm not sure, are we entitled to crash a private function simply to make a point?
Well, what constitutes crashing? According to their attorneys, the protesters were at a public park 1000 feet removed. I have heard no-one argue against this, so for the moment I'm accepting it as true. How far away from a funeral does free speech begin?

[GodMark2]

The freedom of speech is not unlimited. I suspect they were sued for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That is a very high legal bar to reach but I think they've done it. I hope it doesn't get tossed.

from the article linked:

...the protesters crossed the line because their message impugned the grieving family's reputation and unlawfully invaded the Snyders' privacy.

"Publicly impugning reputation" is a much more strong legal foundation than 'emotional distress'. You can't just go around saying that your neighbor is a drunk who beats his wife, unless you can reasonably show that you thought that was true at the time.

"Unlawfully invading privacy" is a bit iffy, though, considering that the 'church' members were on public property.

[Cleon]

I wonder how long it will be before the Church of Scientology tries to use this against the Andreas Lund.

[Marquis de Carabas]

"Publicly impugning reputation" is a much more strong legal foundation than 'emotional distress'. You can't just go around saying that your neighbor is a drunk who beats his wife, unless you can reasonably show that you thought that was true at the time.
The important word is the first one you omitted...
...whether the protesters crossed the line because their message impugned the grieving family's reputation and unlawfully invaded the Snyders' privacy.
The article does not state that the message did impugn*, but that the case was to determine if it did. To my knowledge, none of the signs at the protest (http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2007-10/33574993.jpg) specifically named the family. The use of second person pronouns could be seen to target them, however. Is telling someone God hates them an impugning of reputation?

*Granted, the jury must have thought so.

[JoeEllison]

I'm not sure, are we entitled to crash a private function simply to make a point? Is that protected by free speech? I agree that they should be able to say whatever they want, but their rights end where the grieving families rights begin.

I mean, if you crash a wedding, or a party and do it without a political message, you'd be arrested for trespassing, disturbing the peace and any other number of misdemeanors. Just because you are carrying political or religious placards, does this insulate you from technically disrupting a private function?

I don't think there is an easy constitutional answer for this.
The problem is that they also want to ban them from being horrible people outside the funerals, or even anywhere near the funerals.

To me, that sets a dangerous precedent. Yeah, they are thugs who don't deserve any good to befall them... but I don't think that we need to reject our principles in order to shut them up.

[DoubtingStephen]

It could not have happened to a lower form of life.

Nelson Muntz to them indeed, well put Temporal Renegade.

I support the free speech rights of hate-mongering homophobic bastards, but nobody should harass people at a funeral for any reason. Our society has now formally voted against this particular form of harassment. I think the decision is good, and I'm hoping for at least 10 million in punitive damages.

[ravdin]

That made my day! Those ********** aren't likely to cough up a dime, but hopefully it will make the day to day operations of their "church" tougher to maintain.

[ravdin]

The important word is the first one you omitted...

The article does not state that the message did impugn*, but that the case was to determine if it did. To my knowledge, none of the signs at the protest (http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2007-10/33574993.jpg) specifically named the family. The use of second person pronouns could be seen to target them, however. Is telling someone God hates them an impugning of reputation?

*Granted, the jury must have thought so.

The defendants were found guilty of "invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress." There was also a charge of defamation that was dropped for exactly the reason you cited.

[Kochanski]

I think the impugning comes from Westboro posting about the dead soldier on their website.

All I know is that this result makes me smile, big time. :D

Phelps and cronies are like the truthers. The truthers don't care about the people who died on 9/11, they don't care what they say about them and the Firefighters and police and rescue workers. They don't really care about what happened to them. All they care is that people pay attention to them. Same for Phelps, it is all about how much attention he can get for his crackpot notions. He is a sociopath.

Even if they tie this up in appeals courts, it will cost Phelps big buckaroos and lots of time and energy. So for a time it should cripple his ability to cause more people pain.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I wish this made me smile.

I suppose I can take some comfort in the knowledge that the opposite verdict would not have made me smile, either. This one's a loser all the way around.

[shalomsteph]

As a Jew* and a Kansan, I know this congregation all too well. Back when I was practicing, I used to attend in Topeka often because they had an awesome Rabbi. (He is now on the East Coast). They would picket the temple every Friday and holiday. They came up with creative lines like "Fire up the ovens" and "Jew bastards." Because they were going to save our gay-accepting souls with day glo signs. :rolleyes:

Once, when my daughter was about ten or eleven, she yelled back at them, "Shabbat Shalom!" They thought they cussed at her or something, and went berserk. OK, so their kids can hold up day glo signs of fornicating stick figures (made in their public school art class) but they try to assault me because my daughter spoke Hebrew? Ignorant ass*oles.

Oh, and they would sing hymns, changing the lyrics to include "God hates fa*s" or "God hates Jews". I hope they lose all appeals and have to pay. Oh, and I wish they would die. That's the worst I can wish, since I don't believe in hell.


*currently a cultural Jew

[Soapy Sam]

Lowlives though these people are, and sorely as they deserved a kicking, I fear America may come to regret this decision.

[JoeEllison]

Lowlives though these people are, and sorely as they deserved a kicking, I fear America may come to regret this decision.

What it says is that hurting someone's feelings can cost millions...

[PixyMisa]

Hmm. While it's a freedom of speech issue, it's not strictly a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...". This is not an act of congress; it's a jury trial of a civil suit.

Even so, someone got discomfort in my schadenfreude...

[gnome]

Hmm. While it's a freedom of speech issue, it's not strictly a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...". This is not an act of congress; it's a jury trial of a civil suit.

Even so, someone got discomfort in my schadenfreude...

It hasn't been limited to acts of congress for a long time.

[shalomsteph]

Here is an expose (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm) on the Phelps family.

[Dr Adequate]

Defense attorney Jonathan Katz urged jurors not to award punitive damages because the $2.9 million in compensatory damages was already three times the defendants' net worth.

"It's enough already to bankrupt them and financially destroy them," Katz said, adding, "Also you'll get free candy apples, and heck, you know those things are bad for your teeth."

OK, I made that last bit up.

[Learning Phase]

Anyone who thinks this is a loss for "free speech" should consider what they'd think if some idiot stood outside their house for 6 months shouting obscenities through a megaphone 24/7. I guess you'd celebrate the person's right to "free speech"?

There is a time when speech can become an assault. Fred Phelps has crossed that line, and trampled upon it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Anyone who thinks this is a loss for "free speech" should consider what they'd think if some idiot stood outside their house for 6 months shouting obscenities through a megaphone 24/7. I guess you'd celebrate the person's right to "free speech"?
Were the Phelpses at someone's house? Were they shouting obscenities 24/7 at them for six months? Did they even have a megaphone?

That was one crappy analogy, though I support your right to make it.

[COLONEL]

They got what they deseved. The next best thing would be to send them to Iraq to protest.

[PixyMisa]

It hasn't been limited to acts of congress for a long time.
True. I'd meant to expand a little on that, but got distracted.

If this were an act of Congress, no question, it would and should be struck down on First Amendment grounds.

If this were a judicial decision, I would not be at all surprised to see it overturned on appeal.

But a jury decision is, I suspect, more likely to stand. I expect this to go to appeal, and I'll be interested to see the arguments used by both sides.

[COLONEL]

I wish this made me smile.

I suppose I can take some comfort in the knowledge that the opposite verdict would not have made me smile, either. This one's a loser all the way around.
One question , How would you feel if they showed up at one of your loved ones Funerals and started there prostest wile you were trying to grieve for you loss

[Marquis de Carabas]

One question , How would you feel if they showed up at one of your loved ones Funerals and started there prostest wile you were trying to grieve for you loss
Why, it would make me angry, of course.

[Damien Evans]

About time!

It's one thing to express disapproval over some nasty policy. It's quite another to exacerbate the grief of a family over something that has nothing to do with original cause of that family's grief.

2.9 megabucks compensatory ... I can hardly wait to see what the punitive damages will be!

8 million, according to the article

[Slimething]

No First Amendment issue here. No one is depriving them of their right to say anything. What is being enforced is that they bear the responsibility for what they say. Otherwise, defamation and slander would not rein in other idiots.

Yeah, you can play...but you gotta pay, too.

ETA: :yahoo

[Apology]

I also don't see it as an erosion of Freedom of Speech or the First Amendment. We were never free to say whatever we wanted wherever we wanted to say it. You can't shout "Fire" in a movie theater or talk about hijackings while getting on a plane and expect to not get arrested. We've always been required to accept responsibility for our speech, and now Westboro Baptist is required to take responsibility too.

[Travis]

Unless out-of-touch hippies start anti-war protests against out-of-touch politicians at funerals I don't really see how this is going to affect free-speech.

Or are obnoxious protests at funerals more common than I'm aware of?

[KingMerv00]

To those who don't like the outcome of this case:

I don't believe this is a 1st Amendment issue but for the moment let's say it is. What of value has been lost? Does this legal precedent rob citizens of anything worth protecting?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Well, what constitutes crashing? According to their attorneys, the protesters were at a public park 1000 feet removed. I have heard no-one argue against this, so for the moment I'm accepting it as true. How far away from a funeral does free speech begin?

Well, that's another part of the issue. Standing 1000 feet away from someone and shouting threats and obscenities at them is still verbal assault, at least it is in Indiana. Don't ask how I know that. Man, that girl was crazy.

[JoeEllison]

To those who don't like the outcome of this case:

I don't believe this is a 1st Amendment issue but for the moment let's say it is. What of value has been lost? Does this legal precedent rob citizens of anything worth protecting?

I think freedom of speech is worth protecting... don't you?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

As far as free speech goes, I can see where their actions can be considered threatening and intended to incite, both of which nullify the free speech argument.

The courts have regularly ruled that free speech does not protect people making obvious threats or attempting to incite acts of violence, the exact things that got anti-abortion protesters in trouble. Stating your point is fine, even if it's objectionable, but there should be and the courts have outlined and upheld limits.

The 'man outside your house with a megaphone' argument is obviously illegal, simply on grounds of trespassing and disturbing the peace, and as I stated before, it does look like that's where this groups protests fall.

[JoeEllison]

[QUOTE=J

The 'man outside your house with a megaphone' argument is obviously illegal, simply on grounds of trespassing and disturbing the peace, and as I stated before, it does look like that's where this groups protests fall.[/QUOTE]
1000 feet away, as you drive past for a few seconds?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

The example above says nothing about being 1000ft away, just 'outside your house with a megaphone' and yes, in most states shouting obscenities in public is a misdemeanor.

[JoeEllison]

My position is this:

The only freedoms we can claim to uphold are the freedoms we extend to even the lowest and worst people. The only values we can really claim to uphold are the ones that we stand by in the worst situations. The things that we only value when they are easy to value are the ones that we hold cheaply.

Try changing the situation around a little. Imagine the burial is for a war criminal, and the protesters are human rights activists. Imagine the funeral is for a KKK leader, and the protesters are civil rights activists. Imagine that it is Kenneth Lay's funeral, and the protesters are former Enron employees. Imagine any situation where the person being buried has committed clear harm, and the protesters are clearly the "good guys".

Should the "good guys" be arrested and then bankrupted by the family of the "evil" person being protested?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I personally believe that a funeral, unless expressly opened to the public by the family, is a private occasion, and that the privacy of the family should be protected.

[JoeEllison]

The example above says nothing about being 1000ft away, just 'outside your house with a megaphone' and yes, in most states shouting obscenities in public is a misdemeanor.

