Phelps' Church Slapped With $10.9 Million Judgement

[ParanoiA]

I guess they are just heartless, not stupid.

 

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

 

Did you read all that crap he did to that court reporter on the stand? I think he has issues with inflicting cruelty...

[DrDNA]

Did you read all that crap he did to that court reporter on the stand? I think he has issues with inflicting cruelty...

 

Yep...what a piece of crap. That case went on for around a week. I wonder how a judge could let it go on like that???

 

And the ACLU gladly takes his case.

 

Something like 66 out of 70 of his church members are relatives....LOL

[iNow]

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

 

It's amazing what people "donate" in the name of church. Ultimately, many people make offerings with a kind heart, while others have a sense of guilt for something they've done and they pay more to lighten the psychological burden (I find this second approach very relevant in people offering money to pan handlers at the intersection corners).

 

If the money is requested and saved properly it adds up in a hurry.

[Mr Skeptic]

They are evil men and will burn in hell. The Law of God clearly says, "Love your neighbor as yourself." If they win the suit, then people have equal right to picket their church and tell them that they are going to hell. Free speech goes both ways.

[mooeypoo]

I think there's a limit (or should be) for free speech. Inciting people to commit murder should be a limit, for instance.

 

Calling people to kill gays - or suggesting that dead people (the fact they are soldiers matter, but isn't relevant for the 'free speech' argument) are gays, burning in hell, and people will continue dying if gays continue being accepted in society - means that people should go around bashing gays. that's inciteful. It should be illegal, at least in my opinion.

 

And yes, I am aware of the fact that there is a thin line in all matters free-speech'y.. I'm stating a utopia world, I guess. Where this line is clear. In our world? I think the litigation should've been HARASSMENT and not free speech based.

 

In any case, I think no matter what, Phelps deserves *EVERYTHING* he could possibly get.

 

I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for him or the decision. Too bad it's only 10 million. I'd make sure he lives in the streets, selling his body for food. That would be poetic revenge, if not poetic justice.

 

~moo

[DrDNA]

II don't feel the slightest bit sorry for him or the decision. Too bad it's only 10 million. I'd make sure he lives in the streets, selling his body for food. That would be poetic revenge, if not poetic justice.

 

~moo

 

ROFL

A male prostitute to male clients........ That WOULD be justice.

But alas, there is no real justice in THIS world. We can only hope that he'll find lots of sadistic gay lovers with bad hygiene and STDs in hell.

[mooeypoo]

Yo uknow what? I think that if he goes to hell, he should find that there are *NO* gays in hell. At all. They're ALL in heaven. And he's forced to look at them for eternity having fun and spending their time in heaven while he's in hell.

 

That's poetic justice, right there.

 

Gosh, I'm almost ready to believe in God for that...

[Mr Skeptic]

The Phelpses are professional trolls.

 

No no no... the correct terminology is "fishers of men". God said so himself.

[Pangloss]

Saw some of these pinheads tonight on ABC's "20/20". Apparently they're also being featured in a Showtime documentary next month. All of which pleases them to no end, I'm sure.

 

The really sad part of the story was that the interviewer (John Stossil, of "Give Me a Break" fame) managed to convince them to let him interview their children. He had two 4 or 5 year old boys on the set, and unsurprisingly they were spewing the same vitriol that their parents were spewing a few moments before, including several comments about "fags".

 

Then Stossil asked them "What's a 'fag'?" The boys looked confused for a moment, spewed some more of the same general vitriol, and eventually came around to the general conclusion that they're "pretty much the same thing as jews".

 

(sigh)

[mooeypoo]

Did you *SEE* how that phelps woman looks!? she's INSANE....

 

Seriously... it's horrible.

 

Look here:

look at her smiiiilee... it's creepy

 

There's another video of her with Tyra Banks show, where her daughters speak and.. she looks like a friggin MONSTER... I couldn't find it atm, though. Look it up on YouTube.

 

~moo

[Severian]

I am against sueing in pretty much all cases. If an action is wrong and harms someone in a manner which society disapproves of, it should be illegal. If it is not wrong and does not harm anyone then it should be allowed.

 

I also dislike restricting freedom of speech. If someone insults me or is nasty with me, I should be mature enough to deal with it. They are not doing me physical harm.

