Phelps' Church Slapped With $10.9 Million Judgement

[blike]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html

 

BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP)

-- A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

 

Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

 

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

Some people feel justice was served, others feel it was unfair because it punishes what should be protected speech.

 

What say ye, forum? (In case you don't know who Phelps his, check out the wiki page on Westboro Baptist Church)

[john5746]

I don't know why picketing a funeral is even legal. I don't think anyone should be allowed to picket Hitler's funeral. I would love to see the church bankrupt and gone, but if this kind of thing can be sued, it would be nice to know the rules upfront.

[iNow]

I give the father credit for going through the legal system for retribution instead of the Smith & Wesson system for retribution.

 

 

 

EDIT: The significance of the penalty was likely to send a message that this type of behavior is not acceptable in an evolved society.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, it shouldn't be illegal. It's free speech. It's classless free speech, but nonetheless. I'm also curious about the "invasion of privacy" bit.

 

The emotional distress is highly suspicious to me. Is this basically saying that I can't walk up to someone in the throes of grief and insult them? Certainly not a noble pursuit of liberty, but I don't like where this could go. Some could even fake grief just to keep anyone from being able to say anything challenging to them or - wham! - you caused emotional distress, pay up.

 

Like the 9/11 widows. Could this kind of mentallity enable them to vocalize political opinions through the media, yet use their "grieving widow" status to scare anyone from opposing their points of view - "intent to inflict emotional distress".

 

That said, I can't imagine such an obviously tasteless and downright cruel method as this would really motivate people to join them or listen to them. Everyone I talk about this with just seems disgusted and repulsed, including myself.

 

This is definitely the sick side of religion. While I'm not happy they're mangling the constitution to stop something they don't like, yet again, at least someone is fighting back.

[Royston]

I don't know why picketing a funeral is even legal.

 

My sentiments exactly. I'd be quite interested to see what Louis Theroux has to say on the subject, after spending IIRC a few days with these, ummm, people. I'm sure balancing freedom of speech against the invasion of privacy, and the magnitude of disrupting the one time the family are together to grieve, is certainly in favour of the family in my book. Though if it was up to me, on top of the fine, I'd give Slayer a phone call, and ask them to do an impromptu gig at their church, just before it was shut down due to bankruptcy.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for the links. I had no idea these people were even out there. That wiki article was really something. Cheering 9/11 and the Sago Mine Disaster because of America's tolerance for homosexuality?! Truly bizarre.

[D H]

I first became aware of this group in February 2003. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church traveled to Houston and set up shop right in front of the Johnson Space Center. Their placards declared that god struck down the Columbia. Many of us at JSC felt like using Smith and Wesson justice.

 

Good riddance if this suit puts this "church" out of business.

[blike]

Cheering 9/11 and the Sago Mine Disaster because of America's tolerance for homosexuality?! Truly bizarre.

They've been at the center of a lot of controversy regarding free speech. They routinely show up at soldier's funerals holding signs saying "Thank God for IEDs". This led to a number of places passing ordinances requiring or increasing the minimum distance between a protest and a funeral. It also led to the formation of the motorcycle group "Patriot Guard Riders". At the request of families, they park themselves between Phelps' crew and the funeral, raise american flags, and either turn on their bikes or sing patriotic songs.

 

My personal opinion is that free speech trumps all. It is a bit disconcerting that a group acting under the protection of the first amendment was slapped with such a monstrous judgment. This was a civil trial so I'm not sure what impact that has on the decision. While it is nice to see Phelps' crew slapped around a bit, it would have been much nicer had they received a karma-esque slapping rather than a questionable legal decision.

[bascule]

The Phelpses are professional trolls. While it's nice to see them get their comeuppance, I expect a long drawn out appeals process, possibly with the ACLU taking their case...

[DrDNA]

I believe that this falls outside the scope of freedom of speech (and right to assembly) in much the same manner as screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.

[John Cuthber]

There's a time and place for free speech and the right to protest. This was just a calculated insult.