So you don't need special laws or lawsuits to deal with it, do you?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I would think not, but in this case apparently it was needed.

[JoeEllison]

I personally believe that a funeral, unless expressly opened to the public by the family, is a private occasion, and that the privacy of the family should be protected.

Besides the privacy provided by the fact that it is privately-owned property, and the restrictions against tresspassing and making enough noise to be heard from outside, what special laws do you think should exist?

[KingMerv00]

I think freedom of speech is worth protecting... don't you?

It isn't that simple. I have never met anyone that wants an absolute immunity for speech. There are many forms of speech that are unprotected:

The cliche of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Slander/libel.
Incitement.
Fighting words.
Illegal verbal contracts.The question is whether or not this is a type of speech you want to protect. How close would Phelps have to be before their act become tortious?

[JoeEllison]

I would think not, but in this case apparently it was needed.

Why? Because their speech is particularly ugly? Why would their expressions of support for the family of the deceased be protected speech, and their bigotry(as stupid and evil as it is) not be protected speech? Unless they were making a specific threat, controversial speech is supposed to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Besides the privacy provided by the fact that it is privately-owned property, and the restrictions against tresspassing and making enough noise to be heard from outside, what special laws do you think should exist?

I don't know what you are asking? I never said any 'special' laws should exist. I stated that I thought that under current laws that it looked as though the WBC was engaged in a possibly criminal activity that was not protected by free speech. I then provided examples of similar activity that are illegal that I felt were the same or close to the same as what the WBC was doing.

[Ocelot]

If the constitution protect the rights of people to incite hated and inflict emotional distress upon mourners then change the constitution.

[JoeEllison]

It isn't that simple. I have never met anyone that wants an absolute immunity for speech. There are many forms of speech that are unprotected:

The cliche of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Slander/libel.
Incitement.
Fighting words.
Illegal verbal contracts.The question is whether or not this is a type of speech you want to protect. How close would Phelps have to be before their act become tortious?

Is "tortious" a word? :cool:

I don't understand how you can violate someone's "right to privacy" on public property almost a quarter mile away from the funeral. I don't see how holding up a negative sign for someone to read or not as they drive past counts as "fighting words".

Maybe this is kind of off-topic, but a lot of the positions taken in these discussions seem to rest on some sort of unspoken notion that when people are driving to a funeral, their route to the funeral somehow stops being public property, and belongs to the funeral procession as it passes.

[JoeEllison]

If the constitution protect the rights of people to incite hated and inflict emotional distress upon mourners then change the constitution.

Is "mourner" a special class of citizen of which I was not previously aware?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Why? Because their speech is particularly ugly? Why would their expressions of support for the family of the deceased be protected speech, and their bigotry(as stupid and evil as it is) not be protected speech? Unless they were making a specific threat, controversial speech is supposed to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

In this case the family that sued was able to prove in court that the borderline illegal activities of the WBC had damaged them in a significant way and that the court should compensate them.

Just because the WBC protesters weren't arrested does not mean they didn't break the law. The jury found that they had maliciously, caused damage that the family should be compensated for. That's good enough for me. Send it to the appellate courts now, and let's debate the free speech issue.

My position: The WBC's actions and 'protests' appear to be aimed at causing or inciting violence , which means they are not protected.

[volatile]

If the constitution protect the rights of people to incite hated and inflict emotional distress upon mourners then change the constitution.

Amen to that, brother.

[KingMerv00]

Is "tortious" a word? :cool:

Yep (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tortious).

I don't understand how you can violate someone's "right to privacy" on public property almost a quarter mile away from the funeral. I don't see how holding up a negative sign for someone to read or not as they drive past counts as "fighting words".

Maybe this is kind of off-topic, but a lot of the positions taken in these discussions seem to rest on some sort of unspoken notion that when people are driving to a funeral, their route to the funeral somehow stops being public property, and belongs to the funeral procession as it passes.

Let me start again...I'll bet you think that slander should not be covered by the 1st amendment. That means freedom of speech is not absolute. Where should the courts draw the line?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Is "mourner" a special class of citizen of which I was not previously aware?

No, but speech intended to incite violence is illegal against any person and is not protected free speech.

It's like anti-abortion protesters calling abortion doctors 'murderer' and suggesting they should be executed as such. The WBC calls for the death of the people they are protesting 'because God hates them' both. The first, the anti-abortion case, was judged to be an incitement to violence and ruled not protected under the First Amendment. The second, the actions of the WBC, appears to be in the same category.

[JoeEllison]

Let me start again...I'll bet you think that slander should not be covered by the 1st amendment. That means freedom of speech is not absolute. Where should the courts draw the line?
The line? Probably more or less where you think it should be drawn. I refer you to my previous examples.

Imagine the burial is for a war criminal, and the protesters are human rights activists. Imagine the funeral is for a KKK leader, and the protesters are civil rights activists. Imagine that it is Kenneth Lay's funeral, and the protesters are former Enron employees. Imagine any situation where the person being buried has committed clear harm, and the protesters are clearly the "good guys".

Should the "good guys" be arrested and then bankrupted by the family of the "evil" person being protested?

Do you think that those protesters, holding signs on public land almost a quarter mile from the cemetery, are engaged in protected speech?

[ranson]

Ah, but let's remember, the speech was not limited to "protesting". From the article:

For Snyder's claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later, in an Internet posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.
...
Sean E. Summers, one of Snyder's attorneys, said Westboro members personally targeted the family because they brought Marine-specific signs to their rally at the funeral and had researched and posted Albert Snyder's marital history on their Web site in an essay titled "The Burden of Lance. Cpl. Matthew Snyder."

Bolding mine.

Basically, I think Westboro slipped up. They've pushed the line for a long time, like a lot of folks on the far end of the free speech spectrum. They've built their own legal team, and been very careful about the laws. In the end, though, you eventually make a mistake, whether that mistake is actually threatening or performing violence, crossing a barrier, or getting trapped by a law that is fuzzy in application. It happened to the Aryan Nation, it's happened to Westboro. I doubt they'll go away until ol' Fred croaks off, but this will make it harder, because you can bet that someone out there will track every movement they make to ensure that no funds are going ungarnished. Tick off too many people, and a lot are willing to help with things like that.

[JoeEllison]

No, but speech intended to incite violence is illegal against any person and is not protected free speech.

Any protest, and most speech of a controversial nature, is bound to upset someone, so who should we allow to speak? Just people who we agree with? The fact that their speech makes you want to punch them should make it illegal by definition?

[JoeEllison]

Ah, but let's remember, the speech was not limited to "protesting".

Yeah, but it is still the "crime" of being offensive.

I don't know... I hate to even seem to be on the side of the WBC, because they are inarguably some of the worst people I've ever had the misfortune of knowing about, and their existence is a stain on the country and pretty much the whole human race.

At the same time, I'm not convinced that this is the best way of dealing with them.

[drkitten]

Any protest, and most speech of a controversial nature, is bound to upset someone, so who should we allow to speak?

There's a difference between speech that upsets people and speech that incites violence.

There's also a difference between speech that upsets people and speech that injures people.

And there's a difference between speech that upsets people and speech that invades their privacy.

The courts are well aware of these distinctions and are perfectly happy examining the evidence to see on which side of the line a particular speech act falls. Evidently, this court found that that speech crossed the line.

That's why one has courts in the first place.

[KingMerv00]

The line? Probably more or less where you think it should be drawn. I refer you to my previous examples.

Do you think that those protesters, holding signs on public land almost a quarter mile from the cemetery, are engaged in protected speech?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Distance isn't the only factor. How loud were they? What were they saying/doing?

The point I want to make is that free speech isn't always protected. One can sue for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That means there is a point when your excercise of free speech becomes so irresponsible that I can sue you. Do you think that is OK?

[JoeEllison]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Distance isn't the only factor. How loud were they? What were they saying/doing?

The point I want to make is that free speech isn't always protected. One can sue for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That means there is a point when your excercise of free speech becomes so irresponsible that I can sue you. Do you think that is OK?

I understand all of that. My point is that the decision should always lean towards more freedom, unless there is no other choice. I'm not comfortable with the idea that this is really motivated by the normal emotional reaction to their viewpoint, more than any supposed harm they may have caused.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Yeah, but it is still the "crime" of being offensive.

I don't know... I hate to even seem to be on the side of the WBC, because they are inarguably some of the worst people I've ever had the misfortune of knowing about, and their existence is a stain on the country and pretty much the whole human race.

At the same time, I'm not convinced that this is the best way of dealing with them.

I think this is better than arresting them. The family that sued had the right to present the case that the WBC's 'speech' was inciting and damaging and they sought redress in court. How should they be handled?

[Whack01]

When I think about what these folks do, it's hard to describe how angry I get. I can feel in my mind as if I'm moving and actually beating the living crap out of them just sitting in my chair and reading about them. However, I believe the Lord can & will defend his own honor, so I try to calm down, as it does no good to just imagine giving them a beating. (I avoid stories this kinda stuff, precisely because I get so angry hearing them it's unhealthy)

Thank God for this verdict and I hope he blesses those whom have been wronged in his name.


/honestly hope I don't see these folks in hell, I shiver to think of what their ruin might look like if they don't repent.

[JoeEllison]

When I think about what these folks do, it's hard to describe how angry I get. I can feel in my mind as if I'm moving and actually beating the living crap out of them just sitting in my chair and reading about them. However, I believe the Lord can & will defend his own honor.

Thank God for this verdict and I hope he blesses those whom have been wronged in his name.


/honestly hope I don't see these folks in hell, I shiver to think of what their ruin might look like if they don't repent.

See, here's where my problem lies... it is hard to see what the appropriate legal outcome should be, when the "moral outcome" is so very obvious. I mean, even an atheist like me kind of wishes that there was a Hell for these sort of people to burn in.

[linusrichard]

Try changing the situation around a little. Imagine the burial is for a war criminal, and the protesters are human rights activists. Imagine the funeral is for a KKK leader, and the protesters are civil rights activists. Imagine that it is Kenneth Lay's funeral, and the protesters are former Enron employees. Imagine any situation where the person being buried has committed clear harm, and the protesters are clearly the "good guys".

Should the "good guys" be arrested and then bankrupted by the family of the "evil" person being protested?

You make a fair point, but I think you're overreading this decision. The decision doesn't stand for the idea that protesting a funeral is per se tortious. The claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the elements of IIED, IIRC, is that the act causing the distress has to be outrageous, and the distress caused has to be extreme. If I show up at Dick Cheney's funeral (with two Big Gulps in me, of course, but that's for later) carrying a sign that says "War Criminal," and I'm not shouting, I don't have a crowd, I'm not using obscenities, I'm not making allegations that are completely unrelated to the funeral, etc., etc., etc., I expect a court will take these things into consideration when determining the outrageousness of my conduct. Additionally, Dick Cheney's family knows what people think of him, he's a public political figure who has willingly taken controversial positions, and worked to start wars for no good reason. It can hardly be that shocking to Lynne Cheney to find that some liberal thinks her late husband was a war criminal. This is completely different from showing up at the funeral of a private citizen, a marine, and insinuating untrue and irrelevant things about his sex life.

In this example, or in any of the examples you named, the court is most likely going to look at how outrageous the "good guys" conduct is, how extreme the distress caused to the victims is, and also the value of the speech. Courts have distinguished between "high value" and "low value" speech, and the examples you have described would mostly be (if kept on point) expressions of a political point of view, whereas "God Hates Fags" at a marine's funeral is just worthless obscenity. The same protest outside the capitol while Congress debates a gay marriage law would be (hate to say it) high value speech.