 

There are obviously some exceptions, such as disturbing the peace, inciting a crime, or abuse of a position of responsibility. But with these caveats aside, one should be free to insult whomever one wishes.

 

And while I despise the attitude and behaviour of the picketers, I defend their right to protest, or indeed to say whatever they choose (as long as it is not inciting a crime). In fact, I notice a few people here suggesting a 'Smith & Weston" approach. Tell me, if you insult the Phelps' would you be happy paying them millions in compensation for the emotial distress you caused? I suspect not...

 

In other words, I agree with the defense lawyers: "Their attorneys argued in closing statements Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion."

[iNow]

It was a comment in reference to the extreme disrespect to the family, and how I personally might have felt if these fukktards had been outside the funeral of my son with pickets saying his death was caused by our acceptance of homosexuality.

 

I never said it was right, just that I gave the father credit for using the systems in place to find retribution instead of acting on (what surely must have been) his immediate gut reaction to distract himself from his grief through an expression of rage.

[Mr Skeptic]

I also dislike restricting freedom of speech. If someone insults me or is nasty with me, I should be mature enough to deal with it. They are not doing me physical harm.

 

Words can leave wounds that never heal. You are only immune from that if you absolutely don't care about people.

[mooeypoo]

Words can leave wounds that never heal. You are only immune from that if you absolutely don't care about people.

 

It's also about the symbolism. This isn't a single person yelling in the background, they are a recognized church who's well familiar in the news, and quite rich from their terrible endeavors.

 

They don't just "warn" people, they *mock*. Did you ever see them in action? It's not just a "this is what happens when God is disobeyed" demonstration, this is a laughing/yelling/dancing-around "party" with personal insults and mockery.. they research the people they are going to protest against and show pictures, history... this is a PERSONAL *planned* attack, it's not just a political statement.

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

Words can leave wounds that never heal. You are only immune from that if you absolutely don't care about people.

 

But you are free to not care about people. What right do you have to make me care about people?

[john5746]

I am against sueing in pretty much all cases. If an action is wrong and harms someone in a manner which society disapproves of, it should be illegal. If it is not wrong and does not harm anyone then it should be allowed.

 

I do agree with this viewpoint, but I think it should be illegal in the first place. I don't think the freedom of speech is so important that we should allow people to display nooses, burn crosses, burn the flag, display swastikas or protest anywhere they like.

 

I also agree that people should be able to tolerate hate speech, but they should also be able to tolerate alcohol as well. Some have a problem with it and many problems arise when mixed with driving. Speech can be the same way.

 

I don't have all the answers, but I think some obvious rules such as no protests near funerals would not curtail anyone the right to have their say.

[mooeypoo]

I do agree with this viewpoint, but I think it should be illegal in the first place. I don't think the freedom of speech is so important that we should allow people to display nooses, burn crosses, burn the flag, display swastikas or protest anywhere they like.

 

I also agree that people should be able to tolerate hate speech, but they should also be able to tolerate alcohol as well. Some have a problem with it and many problems arise when mixed with driving. Speech can be the same way.

 

I don't have all the answers, but I think some obvious rules such as no protests near funerals would not curtail anyone the right to have their say.

 

The problem with free speech is that it's a very wide definition. Technically, a teacher teaching evolution and then winking to his students with a "But I don't REALLY believe that crap!" statement is part of free speech as well, but - I would assume you agree? - should probably NOT be legal to do.

 

It's more than just the position of the teacher as an educator, it's the fact he has *power* over the students (I am refering specifically to, let's say, elementary school, where children are more susceptible to 'molding' by the teacher); he has a position of power and he is *taking advantage of it*.

 

So, maybe free speech should be limited by considering people in positions of power.

 

Another example -- if someone is a racist, and states that african americans are dumber than caucasians, that is freedom of speech. If the president of the united states does that, it's no longer under 'free speech'.

 

So where's the limit?

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

I do agree with this viewpoint, but I think it should be illegal in the first place. I don't think the freedom of speech is so important that we should allow people to display nooses, burn crosses, burn the flag, display swastikas or protest anywhere they like.

 

I do, ...

 

(Just my two bits, of course. We've talked about this before and I respect your opinion on it, which I remember to be insightful and well-considered.)

 

 

I don't have all the answers, but I think some obvious rules such as no protests near funerals would not curtail anyone the right to have their say.

 

... but that's a compromise I'd be willing to make, mainly because it's not as if there's a shortage of ways for people to make their opinions known these days.