[ParanoiA]

I believe that this falls outside the scope of freedom of speech (and right to assembly) in much the same manner as screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

I don't see the logical connection there.

 

It also led to the formation of the motorcycle group "Patriot Guard Riders". At the request of families, they park themselves between Phelps' crew and the funeral, raise american flags, and either turn on their bikes or sing patriotic songs.

 

And this is the proper kind of response. I'm so proud of these guys to do this. I wish I could participate in one of these things locally. The next step would be to picket their church, or the church members' homes, their places of employment. Free speech and demonstration runs both ways.

 

The Phelpses are professional trolls.

 

I like that title. That's what I'm going to start calling them, since that's what they are.

[DrDNA]

I don't see the logical connection there.

 

What part don't you get?

[ParanoiA]

What part don't you get?

 

Screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre (provided there is no fire that is..) is prohibited since it endangers the lives of the folks in the theatre due to mass panic. This protest doesn't endanger anyone's life, much less out of mass panic.

[DrDNA]

Screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre (provided there is no fire that is..) is prohibited since it endangers the lives of the folks in the theatre due to mass panic. This protest doesn't endanger anyone's life, much less out of mass panic.

 

OK. I see. I meant that their right to free speech ends when it interferes with someone elses rights.

It certainly infringes on the loved ones' rights to privacy and their rights to grieve for their loved ones. It may also infringe on their religous rights.

[swansont]

One must also remember that the first amendment right to free seech is concerned primarily with government censorship/suppression. Free speech does not give you the right to libel or slander someone, for instance, and this would seem to be related (willful infliction of emotional distress). Protesting the government is one thing, but there are so many avenues available to do so, and a funeral is usually not a government event.

[ParanoiA]

OK. I see. I meant that their right to free speech ends when it interferes with someone elses rights.

It certainly infringes on the loved ones' rights to privacy and their rights to grieve for their loved ones. It may also infringe on their religous rights.

 

What? We don't have any right's to public privacy. We have no rights to grieve and not be bothered by someone, like asking for a cigarette, if you need a handkerchief, or letting you know your loved one died because god hates what he created. There's no infringement of religious rights either. No one is stopping them from grieving (hell, they're certainly helping in that case).

 

Harrassment, however. I think that's the key. You certainly don't have a right to harass someone, and I would accept an argument in that direction. That may have been the basis for this suit too.

[DrDNA]

What? We don't have any right's to public privacy. We have no rights to grieve and not be bothered by someone, like asking for a cigarette, if you need a handkerchief, or letting you know your loved one died because god hates what he created. There's no infringement of religious rights either. No one is stopping them from grieving (hell, they're certainly helping in that case).

 

Harrassment, however. I think that's the key. You certainly don't have a right to harrass someone, and I would accept an argument in that direction. That may have been the basis for this suit too.

 

Public?

A funeral is definitely NOT a public event. The defendants in the case being discussed claimed that the funeral was a public event, but that is nonsense of course, and they lost. If they want to protest down main street that is one thing, but a funeral is another. One party certainly does not have the right to interfere with the rights of another party. Privacy is definitely a right whether it be out of doors (eg, a funeral) or indoors (eg, a bedroom).

[bascule]

My favorite part of this whole thing was the defense attorney (who's Jewish, so I guess the Phelpses think he's going to hell with all the gays) pleading with the jury not to award excessive punitive damages because $2.9 million was already 3 times his client's net worth.

[ParanoiA]

Public?

A funeral is definitely NOT a public event. The defendants in the case being discussed claimed that the funeral was a public event, but that is nonsense of course, and they lost. If they want to protest down main street that is one thing, but a funeral is another. One party certainly does not have the right to interfere with the rights of another party. Privacy is definitely a right whether it be out of doors (eg, a funeral) or indoors (eg, a bedroom).

 

Hmm. What about the property rights of the owner of the funeral home, or wherever the the funeral takes place? Can't the owner demand them to leave?