If you truly have an absolutist stance on free speech, then that's fine. Understand that that includes defamation, incitement, threats, in some cases assault, - one could argue fraud, perjury, or even some cases of espionage. If you feel that speech can never be criminal or tortious, that's fine. But it's a minority view that is not the law. Under the majority view, lines have to be drawn, and I feel comfortable with putting the behavior of these scumbags (under these facts) on the non-protected side of the line.

[Whack01]

See, here's where my problem lies... it is hard to see what the appropriate legal outcome should be, when the "moral outcome" is so very obvious. I mean, even an atheist like me kind of wishes that there was a Hell for these sort of people to burn in.

They are celebrating the death of their countrymen, the victory of their countries enemies, dishonoring the memory of the fallen, and most importantly grossly insulting a dead child's family in their greif. What do you think would have happened to these people at the time of the signing of the constitution if they did what they're doing now then?

They'd have been lynched by a mob or shot by the sons father before they even made it to their second protest. The law wouldn't even have to waste its time dealing with their nonsense and any prosecution would have failed due to the jury. I'd be shocked if a prosecutor in that day and age would even have had the courage (or stupidity) to bring charges against the mob or the father.

ETA: I am not advocating the use of violence today. We have better ways of dealing with things now.

[drkitten]

See, here's where my problem lies... it is hard to see what the appropriate legal outcome should be.

Well, part of the issue is that you're applying "freedom of speech" and the "first amendment" in areas where they do not apply. Constitutionally, "freedom of speech" is only applied to the government. Private individuals can and do apply restrictions that the government would not be able to. (As a simple example, if I call my employer a son-of-a-bitch, I could be fired. Were I at a public institution, my employer, acting as an agent of the state, would have a much harder time of it.) (Similarly, I can throw you out of my house for an anti-Jewish rant when I would have no problem keeping you after an anti-Christian rant, or vice versa. Freedom of speech doesn't apply.)

This isn't the government punishing Phelps. This is Synder punishing Phelps. Specifically, Snyder claimed that Phelps hurt him, and claiming redress from the hurt. The courts agreed. Just because the government can't stop you from saying something doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the injuries you've caused via what you say.

As far as I can tell, the acceptable legal outcome is that if Phelps injured Snyder, then Phelps should have to pay damages. This would be true if Phelps burned down Snyder's house. This would be true if Phelps smashed Snyder's car. The fact that the "injury" occurred via speech is (legally) irrelevant, as long as the injury is there.

The courts and jury were satisfied that the injury was there, and so the legal conclusion is that Phelps should pay.

[Ocelot]

Look here's a clear cut case. A mob boss tells one of his evil minions to "whack" an informant.

Now he hasn't murdered anyone, all he done is spoken. However freedom of speech is not a valid defence against a conspiracy to murder charge.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It doesn't trump the right to live. Slander and defamation are both illegal.

It doesn't matter what my message is, if I spread the message by branding it on unwilling people's foreheads then that's illegal. It infringes other's rights. However that doesn't stop me spreading my message through other means.

It appears that this soldiers family have convinced a jury that Phelps' method of delivering his message was calculated to invade privacy, cause harm and emotional distress. It has not ruled that he is not entiled to make his message public just that his method of spreading the message is illegal in infringing other's rights. We'll see what the court of appeal says but this is not a freedom of speech issue its a freedom of harrassment issue and nobody has that right.

Fred Phelps may find that he can no longer spread his message through harrassment of soldiers families at funerals but that a far cry from his message of hate being silenced. Whatever happens he'll continue to have his opinions and he'll continue to publicise them.

[JoeEllison]

They are celebrating the death of their countrymen, the victory of their countries enemies, dishonoring the memory of the fallen, and most importantly grossly insulting a dead child's family in their greif. What do you think would have happened to these people at the time of the signing of the constitution if they did what they're doing now then?

They'd have been lynched by a mob or shot by the sons father before they even made it to their second protest. The law wouldn't even have to waste its time dealing with their nonsense and any prosecution would have failed due to the jury. I'd be shocked if a prosecutor in that day and age would even have had the courage (or stupidity) to bring charges against the mob or the father.

Yep, your attitude is EXACTLY what is so disturbing about this situation. Thanks for bringing it so sharply into focus.

[Whack01]

Yep, your attitude is EXACTLY what is so disturbing about this situation. Thanks for bringing it so sharply into focus.

/shrug

ETA: You don't seem to get it. The constitution is not in danger today by these things precisely because it was never the intent of the constitution that these things were protected. Freedom of speech is not this freedom, and never ever has been.

[JoeEllison]

/shrug

That's your attitude towards the Constitution and the rule of law, so why should your attitude towards me be any different?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Look here's a clear cut case. A mob boss tells one of his evil minions to "whack" an informant.

Now he hasn't murdered anyone, all he done is spoken. However freedom of speech is not a valid defence against a conspiracy to murder charge.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It doesn't trump the right to live. Slander and defamation are both illegal.

It doesn't matter what my message is, if I spread the message by branding it on unwilling people's foreheads then that's illegal. It infringes other's rights. However that doesn't stop me spreading my message through other means.

It appears that this soldiers family have convinced a jury that Phelps' method of delivering his message was calculated to invade privacy, cause harm and emotional distress. It has not ruled that he is not entiled to make his message public just that his method of spreading the message is illegal in infringing other's rights. We'll see what the court of appeal says but this is not a freedom of speech issue its a freedom of harrassment issue and nobody has that right.

Fred Phelps may find that he can no longer spread his message through harrassment of soldiers families at funerals but that a far cry from his message of hate being silenced. Whatever happens he'll continue to have his opinions and he'll continue to publicise them.

Well said.

[Whack01]

That's your attitude towards the Constitution and the rule of law, so why should your attitude towards me be any different?

It's my attitude towards legalism. Which is what you are espousing. You are not espousing rule of law, only the rule of your interpretation.

I have never said that the constitution should be ignored, I think your interpretation of it is so far off that I have no problem ignoring your opinion and don't particularly care to worry about it either. When you reduce my arguments to absurdity that's when you get a /shrug

I'm here to gain understanding, have a little fun and get into a lively debate every once in awhile. I don't particularly care for rhetoric, if you try to use its tools and reduce my words to a cliche so you can say "AHA!". I have no reason to take this argument seriously.

[KingMerv00]

I understand all of that. My point is that the decision should always lean towards more freedom, unless there is no other choice. I'm not comfortable with the idea that this is really motivated by the normal emotional reaction to their viewpoint, more than any supposed harm they may have caused.

To win this lawsuit, the Snyders had to have legal grounds and the facts had to meet the elements required.

They had legal grounds (IIED or whatever they sued for) and a jury determined that Phelps' actions fell outside what he was legally allowed to do. Justice was served.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think freedom of speech is worth protecting... don't you?

Freedom of speech does not allow you to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want.

Do you really not understand that?

[Slimething]

This isn't the government punishing Phelps. This is Synder punishing Phelps. Specifically, Snyder claimed that Phelps hurt him, and claiming redress from the hurt. The courts agreed. Just because the government can't stop you from saying something doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the injuries you've caused via what you say.

As far as I can tell, the acceptable legal outcome is that if Phelps injured Snyder, then Phelps should have to pay damages.

This is precisely the point. This was a matter of civil law, not criminal law. Because of that there is no Constitutional issue here. This was a case of one person who claimed damages suing another person who was the agent. That's civil law: claim of damage, proof of damage, proof of responsibility, collect judgement. No issue of freedom of speech involved here. Only the issue of responsibility for an action.

You can say anything you want. If it harms me, I'm gonna sue you. Simple as that.

Thanks for the clarity, Doctor!

[e-sabbath]

What interests me is the part where the Phelpses are going to hide all the money they have in various places, now. This guy should get in touch with Ron Goldman's lawyer.

[Minadin]

As a Jew* and a Kansan, I know this congregation all too well. Back when I was practicing, I used to attend in Topeka often because they had an awesome Rabbi. (He is now on the East Coast). They would picket the temple every Friday and holiday. They came up with creative lines like "Fire up the ovens" and "Jew bastards." Because they were going to save our gay-accepting souls with day glo signs. :rolleyes:

Once, when my daughter was about ten or eleven, she yelled back at them, "Shabbat Shalom!" They thought they cussed at her or something, and went berserk. OK, so their kids can hold up day glo signs of fornicating stick figures (made in their public school art class) but they try to assault me because my daughter spoke Hebrew? Ignorant ass*oles.

Oh, and they would sing hymns, changing the lyrics to include "God hates fa*s" or "God hates Jews". I hope they lose all appeals and have to pay. Oh, and I wish they would die. That's the worst I can wish, since I don't believe in hell.


*currently a cultural Jew

When I was going to school at the University of Kansas, we had a visit from Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was speaking at Allen Field House. For some reason, his presence prompted a response from the Phelps mob. I'm still not entirely certain what the connection was there - the subject that evening was apartheid and the (at the time) recent political changes in South Africa.

As I was crossing the street on our way into the auditorium with several of my internationally-minded friends (in our group of 8, I was one of 2 Americans) we came across this motley group of folks, who had positioned themselves between the main parking lot and the building's entrance. There were probably only a couple dozen, but almost all of them were carrying ridiculous signs with slogans such as "God Hates FAGS" and the like - even the little children they brought along had these - though a lot of them were difficult to make out (in the dark and all :mgduh ). And of course the air was filled with their hateful shouting of these same slogans, swears, and a few other things mixed in.

Naturally, we decided to try and avoid them by going around them as far to the left as we could, so that we could just ignore them. However, we were unable to make it all the way around their group before one of them spotted us and noticed two of the girls in our group holding hands as we approached. Three or four of them ran off after us, shouting, "Fag! FAGS!" "Die, fags!" and "Lesbo's go to HELL!"

This was rather unsettling to the foreign members of our group, and especially the two Brazilian ladies who were the targets of their vitriol, but we just made a little human wall around the girls and proceeded on our way. They just couldn't understand the hate at what would have been a completely innocent act in Brazil, (here too, I thought) but in this case, one girl was leading the other, because she was blind.

I've seen them since then, protesting other things, but I don't think anything they could ever do would make me change my mind about these folks. Nothing they do or say makes any sense according to any Christian principals I've ever heard. Whatever happened to, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" or even the fact that by their own doctrine Jesus himself was (at least half) Jewish? What's up with all the hatred?

Anyway, I'm glad they lost their suit and hope that they have to shut down or at least curb their spiteful activities for a while.

[Minadin]

Double-post, oops.

[mijopaalmc]

This isn't the government punishing Phelps. This is Synder punishing Phelps. Specifically, Snyder claimed that Phelps hurt him, and claiming redress from the hurt. The courts agreed. Just because the government can't stop you from saying something doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the injuries you've caused via what you say.

Except that a state legislature made the law that provided Snyder with the means of punishing Phelps, and most states have provisions in their constitutions similar to the First Amendment which explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law[...]". In other words, if Phelps was being punished by some private entity for violating its policies, it would be perfectly legal, but since it is law, it violates the provisions on government restricting speech, which is the de facto effect of the law.

By the way, it is not incitement; no-one is trying to get someone else to commit a crime. The WBC is just state an exceedingly repugnant opinion which might anger someone enough to attack them. Also, the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to uphold a law on the basis that it was restricting fighting word as most of the laws the examined also restricted protected speech, as Joe's example shows this law does.