[Dak]

I also dislike restricting freedom of speech. If someone insults me or is nasty with me, I should be mature enough to deal with it. They are not doing me physical harm.

 

There are obviously some exceptions, such as disturbing the peace, inciting a crime, or abuse of a position of responsibility. But with these caveats aside, one should be free to insult whomever one wishes.

 

And while I despise the attitude and behaviour of the picketers, I defend their right to protest, or indeed to say whatever they choose (as long as it is not inciting a crime).

 

I almost completely agree with you. i'd have no problem with the church saying that the dead soldures were killed because the US tolerates gays, even strait after they were killed and on national television, essentially 'cos it's a free-speech thing. at the end of the day, the people who would be offended should be mature enough to, say, switch over channels, or otherwize not listen.

 

But that, i think, is the relevent part: no one's perfect, and sometimes 'dealing with it maturely' involves admitting that you can't deal with it well and removing yourself from the situation -- walking away and ignoring it.

 

so going to their funeral is harsh. You can't expect, say, a father to not get upset if someone basically says 'oh, your son's recently died? good. he's in hell now', and you can't expect him to leave his own son's funeral just to not be offended by some ****tard's oppinions.

 

compare with: if someone calls you a dick in the street and you hit him, you'd probably get done for assault. if someone calls you a dick and you try to walk away, but he follows you insulting you and then you hit him, you'd probably get off on provocation because now theres no mature way for you to deal with that (you could call still not hitting him mature, but my point is that giving in to provocation that you can't escape isn't usually considered immature -- mature != perfect).

 

i'm having a bit of a spacky moment, so sorry if what i wrote is a bit clunky and inelegent(er than usual).

[Sayonara]

I am pretty sure the right to free speech ends when you are vindictively and with malice aforethought going out of your way to offend and emotionally wound people who have just suffered a tragic family loss.

 

In the UK there is an offence under the Public Order Act which requires the complainant only to be caused alarm, harassment, or distress. Free speech is not a get out clause in most cases, especially if the "free speech" is actually a hate speech. So if the Phelpses were to try their stunts here, they would be arrested and charged every time. Is there no equivalent in the US?

[Pangloss]

Not that I know of, and such a law would (I assume) run up against established precedent in documented court rulings.

 

I think it's pretty clear that we make many compromises on the subject of free speech, so we can't exactly sit back and say that we have free speech while other countries don't because of examples like Sayo's above -- that's clearly wrong because we also abridge free speech for various reasons.

 

There may be a difference of degree, but what actually defines free speech in the US is established court precedent, not higher ideal.

[Sayonara]

I rather thought the idea of the USA's free speech model was that it guarantees the right of people to speak their mind, but that they are still very much responsible for what they might choose to say, and by extension responsible for the consequences for other people.

 

I am guessing that in this particular case, that's the angle the jury came from.

[ParanoiA]

I am pretty sure the right to free speech ends when you are vindictively and with malice aforethought going out of your way to offend and emotionally wound people who have just suffered a tragic family loss.

 

What? Unless you're specifically referring to harassment, you think I don't have the right to offend you just because you're sad about something?

 

I'm amazed at the degree of free speech censorship I'm inferring in this thread. Just because someone is broken down for a loss and we can ALL relate to the powerful feelings and emotions involved - so NOW we're going to let our emotions trump our logic?

 

I don't know where to begin. I have no idea what in the world gave anyone the idea we don't have a right to be an ass to somebody - calculatively. I don't have to like you. I don't have to be nice to you. I don't have to give a crap what you've lost or what you're aching over - I can still protest on the sidewalk about it.. I can break your heart with words. I can say some amazingly cruel things - and NONE of it has to matter to you in the least. Harassment is the end of the line.

 

A tragic family loss is the flimsiest piece of logic I've ever heard to punish or censor free speech. If that were the norm in the 1800's...we would have lost free speech by the 20th century.

 

Freedom is tough. Freedom isn't free. And it's worth it. Put up with Phelps, and deal with him the right way and we preserve our rights - for one day, we may really, really need them. The way this country is going so far with intervention and terrorism - we don't need to help politicians gain more power and lose more of our own.

[Pangloss]

Don't you agree there are boundaries involving privacy, though? Do the Phelps have a right to enter my home and shout their opinions into my unwilling face?