 

I guess I'm thinking of this like any publicly accessible business. If we're both in line at Wal-mart, you don't have any right to force me to leave or shut up while you grieve about the length of the line. However, Wal-mart can certainly run me off, as it's their property.

 

So, I don't agree with the idea that someone at a cemetary can demand some sort of privacy, in terms of law, when they don't own the property or represent the owner of the property. They're just another patron in a publicly accessible business.

 

But seriously, why can't the owner, or staff run these idiots off? To refuse to leave would be trespassing at that point. Surely the staff didn't just stand there with their thumbs up their rears...?

[DrDNA]

Hmm. What about the property rights of the owner of the funeral home, or wherever the the funeral takes place? Can't the owner demand them to leave?

 

I guess I'm thinking of this like any publicly accessible business. If we're both in line at Wal-mart, you don't have any right to force me to leave or shut up while you grieve about the length of the line. However, Wal-mart can certainly run me off, as it's their property.

 

So, I don't agree with the idea that someone at a cemetary can demand some sort of privacy, in terms of law, when they don't own the property or represent the owner of the property. They're just another patron in a publicly accessible business.

 

But seriously, why can't the owner, or staff run these idiots off? To refuse to leave would be trespassing at that point. Surely the staff didn't just stand there with their thumbs up their rears...?

 

It is VERY different because you have entered into a contract for the rent, lease, or purchase of the property from the funeral home or cemetary. The contract grants you rights of use and privilage on that property. The same is true of a banquet hall, a private club, an apartment or a hotel room.

At Walmart, you are just passing through.

[Sisyphus]

I would have to know more facts of the case to give a definite opinion. I will say that merely picketing outside a funeral and harassing people is not valid grounds for suing, nor should it be. The fact that they won makes me suspect there's more to it than that, but it's entirely possible the law was stretched to punish the greatly deserving, which would be unfortunate if not exactly sad.

 

Also, "professional trolls" is apt. And what trolls and religious nutjobs (which is also apt) have in common is that they both love and thrive on persecution. So they're actually probably loving this. Another reason this is unfortunate.

[ParanoiA]

It is VERY different because you have entered into a contract for the rent, lease, or purchase of the property from the funeral home or cemetary. The contract grants you rights of use and privilage on that property. The same is true of a banquet hall, a private club, an apartment or a hotel room.

At Walmart, you are just passing through.

 

Hey, that's a hell of a point. That hadn't occurred to me.

 

But, as it turns out, they've been doing this from the sidewalk. And this specific incident was on federal property. I was listening to the local AM news station on my way home and they had their "legal expert" reporter dude talking about this and he said that the Phelp's are quite intelligent about the law and have been dilligently cautious. Apparently the daughter is an attorney, though they didn't mention what kind. And Phelp's himself was disbarred in 1979 for bullying a court reporter. If you read about that incident, it's not too hard to believe this bit from the complaint:

 

Mr. and Mrs. Snyder "raised [Matthew] for the devil" and taught him "to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery".

 

That was posted on one of the Phelps' websites, allegedly. There's more. He's really out there, and he's ridiculously cruel and flat out spiteful.

 

 

Nevertheless, hopefully the judge will see the lack of a broken law and toss out the jury verdict. Juries establish facts, judges establish law. It ain't over yet.

[DrDNA]

I guess they are just heartless, not stupid.

 

I just read the wiki article about Phelps. He's quite a piece of work!

[Dak]

I will say that merely picketing outside a funeral and harassing people is not valid grounds for suing, nor should it be.

 

why not? free speach has allways been countered by the fact that people are offended or otherwize upset: you can't say certain things on tv before the watershed, you can't shout '****' in a crowded theater, you can't call black people niggers, you can't follow someone around shouting at them or keep phoning them in the middle of the night, and you can't harass someone who's child has just died by telling them their kid deserved it and is going to hell. You only get truly free speach in valid political forums: i've nothing against them saying what they're saying, just not outside a funeral.

 

unrelatedly: where did such a (presumably) small church get that much money?