[ponderingturtle]

Except that a state legislature made the law that provided Snyder with the means of punishing Phelps, and most states have provisions in their constitutions similar to the First Amendment which explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law[...]". In other words, if Phelps was being punished by some private entity for violating its policies, it would be perfectly legal, but since it is law, it violates the provisions on government restricting speech, which is the de facto effect of the law.

By the way, it is not incitement; no-one is trying to get someone else to commit a crime. The WBC is just state an exceedingly repugnant opinion which might anger someone enough to attack them. Also, the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to uphold a law on the basis that it was restricting fighting word as most of the laws the examined also restricted protected speech, as Joe's example shows this law does.

So purely verbal harrasment is always legal?

[ponderingturtle]

Except that a state legislature made the law that provided Snyder with the means of punishing Phelps, and most states have provisions in their constitutions similar to the First Amendment which explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law[...]". In other words, if Phelps was being punished by some private entity for violating its policies, it would be perfectly legal, but since it is law, it violates the provisions on government restricting speech, which is the de facto effect of the law.

By the way, it is not incitement; no-one is trying to get someone else to commit a crime. The WBC is just state an exceedingly repugnant opinion which might anger someone enough to attack them. Also, the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to uphold a law on the basis that it was restricting fighting word as most of the laws the examined also restricted protected speech, as Joe's example shows this law does.

So purely verbal harrasment is always legal?

[ponderingturtle]

Except that a state legislature made the law that provided Snyder with the means of punishing Phelps, and most states have provisions in their constitutions similar to the First Amendment which explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law[...]". In other words, if Phelps was being punished by some private entity for violating its policies, it would be perfectly legal, but since it is law, it violates the provisions on government restricting speech, which is the de facto effect of the law.

By the way, it is not incitement; no-one is trying to get someone else to commit a crime. The WBC is just state an exceedingly repugnant opinion which might anger someone enough to attack them. Also, the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to uphold a law on the basis that it was restricting fighting word as most of the laws the examined also restricted protected speech, as Joe's example shows this law does.

So purely verbal harrasment is always legal?

[linusrichard]

Except that a state legislature made the law that provided Snyder with the means of punishing Phelps, and most states have provisions in their constitutions similar to the First Amendment which explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law[...]". In other words, if Phelps was being punished by some private entity for violating its policies, it would be perfectly legal, but since it is law, it violates the provisions on government restricting speech, which is the de facto effect of the law.

I think you're right and wrong here. You are correct that the case is state action, because the court (part of the state) is enforcing Snyder's right.
On the other hand, I don't believe that "a state legislature . . . provided Snyder with the means of punishing Phelps." I could be wrong, but I think the court applied the common law of Maryland, not any Maryland statute.
Most significantly, since the speech is tortious, allowing redress doesn't violate provisions on government restricting speech.
By the way, it is not incitement; no-one is trying to get someone else to commit a crime. The WBC is just state an exceedingly repugnant opinion which might anger someone enough to attack them. Also, the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to uphold a law on the basis that it was restricting fighting word as most of the laws the examined also restricted protected speech, as Joe's example shows this law does.
Doesn't really matter that it wasn't incitement. The claims were for defamation, invasion of privacy, IIED, and civil conspiracy.

[Slimething]

Except that a state legislature made the law that provided Snyder with the means of punishing Phelps,

Why am I not surprised to see this patently false statement from you? I'll bite. Please cite said law.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't believe this is a 1st Amendment issue but for the moment let's say it is. What of value has been lost? Does this legal precedent rob citizens of anything worth protecting?

So can anyone who has had or performed an abortion now sue pro-lifers for defamation because they go around saying "abortion is murder"?

If not, why not (how is it different)?

If so, there would be a general chilling effect on the exercise of free speech which to me far outweighs the benefit of bankrupting a loathsome and hateful bunch like Westboro Baptist.

To those of you who think this is a wonderful outcome:

Would you like to see the same outcome if the plaintiff were the family of a notorious pedophile?

How is an abortion clinic protest not a similar invasion of privacy?

[mijopaalmc]

So purely verbal harrasment is always legal?

So purely verbal harrasment is always legal?

So purely verbal harrasment is always legal?

That's mature.:rolleyes:

To establish harassment, one must establish that there is a reasonable possibility that some sort of physical threat will be carried out or that such a threat was made (e.g., RCW 9A.46.020 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.46.020)).

[mijopaalmc]

Why am I not surprised to see this patently false statement from you? I'll bite. Please cite said law.

OK, I was assuming that the soldier was suing on the basis of the law that Congress made specifically to protect soldiers' funerals. If that is not the case, I retract the statement, although I do think that a case could be made that their speech is being unlawfully limited, depending on what they actually said.

[ponderingturtle]

That's mature.:rolleyes:

And you are clearly a newby then. The server had a major bought of the hiccups, you will see many threads with multi-posts with at that time.

To establish harassment, one must establish that there is a reasonable possibility that some sort of physical threat will be carried out or that such a threat was made (e.g., RCW 9A.46.020 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.46.020)).

So I can not harass you with phone calls then. Good to know that, I will start my plans to repeatedly call people at all hours and sexually berate them, as that is protected by the first amendment.

[Tailgater]

That's mature.:rolleyes:


Double and triple posting seems to be a problem in a few threads today. The forum is running very slow for me too.

ETA: So slow in fact, that turtle beat me to the post.

[mijopaalmc]

Double and triple posting seems to be a problem in a few threads today. The forum is running very slow for me too.

OK, I accept that that is a possibility. It just seemed that, given the content of the posts, the poster was trying to make a point.

[mijopaalmc]

And you are clearly a newby then. The server had a major bought of the hiccups, you will see many threads with multi-posts with at that time.


So I can not harass you with phone calls then. Good to know that, I will start my plans to repeatedly call people at all hours and sexually berate them, as that is protected by the first amendment.

You didn't actually read the harassment code, did you?

It requires that there be a threat of physical violence or "harm [to] the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety". There may be other criminal offenses that the WBC committed but it seems that people are content to be lazy and claim that their actions are harassment when they don't actually meet the legal definition.

[Apology]

My position is this:

The only freedoms we can claim to uphold are the freedoms we extend to even the lowest and worst people. The only values we can really claim to uphold are the ones that we stand by in the worst situations. The things that we only value when they are easy to value are the ones that we hold cheaply.

Try changing the situation around a little. Imagine the burial is for a war criminal, and the protesters are human rights activists. Imagine the funeral is for a KKK leader, and the protesters are civil rights activists. Imagine that it is Kenneth Lay's funeral, and the protesters are former Enron employees. Imagine any situation where the person being buried has committed clear harm, and the protesters are clearly the "good guys".

Should the "good guys" be arrested and then bankrupted by the family of the "evil" person being protested?

Yes. That's why no one is dumb enough to use this type of tactic other than Westboro Baptist.

[Apology]

By the way, it is not incitement; no-one is trying to get someone else to commit a crime. The WBC is just state an exceedingly repugnant opinion which might anger someone enough to attack them.
I thought that was the definition of "incite". Here it is from wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incite

[ponderingturtle]

You didn't actually read the harassment code, did you?

It requires that there be a threat of physical violence or "harm [to] the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety". There may be other criminal offenses that the WBC committed but it seems that people are content to be lazy and claim that their actions are harassment when they don't actually meet the legal definition.

1. This is not a criminal case, so criminal offenses are not relevent.

2.Did you miss when you quoted mental health? That would seem to be exactly what this is about.

[ponderingturtle]

Double and triple posting seems to be a problem in a few threads today. The forum is running very slow for me too.

ETA: So slow in fact, that turtle beat me to the post.

It was not that it was slow. It was recording new posts but never loading a page showing that you had posted them, and on the main page it was not showing the posts made for about 20 minutes.

[Apology]

To those of you who think this is a wonderful outcome:

Would you like to see the same outcome if the plaintiff were the family of a notorious pedophile?

How is an abortion clinic protest not a similar invasion of privacy?

Yes. It's crucial to justice in this country for the laws to be applied fairly regardless if we "like" the Plaintiff's views or not.

Abortion protests have faced the same challenges and lost on occasion. They change their tactics when that happens in order to bring themselves in line with currently existing laws.

[mijopaalmc]

I thought that was the definition of "incite". Here it is from wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incite

Here is a general legal definition of incite:

In English criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory common law offense and is the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime.

Provoking is not inciting.

[mijopaalmc]

Yes. It's crucial to justice in this country for the laws to be applied fairly regardless if we "like" the Plaintiff's views or not.

Abortion protests have faced the same challenges and lost on occasion. They change their tactics when that happens in order to bring themselves in line with currently existing laws.

You must have missed the part where pro-lifers are allowed to protest outside abortion clinics but not obstruct access to them.

[drkitten]

So can anyone who has had or performed an abortion now sue pro-lifers for defamation because they go around saying "abortion is murder"?

If not, why not (how is it different)?

It's different because the protestors specifically targetted the Snyders. It's the difference between saying "abortion is murder" and "Jane Doe is a murderess."

[mijopaalmc]

It's different because the protestors specifically targetted the Snyders. It's the difference between saying "abortion is murder" and "Jane Doe is a murderess."

But they can claim emotional distress for having to be exposed to people who scream and curse at them.

[drkitten]

But they can claim emotional distress for having to be exposed to people who scream and curse at them.


They can indeed. They can also claim to have super-powers and to be able to teleport. But to be able to establish that claim in court, the plaintiffs have to prove that the screaming and cursing was utterly outrageous. That's a very high bar, and merely saying "abortion is murder" is highly unlikely to meet that standard.

The WBC's "extremely repugnant opinion," combined with the circumstances and conditions under which they expressed it, are exactly what the case is about. Any rational person would be outraged by their behavior.... ergo, it is "inflicting emotional distress."

[Irony]

But they can claim emotional distress for having to be exposed to people who scream and curse at them.

Yes, and if they have a valid case they might even win. I fail to see how the possibility of people being forced to take responsibility for their actions is a problem. The Phelps clan is not being barred from stating their opinions as they see fit. They have only been forced to pay reparations for using the intentional infliction of emotional pain as their method.

[Rocky]

My position is this:

Try changing the situation around a little. Imagine the burial is for a war criminal, and the protesters are human rights activists. Imagine the funeral is for a KKK leader, and the protesters are civil rights activists. Imagine that it is Kenneth Lay's funeral, and the protesters are former Enron employees. Imagine any situation where the person being buried has committed clear harm, and the protesters are clearly the "good guys".

Should the "good guys" be arrested and then bankrupted by the family of the "evil" person being protested?

The difference will be that I will feel sorry for the "Good Guys".

-R

[dudalb]

Do you think that those protesters, holding signs on public land almost a quarter mile from the cemetery, are engaged in protected speech?
That depends on what is on the signs.
IMHO what Westboro was doing amounted to slander,and that is NOT protected speech.

[Apology]

Here is a general legal definition of incite:



Provoking is not inciting.

No but I do think it's very similar to instigating, which is mentioned in the British definition.

[KingMerv00]

You must have missed the part where pro-lifers are allowed to protest outside abortion clinics but not obstruct access to them.

I would argue that this case is different from a "pro-life screamer" case because of the nature of the victims. Consider that the actual target of the WBC's wraith is dead and they are screaming insults at the PARENTS...at their son's FUNERAL.

The Snyders were particularly vulnerable at that moment in time so I have more sympathy them than an aboration doctor.

[Apology]

You must have missed the part where pro-lifers are allowed to protest outside abortion clinics but not obstruct access to them.