 

Don't I have the right to invite friends to a private funeral gathering by invitation only?

 

I don't know if the Phelps' crossed those lines or not -- if they were just protesting across the street then I'm inclined to share your opinion. I'm just saying there ARE limits, whether we choose to recognize them or not. It's not an absolute.

[Sayonara]

What? Unless you're specifically referring to harassment, you think I don't have the right to offend you just because you're sad about something?

That is not exactly what I mean. I could have phrased it better I suppose; what I meant to suggest is that one cannot expect to injure people and get off scott free by simply shouting "free speech! free speech!". Certainly the law recognises that this is so, and the jury in this particular case apparently agree.

 

You may wish to avoid unilaterally downplaying circumstances with phrases such as "just because you're sad about something", because as I am sure you are aware, it is up to the advocates in any given case to convince the jury of the exact degree of harm that has been done.

 

I'm amazed at the degree of free speech censorship I'm inferring in this thread.

Then stop inferring it. Lest you are in any doubt about my personal position, I refer you to my earlier assertion that free speech is always permissible as long as it goes hand-in-hand with personal responsibility for its effects.

 

Just because someone is broken down for a loss and we can ALL relate to the powerful feelings and emotions involved - so NOW we're going to let our emotions trump our logic?

Not in the least. Emotive decisions do not preclude logical reasoning from arriving at the same conclusion. In the case in question, the balance of probabilities suggest that the harm done to the Snyders was neither proportionate to any benefit that the Phelpses could have gained from their actions, that the harm done was avoidable and unnecessary, and that not picketing the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder would in no way have reduced the rights or abilities of the Phelpses to spread their message of hate (which is a splendid way to use your right to free speech, but that's their choice I guess). Being emotive does not need to come into it.

 

I don't know where to begin. I have no idea what in the world gave anyone the idea we don't have a right to be an ass to somebody - calculatively.

You do have that right. Just don't be surprised or indignant if you are punished for how you choose to exercise that right by the appropriate authority. Remember the right to free speech gives you the right to speak your mind, but it doesn't stop anyone else from exercising their right to speak theirs right back at you, it doesn't make any provisions for how that right should be exercised in terms of content, and it does not guarantee against repercussions.

 

I don't have to like you. I don't have to be nice to you. I don't have to give a crap what you've lost or what you're aching over - I can still protest on the sidewalk about it.. I can break your heart with words. I can say some amazingly cruel things - and NONE of it has to matter to you in the least. Harassment is the end of the line.

I am not making the case that anyone should like or be nice to anyone else. I am simply pointing out that a court ordering damages for perceivable harm should not come as any great surprise, which is exactly what has happened here.

 

A tragic family loss is the flimsiest piece of logic I've ever heard to punish or censor free speech. If that were the norm in the 1800's...we would have lost free speech by the 20th century.

I am not going to argue for anyone else, but I am pretty sure that was not the thrust of what I was saying.

 

Freedom is tough. Freedom isn't free. And it's worth it. Put up with Phelps, and deal with him the right way and we preserve our rights - for one day, we may really, really need them.

If you believe in free speech then you must ALSO support the right of the Snyders to object to things that are said to them, regardless of their reasons. You do not have to pick a side, but consistency is recommended. So if taking Phelps to court was not dealing with him in "the right way", then pray tell what would be?

 

The way this country is going so far with intervention and terrorism - we don't need to help politicians gain more power and lose more of our own.

Perhaps society would like to give the problem just a little bit more thought before settling on "hurting each other" as the solution.

 

I don't know if the Phelps' crossed those lines or not -- if they were just protesting across the street then I'm inclined to share your opinion.

The plaintiff's case was that punitive damages should be paid because of the harm done to him and his family. Insofar as the nature and severity of the harm done was the question put to the jury, whether or not the defendant had the right to put on the performance that caused the harm would have been something of a moot point. Much like it is in this thread, where it is unfortunately being paraded around as a massive red herring.

 

I don't think any reasonable person would say that Phelps is not entitled to his opinion (some may even find it more appealing to support the social pariah), but denying that the Snyders are entitled to take action - within the framework of extant laws - when his expression of those opinions causes them harm, is indicative of a poor understanding of an individual's responsibilities in terms of social membership. It seems a very egocentric point of view, one which the law is required to discard per se and which is therefore pretty redundant in this discussion.