I think drkitten already answered this as well as I could have myself. I'd also like to add that the reason we know how far away from the door they have to stand, etc., is because they were taken to court and they lost. Otherwise, they'd still be blocking the doors and preventing anyone from entering the clinics. It fits in with my original statement that when abortion activists lose they simply change their tactics to fall in line with local laws.

[donq]

I see your point, but sometimes, I feel people just need a slapdown every now & then. To protest at a funeral of someone who died in a war--while the 'church' people aren't even in the armed forces at all, for whatever reason-- just seems callous and cruel to me.

I agree - these people could protest anywhere, anytime; but to pick a funeral so that they can capitalize on the shock value at the expense of other people's grief is not only hideous, but displays their true morality. They sure have a lot of bottled up hate for people who follow a god of love and forgiveness.

[Apology]

They sure have a lot of bottled up hate for people who follow a god of love and forgiveness.

I don't think the congregation at Westboro Baptist believe in that God.

[drkitten]

Yes, and if they have a valid case they might even win. I fail to see how the possibility of people being forced to take responsibility for their actions is a problem. The Phelps clan is not being barred from stating their opinions as they see fit. They have only been forced to pay reparations for using the intentional infliction of emotional pain as their method.

Yes. That's the point that a lot of people seem to misunderstand. The First Amendment does not protect against civil claims for damages.

Here's an analogy I came up with last night to try to illustrate the difference. I'm walking through the city late one night, and I get attacked by a gang of thugs with guns. Having no other escape route, I throw a brick through your plate-glass bay window, run through your house, and escape through the back.

Have I committed a criminal act? Almost certainly not; my action was "necessary" to preserve my life. No cop would arrest me, no DA would charge me, no jury would convict me, and if I was not permitted to present my "defense of necessity," any conviction would be thrown out on appeal.

However, I'm still responsible for the damage to your window. Someone has to pay for it, and that someone is likely to be me (unless I can persuade the judge/jury to charge it to the thugs).

If you try to charge me (criminally) with trespass, mischief, and vandalism, you won't get anywhere. But if you simply sue me for the damages to your window, I will probably have to pay.

[KingMerv00]

Yes. That's the point that a lot of people seem to misunderstand. The First Amendment does not protect against civil claims for damages.

That isn't entirely true. See Hustler v. Falwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell). That case only applies to the parody of public figures though so I doubt it would do WBC any good.

Here's an analogy I came up with last night to try to illustrate the difference. I'm walking through the city late one night, and I get attacked by a gang of thugs with guns. Having no other escape route, I throw a brick through your plate-glass bay window, run through your house, and escape through the back.

Have I committed a criminal act? Almost certainly not; my action was "necessary" to preserve my life. No cop would arrest me, no DA would charge me, no jury would convict me, and if I was not permitted to present my "defense of necessity," any conviction would be thrown out on appeal.

However, I'm still responsible for the damage to your window. Someone has to pay for it, and that someone is likely to be me (unless I can persuade the judge/jury to charge it to the thugs).

If you try to charge me (criminally) with trespass, mischief, and vandalism, you won't get anywhere. But if you simply sue me for the damages to your window, I will probably have to pay.

I could have sworn necessity is a valid defense in a civil case. I'll look it up when I get a chance. I might be wrong though

[ksbluesfan]

What right does Westboro Baptist have in this case?

[KingMerv00]

What right does Westboro Baptist have in this case?

They can say what they like so long as it does not injure anyone. The jury looked at the facts and decided that they did.

[ksbluesfan]

They can say what they like so long as it does not injure anyone. The jury looked at the facts and decided that they did.

Can they protest at a funeral?

[KingMerv00]

Can they protest at a funeral?

They can if the state has not passed a law forbidding them and if they have followed the proper legal procedures for an organized protest. Even if they are within the confines of the state law, they may still be liable for the Snyders..

[ksbluesfan]

Depends whether or not the state has past a law forbidding them and if they have follow the proper legal procedures for an organized protest. Even if they are within the confines of the state law, they may still be liable for the Snyders..

I'm pretty sure there were no laws that prevented them from protesting a funeral in Maryland. As far as I know, they weren't charged with violating laws for organizing a protest.

What can they say while protesting a funeral that doesn't open them to a lawsuit?

[bignickel]

What some here seem to forget is that the flip side of 'freedom of speech' is 'freedom of listening'. People DO have the right to not be forced to listen to others.

This is not a case of political protesters just 'happening' to be protesting near someone's funeral; they targeted this funeral specifically, and in fact told the grieving parents: "you're not allowed a quiet dignified funeral for your son; wherever you go, we will follow and yell out our message." Don't the parents have the right to bury their son in a dignified quiet manner that doesn't involve having to purchase or rent all the land within 10000 feet of the burial site?

As for the 'protesting a public figure' argument... this was a soldier, who had nothing to do with the American government's policies on anything. The only thing was he was guilty of was getting killed in a war that would allow a bunch of jerks to hijack his funeral for publicity purposes.

[KingMerv00]

As for the 'protesting a public figure' argument... this was a soldier, who had nothing to do with the American government's policies on anything. The only thing was he was guilty of was getting killed in a war that would allow a bunch of jerks to hijack his funeral for publicity purposes.

I never said the "public figure" argument was valid, I just said that you can invoke the 1st Amendment and shield yourself from liability in certain narrow circumstances. Those circumstances to not apply here. The Snyders are not public figures and the protest was not satire.

[ksbluesfan]

They weren't protesting the actions of the soldier, they were protesting the actions of the federal government.

I have a hard time believing this will stand on appeal.

[drkitten]

I could have sworn necessity is a valid defense in a civil case. I'll look it up when I get a chance. I might be wrong though

Well, I've never seen it used in a civil case, but I'm also not a lawyer. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:


In tort common law, the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another. A defendant typically invokes the defense of necessity only against the intentional torts of trespass to chattels, trespass to land, or conversion. The Latin phrase from common law is necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata, "Necessity induces a privilege because of a private right." A court will grant this privilege to a trespasser when the risk of harm to an individual or society is apparently and reasonably greater than the harm to the property. Unlike the privilege of self-defense, those who are harmed by individuals invoking the necessity privilege are usually free from any wrongdoing. Generally, an individual invoking this privilege is obligated to pay any actual damages caused in the use of the property but not punitive or nominal damages.


So I would need to pay for the window I broke (which I think is quite reasonable), but you couldn't get a zillion dollars in punitive damages (which I also think is quite reasonable).

Of course, the law firm of Wikipedia, Esq. is notoriously bad....

[KingMerv00]

I'm pretty sure there were no laws that prevented them from protesting a funeral in Maryland. As far as I know, they weren't charged with violating laws for organizing a protest.

What can they say while protesting a funeral that doesn't open them to a lawsuit?

They have to commit acts that meet all the elements of the tort in question. For example, to be found liable for the intentional infliction of emotional distress one must (according to wiki, sorry don't have my textbook on me):

1) Commit an intentional or reckless act that
2) is "extreme" and "outrageous" which
3) causes
4) "exteme emotional distress".

The courts set the bar very very high but the jury felt that WBC cleared it. Therefore they are liable.

[drkitten]

They weren't protesting the actions of the soldier, they were protesting the actions of the federal government.

Not when they're mentioning the soldier by name in the protest, they aren't....

[KingMerv00]

Well, I've never seen it used in a civil case, but I'm also not a lawyer. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:



Of course, the law firm of Wikipedia, Esq. is notoriously bad....

Promise I'll get right on that but I have a wedding to get to tonight. Open bar...you understand.

[drkitten]

That isn't entirely true. See Hustler v. Falwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell). That case only applies to the parody of public figures though so I doubt it would do WBC any good.

It also only appiles to punitive damages, too. Hustler would still have ben liable for actual damages, yes?

[ksbluesfan]

Not when they're mentioning the soldier by name in the protest, they aren't....

Did they do that?

[KingMerv00]

They weren't protesting the actions of the soldier, they were protesting the actions of the federal government.

Technically, that isn't relevant. Even if they did not INTEND to harm the Snyders, they did so RECKLESSLY. See element 1 of IIED.

[drkitten]

Did they do that?

From the article cited in the OP:


Sean E. Summers, one of Snyder's attorneys, said Westboro members personally targeted the family because they brought Marine-specific signs to their rally at the funeral and had researched and posted Albert Snyder's marital history on their Web site in an essay titled "The Burden of Lance. Cpl. Matthew Snyder."

I suspect that particular factoid was one of the major factors leading to the jury's decision on the invasion-of-privacy grounds.

[ksbluesfan]

They have to commit acts that meet all the elements of the tort in question. For example, to be found liable for the intentional infliction of emotional distress one must (according to wiki, sorry don't have my textbook on me):

1) Commit an intentional or reckless act that
2) is "extreme" and "outrageous" which
3) causes
4) "exteme emotional distress".

The courts set the bar very very high but the jury felt that WBC cleared it. Therefore they are liable.

I assume they will appeal. They've a very litigious family.

The courts will have a difficult time proving that they were intending to harm the family of the deceased. Their target is the federal government.

[drkitten]

The courts will have a difficult time proving that they were intending to harm the family of the deceased. Their target is the federal government.

Then why did they specifically target Matthew Snyder by name?

[KingMerv00]

It also only appiles to punitive damages, too. Hustler would still have ben liable for actual damages, yes?

I read the case yesterday and I don't recall Falwell getting damages. Actual or otherwise. Am I wrong?

[KingMerv00]

I assume they will appeal. They've a very litigious family.

The courts will have a difficult time proving that they were intending to harm the family of the deceased. Their target is the federal government.

I think you missed my last post to you. Intent is not needed. Only recklessness.

[JoeEllison]

What right does Westboro Baptist have in this case?
None, because they are evil? Certainly, less rights than protesters with a less disturbed and disturbing message.

[drkitten]

I read the case yesterday and I don't recall Falwell getting damages. Actual or otherwise. Am I wrong?

No, you're not. I am. Teach me to argue with a law student....

[ksbluesfan]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm no fan of Fred Phelps. I've had the displeasure of meeting him when I lived in Topeka. I hope his church loses everything.

From what I know about the Phelps, they are very careful to avoid lawsuits, and there are several lawyers in the family. They know what they're doing. They may have crossed the line, but I won't be surprised if they win on appeal. I'm not alone in that suspicion.

From the Baltimore Sun. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/carroll/bal-te.md.westboro02nov02,0,4500443.story)

[KingMerv00]

None, because they are evil? Certainly, less rights than protesters with a less disturbed and disturbing message.

Legally, you might actually be right. A less disturbing message means that the average juror would be less likely to find the act "extreme" or "outrageous".

[Tanstaafl]

Then why did they specifically target Matthew Snyder by name?


Okay, no reason for quoting this particular post, but I just wanted to thank you, drkitten, for all of the information you have posted here.

I was initially one of those with some serious reservations about a possible chilling effect of this on free speech. I'm still sensitive to that issue, given the way our federal gov't works these days. But I appreciate you setting the record straight in this case and setting my mind more at ease.

[Darth Rotor]

I assume they will appeal. They've a very litigious family.

The courts will have a difficult time proving that they were intending to harm the family of the deceased. Their target is the federal government.
I doubt it. The jury already found harm to be done. I don't think you will find a court in the country that agrees that so long as I am bitching about the Federal Government, I can slander you, ksbluesfan, and do you harm. The WBC does not get privilege of necessity, as drkitten outlined, and thus protection from recourse to the collateral damage they cause to citizens, just because of who their target is.

In a civil matter, if I shoot at an armed burglar in my home, and hit you as you walk down the street, and him, due to some of the bullets missing him and leaving my house to harm you, I am not guaranteed protection from your claim against me for remedy to the harm done you.

If that happened, I'd be paying for your medical bills, at the very least. You wouldn't have to get a lawyer to get me to do it, either. ;)

DR

[ksbluesfan]

I think you missed my last post to you. Intent is not needed. Only recklessness.

They tried their best to be as offensive as possible without crossing the line. They're better lawyers than I am, so I have a feeling they know what they can and cannot get away with. I hope I'm wrong.

[KingMerv00]

No, you're not. I am. Teach me to argue with a law student....

Lol. You have every right to argue with me. I've been wrong about the law plenty of times. I find myself disagreeing with Scalia and Thomas all the time.

[Darth Rotor]

I hope I'm wrong.
I hope so too.

DR

[Hastur]

Dr kitten, Wikipedia (amazingly) has it correct. There are some fine points that are not relevant to the example given (breaking someone's window to get away from some thugs), but that the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for the damaged property and that's it.

[ksbluesfan]

Then why did they specifically target Matthew Snyder by name?

Were they charged with slander?

I think these are two separate issues. They did not write Snyder's name on their protest signs, only on their website. They did not lie about Snyder or his family.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how all of this works.

[Diamond]

I doubt this sets much of a precedent in law. It was really about whether freedom of speech trumps everything else - which is pretty unlikely.

That, and the fact that Fred Phelps is amongst the most evil men on the planet, makes me applaud this decision.

[ksbluesfan]

I doubt it. The jury already found harm to be done. I don't think you will find a court in the country that agrees that so long as I am bitching about the Federal Government, I can slander you, ksbluesfan, and do you harm. The WBC does not get privilege of necessity, as drkitten outlined, and thus protection from recourse to the collateral damage they cause to citizens, just because of who their target is.

In a civil matter, if I shoot at an armed burglar in my home, and hit you as you walk down the street, and him, due to some of the bullets missing him and leaving my house to harm you, I am not guaranteed protection from your claim against me for remedy to the harm done you.

If that happened, I'd be paying for your medical bills, at the very least. You wouldn't have to get a lawyer to get me to do it, either. ;)

DR

Jury trials are often overturned by higher courts, and this will go to a higher court.

Were they charged with slander?

[Darat]

The last couple of paragraphs in that article are interesting:

Juries often find the kind of conduct expressed by Westboro distasteful, said Jane Kirtley, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in media law.

...snip...

She said the Westboro protest, however hateful, did not "rise to the level of outrageousness. Offensive, yes. But outrageous? I would question whether standing up and yelling is outrageous under the law."


I have seen media reports of their pickets and I find it hard to believe (if the reports have been accurate and representative) that their conduct would not be considered "outrageous" - is there case law that gives some idea of what conduct in such a picket would be considered "outrageous"?

[Hastur]

Jury trials are often overturned by higher courts, and this will go to a higher court.
Proof of that, KS? I've seen awards reduced (likely in this case), but courts are loath to overturn jury verdicts unless they have to.

Were they charged with slander?
Defamation was one of the original causes mentioned, it was dismissed on summary judgment (From here (http://www.citmedialaw.org/snyder-v-phelps)).

[KingMerv00]

They tried their best to be as offensive as possible without crossing the line. They're better lawyers than I am, so I have a feeling they know what they can and cannot get away with. I hope I'm wrong.

That facts have already been determined and Phelps crossed the line. Full stop. The appeals court does not have the liberty to determine otherwise. The only way WBC can get out of this is through mistake of law.

[ksbluesfan]

Proof of that, KS? I've seen awards reduced (likely in this case), but courts are loath to overturn jury verdicts unless they have to.

I think one of the original posts mentioned that defamation was alleged at one point in the complaint.

Do you really dispute the jury trials are overturned by federal courts? The frequency isn't the issue.

Allegations aren't the issue either.

[ksbluesfan]

That facts have already been determined and Phelps crossed the line. Full stop. The appeals court does not have the liberty to determine otherwise. The only way WBC can get out of this is through mistake of law.

I'm basing my statement on the article I posted earlier.


But First Amendment experts expressed doubt whether the verdict against Westboro would survive review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va.

"I have spoken to a number of First Amendment attorneys today, and every one of them believes the case will be reversed and should be reversed," said Ronald K.L. Collins of the First Amendment Center in Washington.

[KingMerv00]

Do you really dispute the jury trials are overturned by federal courts? The frequency isn't the issue.

It is possible but not likely. Then again, there is lots I don't know about this case.

[Hastur]

Do you really dispute the jury trials are overturned by federal courts? The frequency isn't the issue.
Umm, yes it is. You brought up they were overturned "often," I disputed that.

Allegations aren't the issue either.
Again, yes they are. You asked if slander (actually, libel) was brought up, I showed it was.

[KingMerv00]

I'm basing my statement on the article I posted earlier.

If this case is overturned on 1st Amendment grounds it would be a new precedent...as far as I know. Not saying it is impossible but courts hate setting precedent.

[KingMerv00]

Dr kitten, Wikipedia (amazingly) has it correct. There are some fine points that are not relevant to the example given (breaking someone's window to get away from some thugs), but that the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for the damaged property and that's it.

Why is that? I seem to recall a civil necessity case where a building was demolished to prevent the spread of a fire. The necessity defense was upheld. I'll work on a reference.

[Hastur]

Why is that? I seem to recall a civil necessity case where a building was demolished to prevent the spread of a fire. The necessity defense was upheld. I'll work on a reference.

That's a public necessity; no liability in that case. The example given was a private necessity where compensation would be ordered.

[ksbluesfan]

Umm, yes it is. You brought up they were overturned "often," I disputed that.


Again, yes they are. You asked if slander (actually, libel) was brought up, I showed it was.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit only has to overturn the case once. Unless the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has never overturned a case, "often" doesn't matter.

Libel may have been alleged, but Westboro Baptist was not convicted of libel. The more Westboro Baptist goes to court and wins, the more they are emboldened.

According to Fred Phelps, God speaks directly to him. God tells Fred that this is his purpose in life -- to warm people that homosexuality will cause them to go to hell. God also told Fred that he would be the governor of Kansas in 1990, 1994 or 1998. Fred is delusional, but he's not stupid. Shirley, his daughter, is even smarter than he is. They are loving every minute of this.

[Hastur]

Your words KS: Jury trials are often overturned by higher courts, and this will go to a higher court.
I asked you for evidence of this and you have given back nothing but bluster and obfuscation. I will say it again -- appeals courts are loath to overturn jury verdicts unless there really is no choice. The most likely thing the 4th Circuit will do in this case is reduce the award unless Phelps and co. can produce a real zinger.
You asked if they were "charged" with defamation and I produced the evidence that defamation was brought up in the original complaint. Now you're rambling about being "convicted" for it. Put the goalposts down now, you dishonest little weasel.

[KingMerv00]

That's a public necessity; no liability in that case. The example given was a private necessity where compensation would be ordered.

These sort of nit-picky details makes the practice of law so confusing.

Sounds vaguely familiar but Tort Law was two and a half years ago. Have a reference?

[KingMerv00]

I will say it again -- appeals courts are loath to overturn jury verdicts unless there really is no choice. The most likely thing the 4th Circuit will do in this case is reduce the award unless Phelps and co. can produce a real zinger.

For what it is worth...seconded.

[Hastur]

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co., 109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221 (1910). for private nuisance

Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853) for public nuisance

[ksbluesfan]

Your words KS:
I asked you for evidence of this and you have given back nothing but bluster and obfuscation. I will say it again -- appeals courts are loath to overturn jury verdicts unless there really is no choice. The most likely thing the 4th Circuit will do in this case is reduce the award unless Phelps and co. can produce a real zinger.
You asked if they were "charged" with defamation and I produced the evidence that defamation was brought up in the original complaint. Now you're rambling about being "convicted" for it. Put the goalposts down now, you dishonest little weasel.

"Dishonest little weasel". That's funny.

What do you want? I admit that I was wrong when I said jury trials are often overturned. Chalk up one for Hastur.

The case can be declared a mistrial.

See, I can respond without ad hominem attacks.

[drkitten]

Were they charged with slander?

Why is that relevant? As the lawyers have pointed out, even if they didn't intentionally target the Snyders, they would still be liable for damages that they caused.

But "slander" is a separate issue and a separate kind of damage. "Slander" is damaging someone's reputation. "Emotional distress" is damage to someone's state of mind. Two different types of damage, two different courses of action, and potentially two different verdicts....

[Slimething]

Libel may have been alleged, but Westboro Baptist was not convicted of libel. The more Westboro Baptist goes to court and wins, the more they are emboldened.

The language you're using has me believing that you're confusing criminal and civil law. In civil law, you're not "charged" or "convicted" of anything. You're accused and the plaintiff must prove their case to a standard of "more likely than not". Libel and slander are not crimes, they are tortious acts. You can't go to jail for slander or libel. This was a civil procedure where an act that results in damage of any type, intentionally or not, merits consideration and remedy if proven.

They are loving every minute of this.

Sincerely doubt it. Roy Cohn, no saint himself, one said that "You don't sue people to punish them. You sue them to make them hire lawyers." If you believe otherwise, burn your money at $350 per hour for a week and let me see you laughing.

[drkitten]

Dr kitten, Wikipedia (amazingly) has it correct. There are some fine points that are not relevant to the example given (breaking someone's window to get away from some thugs), but that the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for the damaged property and that's it.


Cool. One up for Wikipedia.

I must confess that I find this particular legal doctrine remarkably sensible (which of course is not always the case in law -- straining at gnats while swallowing camels is a required second-year course at my university). But it also makes me feel better about Phelps, too. I don't like the idea of the state punishing someone for what they say. But I have little problem with one private entity holding another accountable for what they say, using the state as a referee. That's a large part of what it's there for....

[Hastur]

The case can be declared a mistrial.
From the lawyer to the layman: get your terms straight before you use them. Mistrials happen before the verdict comes back, not after.

See, I can respond without ad hominem attacks. Playing "wounded innocent" Timothy Jones-esque games do not work with me. You decided you wanted to play "move the goalposts" and I called you on it. Own up to it and be silent.

[drkitten]

Sincerely doubt it. Roy Cohn, no saint himself, one said that "You don't sue people to punish them. You sue them to make them hire lawyers." If you believe otherwise, burn your money at $350 per hour for a week and let me see you laughing.

Yeah, but the Phelps' are lawyers. So they're not actually burning money; they get paid the same whether they file paperwork or not.

[drkitten]

Okay, no reason for quoting this particular post, but I just wanted to thank you, drkitten, for all of the information you have posted here.

You're welcome.



I was initially one of those with some serious reservations about a possible chilling effect of this on free speech. I'm still sensitive to that issue, given the way our federal gov't works these days. But I appreciate you setting the record straight in this case and setting my mind more at ease.

No problem. I agree with your reservations in the abstract. I think this particular case is not that big a deal....

[ksbluesfan]

Why is that relevant? As the lawyers have pointed out, even if they didn't intentionally target the Snyders, they would still be liable for damages that they caused.

But "slander" is a separate issue and a separate kind of damage. "Slander" is damaging someone's reputation. "Emotional distress" is damage to someone's state of mind. Two different types of damage, two different courses of action, and potentially two different verdicts....

You obviously know more about the law than I do.

My point was that what happened on the website probably shouldn't have been considered in this case. As I understand it, the father's complaint was that the protestors caused him personal injury by protesting the funeral. They didn't write the name of the deceased on their signs because they weren't protesting anything the soldier did. What they did on their website was unrelated.

[drkitten]

My point was that what happened on the website probably shouldn't have been considered in this case.

Why not? The defendant's actions are the defendant's actions. He doesn't get to escape responsibility for what he has done by changing his tie -- why should he escape responsibility by changing where he publishes his "outrageous" actions?

[ksbluesfan]

From the lawyer to the layman: get your terms straight before you use them. Mistrials happen before the verdict comes back, not after.

Playing "wounded innocent" Timothy Jones-esque games do not work with me. You decided you wanted to play "move the goalposts" and I called you on it. Own up to it and be silent.

You certainly could have called me on moving the goalposts without calling me a weasel, couldn't you have? I called you on ad hominem attacks without calling you names. I expect the same courtesy I give. An apology would be nice.

And, yes, I am a layman. I thought that was obvious. I'm backing my case on the article that I posted earlier. I tend to trust the opinion of Ronald K.L. Collins of the First Amendment Center in Washington more than I value yours.

[KingMerv00]

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co., 109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221 (1910). for private nuisance

Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853) for public nuisance

Boom goes the dynamite. I stand corrected. See DrK? Argue with me if you like.

[ksbluesfan]

Why not? The defendant's actions are the defendant's actions. He doesn't get to escape responsibility for what he has done by changing his tie -- why should he escape responsibility by changing where he publishes his "outrageous" actions?

Good question. I assumed that since it wasn't part of the charges that it wasn't considered to be consequential.

[KingMerv00]

I tend to trust the opinion of Ronald K.L. Collins of the First Amendment Center in Washington...

Not a terrible idea, but I'm not sure what precedent he is hoping to exploit. Until then, I will disagree with Mr. Collins.

[ponderingturtle]

Sincerely doubt it. Roy Cohn, no saint himself, one said that "You don't sue people to punish them. You sue them to make them hire lawyers." If you believe otherwise, burn your money at $350 per hour for a week and let me see you laughing.

Ah but these lawyers are already in the family.

[KingMerv00]

Ah but these lawyers are already in the family.

Just when you think lawyers' reputations couldn't get any worse.

[Hastur]

I called you on ad hominem attacks without calling you names.
Something else for you to learn: the difference between an ad-hom and an insult.

I expect the same courtesy I give.
And since you extended me the "courtesy" of moving the goalposts and hoping I wouldn't notice . . .

[Alkatran]

The real problem here is that the freedoms and rights granted to people are contradictory. You can't have an absolute right to privacy and have someone else have the absolute freedom of speech. They are only ideals we can strive towards.

I support this decision because, frankly, these people were behaving in an incredibly immoral way. They deserve their punishment.

[ksbluesfan]

Something else for you to learn: the difference between an ad-hom and an insult.

And since you extended me the "courtesy" of moving the goalposts and hoping I wouldn't notice . . .

Are you entitled to call me a little weasel? I'm pretty sure that violates the JREF forum agreement.

KingMerv00, DrKitten, am I wrong?

[drkitten]

Good question. I assumed that since it wasn't part of the charges that it wasn't considered to be consequential.

Why do you assume that it wasn't part of the "charges"? Have you read the complaint, or merely a journalist's summary?

But perhaps more to the point, not all the evidence to be considered at trial need be in the complaint.

[drkitten]

Are you entitled to call me a little weasel? I'm pretty sure that violates the JREF forum agreement.

<shrug> So report him. You know where the button is. Or, I assume you know where it is. If not, look to the lower left-hand corner of the post.

[ponderingturtle]

Just when you think lawyers' reputations couldn't get any worse.

Hey at least they disbarred Fred

A formal complaint was filed against Fred W. Phelps, Sr. on November 8, 1977 by the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for Phelps on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which Phelps had requested the transcript, Phelps still requested $22,000 in damages from her. In the ensuing trial, Phelps called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut," tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom Phelps wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand.[18] Phelps lost the case; according to the Kansas Supreme Court:

The trial became an exhibition of a personal vendetta by Phelps against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant. The jury verdict didn't stop the onslaught of Phelps. He was not satisfied with the hurt, pain, and damage he had visited on Carolene Brady.[18]

In an appeal, Phelps prepared affidavits swearing to the court that he had eight witnesses whose testimony would convince the court to rule in his favor. Brady, in turn, obtained sworn, signed affidavits from the eight people in question, all of whom said that Phelps had never contacted them and that they had no reason to testify against Brady; Phelps had committed perjury.[18]

On July 20, 1979, Fred Phelps was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of Kansas,[18] but continued to practice in the Federal courts.

In 1985, nine Federal judges filed a disciplinary complaint against Phelps and five of his children, alleging false accusations against the judges. In 1989, the complaint was settled, with Phelps agreeing to permanently stop practicing in Federal court, and two of his children suspended for periods of six months and one year.[19]

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps)

So there are things that even lawyers think are too low for them to want to be associated with you. I know it seems like a supernatural claim but it seems to be true in this case.

[ksbluesfan]

Why do you assume that it wasn't part of the "charges"? Have you read the complaint, or merely a journalist's summary?

But perhaps more to the point, not all the evidence to be considered at trial need be in the complaint.

Did I miss a link for the official court document? I've only read articles in the Baltimore Sun.

To me, it sounds like the attacks on the website didn't come until Snyder file suit, but I could be wrong.

[KingMerv00]

A formal complaint was filed against Fred W. Phelps, Sr. on November 8, 1977 by the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for Phelps on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which Phelps had requested the transcript, Phelps still requested $22,000 in damages from her. In the ensuing trial, Phelps called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut," tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom Phelps wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand.

Jeez...I take it the judge in that case was on vacation?

[KingMerv00]

Are you entitled to call me a little weasel? I'm pretty sure that violates the JREF forum agreement.

KingMerv00, DrKitten, am I wrong?

That is for the all-wise and all-powerful moderators to decide. I CAN tell you that he did not commit any tortious or criminal acts that I know of.

[Slimething]

Yeah, but the Phelps' are lawyers. So they're not actually burning money; they get paid the same whether they file paperwork or not.

Just when you think lawyers' reputations couldn't get any worse.

I didn't realize they had represented themselves. Thanks for the tidbit. These guys are dumber than I thought!

[b33fj3rky]

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of atheists here who don't value free speech as highly as I do.

Westboro may be a bunch of horrible offensive nutjobs, but they should be allowed to say whatever they want... the marketplace of ideas.

As long as the nutjobs are not invading anybody's private spaces, then nobody should silence the nutjobs; and nobody deserves eleven million bucks because they got their feelings hurt.

Sometimes I get the feeling that myself and Penn Jillette are the only true freedom-loving atheists around. (Hopefully I'm wrong, though.)

[Apology]

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of atheists here who don't value free speech as highly as I do.

Westboro may be a bunch of horrible offensive nutjobs, but they should be allowed to say whatever they want... the marketplace of ideas.

As long as the nutjobs are not invading anybody's private spaces, then nobody should silence the nutjobs; and nobody deserves eleven million bucks because they got their feelings hurt.

Sometimes I get the feeling that myself and Penn Jillette are the only true freedom-loving atheists around. (Hopefully I'm wrong, though.)

Well, you are wrong, fortunately. Phelp's right to free speech is not being violated. He was never allowed to shout "Fire!" in a movie theater. He's not allowed to incite people to assault him by shrieking about fags at a dead soldier's funeral any more either. He can still squeal about everyone God hates anywhere else. The level of free speech in this country has not changed one bit. I care about free speech as much as anybody.

[Halcyon Dayz]

When I was going to school at the University of Kansas, we had a visit from Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was speaking at Allen Field House. For some reason, his presence prompted a response from the Phelps mob. I'm still not entirely certain what the connection was there...

Well, Tutu wears a dress.

'Nuf said. Nutch, nutch. Wink, wink.

:D

[COLONEL]

Well I hope now they will go back under the rock that they crawled out from under

[Alkatran]

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of atheists here who don't value free speech as highly as I do.

Westboro may be a bunch of horrible offensive nutjobs, but they should be allowed to say whatever they want... the marketplace of ideas.

As long as the nutjobs are not invading anybody's private spaces, then nobody should silence the nutjobs; and nobody deserves eleven million bucks because they got their feelings hurt.

Sometimes I get the feeling that myself and Penn Jillette are the only true freedom-loving atheists around. (Hopefully I'm wrong, though.)

Free speech can't be absolute: you could just say things while you performed ANY action in order to make it illegal to stop you (because we assumed free speech is absolute and it therefore trumps all other laws).

[drkitten]

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of atheists here who don't value free speech as highly as I do.

Free speech doesn't enter into it. His speech is as free as it ever was. This isn't about free speech, it's about consequences and responsibility for one's actions.


As long as the nutjobs are not invading anybody's private spaces, then nobody should silence the nutjobs;

No one is silencing the nutjobs.

and nobody deserves eleven million bucks because they got their feelings hurt.

The jury disagrees. But that isn't a "free speech" issue.

Analogy : You have the (legally-recognized) "freedom to travel" (which dates back to the Middle Ages and English common law). If you haven't committed certain specified acts, the government even goes so far as to provide you with a licence to operate a motor vehicle in exercising that right.

But if you hit my parked car and total it, you will still have to pay for the damage you caused. The government will not take away your driving licence. Your freedom to travel has not been curtailed. But you still owe me for my car.....

[Ocelot]

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of atheists here who don't value free speech as highly as I do.

Westboro may be a bunch of horrible offensive nutjobs, but they should be allowed to say whatever they want... the marketplace of ideas.

As long as the nutjobs are not invading anybody's private spaces, then nobody should silence the nutjobs; and nobody deserves eleven million bucks because they got their feelings hurt.

Sometimes I get the feeling that myself and Penn Jillette are the only true freedom-loving atheists around. (Hopefully I'm wrong, though.)

How has westboro's free speech been curtailed?

They still have their message, they will still promote their message, however harrassing servicemen's family at funerals is now a very expensive way of doing so.

No-one told them they can't tell the world that god hates fags or god hates america for tollerating fags. They still have the right to excercise their free speech. They can still hate from the pulpit, they can still hate via the web, they can still hate at protests across the land.

If they choose to promote their message, whether it were one of love or one of hatred I sure you'll agree that they're not allowed to brand it onto your forehead without your consent. Freedom of speech is irrelevent to the harm they'd cause you by such torture.

A jury has decided that their actions were equivalent. They haven't told the church to cease their message they've simply imposed damages for the nasty way they delivered it.

[Slimething]

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of atheists here who don't value free speech as highly as I do.

We've already discussed this so it might be educational for you to read the thread. There is no First Amendment issue connected to this thread as these idiots were sued for a tort, not a criminal infraction.

Maybe you can pat yourself on the back while you wax eloquent as to how we can protect ourselves against slander and libel in your imaginary world. Please proceed. ;)

[KingMerv00]

We've already discussed this so it might be educational for you to read the thread. There is no First Amendment issue connected to this thread as these idiots were sued for a tort, not a criminal infraction.

What about the laws that forbid protesting near a funeral? What do you think of them?

[Slimething]

What about the laws that forbid protesting near a funeral? What do you think of them?

Oh, no, you don't! I'm not a legal scholar like you are. I'm pretty much a watcher until an actual case comes up. If I'm up to it, I'll concoct an opinion on the facts presented.

I can tell you that laws prohibiting expression like the one you want to argue are very dodgy. I can see the government's side of wanting to preserve the peace but I doubt that's enough to pass constitutional concerns. (Safety, yes; peace, no.) I would think they would be struck down on the basis that anyone harmed already has an avenue for relief. That is, if said protesters were on public property and not trespassing.

Would you agree with that general line of reasoning?

[KingMerv00]

Oh, no, you don't! I'm not a legal scholar like you are.

I'm no scholar but all compliments are selfishly accepted. Keep'em comin'.

I'm pretty much a watcher until an actual case comes up. If I'm up to it, I'll concoct an opinion on the facts presented.

Now you sound like a Supreme Court Justice.

I can tell you that laws prohibiting expression like the one you want to argue are very dodgy. I can see the government's side of wanting to preserve the peace but I doubt that's enough to pass constitutional concerns. (Safety, yes; peace, no.) I would think they would be struck down on the basis that anyone harmed already has an avenue for relief. That is, if said protesters were on public property and not trespassing.

Would you agree with that general line of reasoning?

I think it is fine. Whenever a novel area of the law is explored, it pretty much comes down to whoever has the better argument.

Considering the slightly conservative nature of the SCOTUS, I suspect that if the case found its way there, the law would be upheld on the basis of state's autonomy.

[Apology]

I can't think of a single reason to protest a funeral other than to incite the mourners.

Also, if an anti-protesting law regarding funerals were to pass, theoretically Phelps and crew could protest right on the same spot either the day before or the day after the funeral.

Free speech does not require us to make sure that protesters have the audience they want :D

[drkitten]

I can't think of a single reason to protest a funeral other than to incite the mourners.

Well, there are going to be more people there to see your protest than there will be the day before or after. (Commercials cost considerably more during the SuperBowl than the day before or the day after -- why?) I think there are lots of reasons to target a funeral with a protest. But the simple fact that you can doesn't absolve you of responsibiilty for doing so.

[b33fj3rky]

Free speech doesn't enter into it. His speech is as free as it ever was. This isn't about free speech, it's about consequences and responsibility for one's actions.

No one is silencing the nutjobs.

The government is enforcing an eleven-million dollar fee on an act of speech.

Functionally, it's the same thing as the government just flat-out banning that act of particular speech.


Analogy : You have the (legally-recognized) "freedom to travel" (which dates back to the Middle Ages and English common law). If you haven't committed certain specified acts, the government even goes so far as to provide you with a licence to operate a motor vehicle in exercising that right.

But if you hit my parked car and total it, you will still have to pay for the damage you caused. The government will not take away your driving licence.

Your analogy is a poor one. The Phelps nutjubs haven't "totaled" anyone's anything, or harmed a single hair on anybody's head. They've said some horribly offensive things, sure, they've put some really insane and mean-spirited ideas out there, but they've not destroyed anybody's body or property.

[KingMerv00]

Your analogy is a poor one. The Phelps nutjubs haven't "totaled" anyone's anything, or harmed a single hair on anybody's head. They've said some horribly offensive things, sure, they've put some really insane and mean-spirited ideas out there, but they've not destroyed anybody's body or property.

You can sue someone for assault even if they don't harm a hair on your head. An assault tort is a suit over hurt feelings.

[delphi_ote]

I would argue that this case is different from a "pro-life screamer" case because of the nature of the victims. Consider that the actual target of the WBC's wraith is dead and they are screaming insults at the PARENTS...at their son's FUNERAL.

The Snyders were particularly vulnerable at that moment in time so I have more sympathy them than an aboration doctor.
What about the patients? I'd say they're pretty vulnerable...

[Silly Green Monkey]

The government's got nothing to do with it. A victim took his assaulters to court, was able to prove harm, and was awarded damages. This is an example of the legal system working.

[Slimething]

The government is enforcing an eleven-million dollar fee on an act of speech.

If the government enforces anything in this case, it will be the court's decision. It will not be enforcing any fees. A judgement is not a fee.

Functionally, it's the same thing as the government just flat-out banning that act of particular speech.

Functionally, this post is unmistakeable evidence that you need a remedial class in civics. Don't you know the difference between criminal and civil law?

[KingMerv00]

What about the patients? I'd say they're pretty vulnerable...

I would agree, but not as vulnerable as a mother at her son's funeral. Of course my estimates are subjective but that is the justification for the statute.

[b33fj3rky]

A judgement is not a fee.

A distinction without a difference.

But keep harping on the semantics of all this, if it gives you something nice and distracting to do as our free speech is slowly chipped away.

[b33fj3rky]

The government's got nothing to do with it. A victim took his assaulters to court

Ah, so the victim took his "assaulter" (who never actually harmed or touched the victims in any way) to court, but somehow it was some magic court completely uninvolved with the US government. So that would be, what, Judge Judy?

[Apology]

Ah, so the victim took his "assaulter" (who never actually harmed or touched the victims in any way) to court, but somehow it was some magic court completely uninvolved with the US government. So that would be, what, Judge Judy?

You don't have to touch someone to assault them. There's no requirements for injuries to be sustained. That is Battery.

[Slimething]

A distinction without a difference.

If you really don't know the difference between a fee and a court judgement, this thread is not for you. You really ought to bone up on the different legal systems at play here. Not only will it give you peace of mind that your rights are not being taken away by civil court judgements but such education will also let you opine logically once you see criminal court proceedings (State or Commonweatlh of ?? vs ../ The People of the US vs..) where you do see your rights in peril.

Until such time as you know of what you write, so long. :w2:

[Apology]

A simple example of assault without touching or injury would be if I threw a knife at you, but I missed. No one got hurt but I still assaulted you. I didn't batter you, because I missed.

[b33fj3rky]

A simple example of assault without touching or injury would be if I threw a knife at you

On nothing but the most bizarre, pedantic level could slinging opinions be equivocated with slinging knives.

[Apology]

On nothing but the most bizarre, pedantic level could slinging opinions be equivocated with slinging knives.

That's why I said it was a simple explanation. I made it to illustrate the difference between assault and battery.

If you'd like a more specific example, getting right in someone's face, shouting, and waving your finger directly under their nose can be considered assault. No actual touching required.

[b33fj3rky]

If you really don't know the difference between a fee and a court judgement, this thread is not for you. You really ought to bone up on the different legal systems at play here.

pe·dan·tic (pə-dān'tĭk) Pronunciation Key
adj. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

pe·dan'ti·cal·ly adv.

Synonyms: These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

[Normal Dude]

This is why there should be some sort of entrance exam required before you are allowed to post on boards.

[b33fj3rky]

If you'd like a more specific example, getting right in someone's face, shouting, and waving your finger directly under their nose can be considered assault. No actual touching required.

I'll agree with that.

However Phelps and the Jeebus Mountain Crew were, what, a thousand feet away from the funerals they protested? They didn't actually crash the service and scream during the eulogy, did they?

[b33fj3rky]

This is why there should be some sort of entrance exam required before you are allowed to post on boards.

I completely agree with you.

[Slimething]

This is why there should be some sort of entrance exam required before you are allowed to post on boards.

Not much "b33f" to this guy, is there? Only "j3rky". ;)

[Apology]

I'll agree with that.

However Phelps and the Jeebus Mountain Crew were, what, a thousand feet away from the funerals they protested? They didn't actually crash the service and scream during the eulogy, did they?

I don't know exactly what happened. I suspect that someone from the funeral went over to ask them to stop, and that person was assaulted. I'm unsure as to when the actual assault happened. Fred Phelps is known for provoking these types of assaults and his followers are also known for perpetrating them. I suspect the assault is part of the incitement. It's possible that Phelp's followers assaulted the funeral party members before they actually reached the funeral. I know that they were not in the funeral home at any time during the funeral itself, so they didn't crash the service.

[linusrichard]

I don't know exactly what happened. I suspect that someone from the funeral went over to ask them to stop, and that person was assaulted. I'm unsure as to when the actual assault happened. Fred Phelps is known for provoking these types of assaults and his followers are also known for perpetrating them. I suspect the assault is part of the incitement. It's possible that Phelp's followers assaulted the funeral party members before they actually reached the funeral. I know that they were not in the funeral home at any time during the funeral itself, so they didn't crash the service.

I'm not sure that any assault was involved, unless we're talking about different cases. The five causes of action included two of invasion of privacy, and one each of defamation, IIED, and civil conspiracy.

For those of you with Westlaw access, you can read the opinion at 2007 WL 3071412. Again, unless we're talking about different cases.

[Temporal Renegade]

How would you personally feel, if these people decided to protest at the funeral of your loved one?

Now, let's bypass the "Well, my child isn't in the military or deceased, so this question doesn't apply to me" argument. Bottom line is, how would you feel, if it happened to someone you cared about?

[JoeEllison]

How would you personally feel, if these people decided to protest at the funeral of your loved one?

Now, let's bypass the "Well, my child isn't in the military or deceased, so this question doesn't apply to me" argument. Bottom line is, how would you feel, if it happened to someone you cared about?

Really angry. What's your point?

[Temporal Renegade]

Really angry. What's your point?

Simple. Do they have the right to protest? Maybe; I'm not a legal expert. But, even if someone does believe that they have the right, would they just stand back and let them do it if it were their family's funeral? Or would they speak out?

[KingMerv00]

I'm not sure that any assault was involved, unless we're talking about different cases. The five causes of action included two of invasion of privacy, and one each of defamation, IIED, and civil conspiracy.


I brought up assault because it is an example of a tort that involved emotional damage only. You don't need to pick my pocket or break my leg for me to extract money from you.

[KingMerv00]

Ah, so the victim took his "assaulter" (who never actually harmed or touched the victims in any way) to court, but somehow it was some magic court completely uninvolved with the US government. So that would be, what, Judge Judy?

Let's do it your way for the moment. Do you believe that the intentional infliction of emotional distress should be a a valid tort?

I say yes. Consider that someone murders your loved ones and then sends you a DVD of the act. (This is, of course, an exteme example but I'm trying to show that we do have a right to recover for hurt feelings.) Now let's say I have a slam dunk case and want money but I can't go to court to enforce a judgment because the government can't be involved in your world. Who CAN I go to? Jimmy "the Nose"?

[linusrichard]

Simple. Do they have the right to protest? Maybe; I'm not a legal expert. But, even if someone does believe that they have the right, would they just stand back and let them do it if it were their family's funeral? Or would they speak out?
I hope they would speak out. Even if you believe that the Phelpses have the right to protest a funeral, that doesn't take away the free speech rights of the family to speak out against the protest in turn.

The better question is to ask those who are upset about this verdict whether, if it were their family member's funeral, they would sue. You won't get a good answer though - almost everyone will say they wouldn't sue.

I brought up assault because it is an example of a tort that involved emotional damage only. You don't need to pick my pocket or break my leg for me to extract money from you.

No, yeah, I saw that. The way you brought up assault made sense, but then others were saying that the case we were talking about actually involved assault, and I just wanted to straighten that out.

[ponderingturtle]

The government is enforcing an eleven-million dollar fee on an act of speech.


Is it just me or do statements like this make others want to break forum rules and send harrassing PM's and such? If he really believed in the first amendment as he claims he should know that such abuse is just something he has to take.

[ponderingturtle]

I completely agree with you.

You realize that the point of said exam would be to keep you out right?

[KingMerv00]

Is it just me or do statements like this make others want to break forum rules and send harrassing PM's and such?

It isn't his legal misunderstanding that bothers me, that is a reasonable mistake to make for a layman. The certainty and anger on the other hand...