Phelps' Church Slapped With $10.9 Million Judgement

[Sisyphus]

I don't really buy the distinction being promoted by some here between something not being allowed and something being allowed, but "you're responsible for the consequences," when those "consequences" include legal judgments against you. I mean, really? "You're allowed to commit murder, but you're responsible for the consequences."

 

More to the point, I agree that of course, your rights end where mine begin, and that includes free speech. I just don't think the mourners rights were being infringed upon here. You don't have a right not to be made upset by anyone. You DO have a right to free speech. The exceptions being when the speech causes immediate danger, like shouting "fire" in a theater. Is there such a danger here? I don't think so. I think "harm" is being defined far too broadly when it includes "very offensive." Free speech is at its most important to protect WHEN it's very offensive, especially political speech that the majority finds abhorrent. That is literally the reason we HAVE free speech.

[Sayonara]

I don't really buy the distinction being promoted by some here between something not being allowed and something being allowed, but "you're responsible for the consequences," when those "consequences" include legal judgments against you. I mean, really? "You're allowed to commit murder, but you're responsible for the consequences."

The distinction is that society prohibits a predictable and invariable offence (such as murder), but allows itself the ability to retrieve proportionate reparations from a breach of rights which derives from the defendant's lawful choices, and which has a more subjective set of effects.

 

Whether or not you buy it, that's the state of play.

 

More to the point, I agree that of course, your rights end where mine begin, and that includes free speech. I just don't think the mourners rights were being infringed upon here.

But the family were not awarded damages on the basis that the Phelpses have no right to free speech, nor on the basis that the Phelpses' right to free speech infringed on the Snyders' rights by itself. This is why I called it a red herring.

 

You don't have a right not to be made upset by anyone. You DO have a right to free speech. The exceptions being when the speech causes immediate danger, like shouting "fire" in a theater. Is there such a danger here? I don't think so.

Same as above.

 

I think "harm" is being defined far too broadly when it includes "very offensive."

The jury apparently disagreed with that opinion in this instance. I think we all need to trust that when they made their decision they were in possession of more of the facts of the case than we are now.

 

Free speech is at its most important to protect WHEN it's very offensive, especially political speech that the majority finds abhorrent. That is literally the reason we HAVE free speech.

Quite. HOWEVER, as I keep saying, having the right to free speech is not a carte blanche for avoiding punitive damages that arise from your own choices about how you will exercise that right.

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

No, I'm with you on privacy - I have a right to that too on my own property, or through contract, like DrDNA pointed out.

 

But the Phelps were on the sidewalk. If they're on public land, then I see no broken law. It has to be protected speech from an objective point of view. To allow an exception, or dream up a loop hole is blatant dishonesty and contributes to the lack of respect for the constitution, and ultimately our rights.

 

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.

 

Well, the jury will determine facts and gauge harm but the judge can always override if law was never broken.

 

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

 

I believe I'm inferring correctly. The levels vary, but many posts have demonstrated a fairly low price set for freedom of speech. Most seem to have this idea that free speech is cool until it's really super duper mean...then out flies the excuses and pleas for limits.

 

I'm not sure how free speech could leave one responsible for any effects. We agree that certain kinds of speech are only restricted due to the overwhelming potential of actual physical harm. But beyond this? Are you really suggesting we become responsible for other's interpretations of our speech?

 

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.

 

The first part implies a broken law. The state has no business authorizing any "punishment" of any kind with legal behavior. Law should be objective; to remove as much bias and subjectivity as possible, IMO. The second part is right on the money. That's exactly the appropriate check to exercise. I called in to the local radio station here in KC and asked them why nobody was picketing their church, or their house.

 

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

 

Again, that's based on the assumption a law was broken. And what law was broken? Saying mean things to someone and making them cry? That's an implication that I can't be mean to you, legally.

 

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 Patriot Guard, picketing their homes and church, community wide cooperation to refuse their business everywhere they go...be creative. You don't need to change the rule book to win the game.

 

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

 

I agree they need to be convinced to do this, yes. And this is such a great lesson in tolerance. A great example of how freedom can be kind of "out of control" when you focus on the Phelps, when really it's comforting to see the the overwhelming decent folk taking a stand against these idiots.

[Mr Skeptic]

The right to free speech does not trump all other rights. It is occasionally trumped by the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and perhaps others. Free speech can be overridden by various things from endangering other people's lives to simply being a nuisance.

 

Speech, like any other action, will have consequences. Sometimes those consequences will hurt you. If you say "I did it" when defending in court, you might end up in jail for it. However, it is the action, not the speech itself, which can get you in trouble. Some actions may be illegal even if they are accomplished through speech. The speech can be legal and the action illegal.

 

I don't really buy the distinction being promoted by some here between something not being allowed and something being allowed, but "you're responsible for the consequences," when those "consequences" include legal judgments against you. I mean, really? "You're allowed to commit murder, but you're responsible for the consequences."

 

But, your honor, I was just "pursuing happiness", as is my right... Not going to work.

[Dak]

I believe I'm inferring correctly. The levels vary, but many posts have demonstrated a fairly low price set for freedom of speech. Most seem to have this idea that free speech is cool until it's really super duper mean...then out flies the excuses and pleas for limits.

 

well, as far as i'm concerned, i pretty much am arguing that free speech is cool untill it's really harsh.

 

as far as i'm concerned, everyone has a freedom to say whatever they want, but not neccesarily wherever they want. by all means say that the soldures were killed because the us is tolerant of gays, that this is a good thing, and that they'll be burning in hell; i think people should have their right to say this protected, and should especially never be disallowed saying this in a political arena.

 

BUT, that doesn't mean that they can say whatever they want wherever they want. saying it in their own sermons, in a political arena, in interviews on the tv, protesting outside military centres, etc, fair one; but outside places where there's likely to be someone grieving a recent military loss, and whilst the only reason they want to be there is specifically because they want to cause maximum offence? no.

[Severian]

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.

 

That is all very well, but where is the objective quantification of that harm? Emotional distress as a result of someone else's lawful words or actions cannot count since it is completely subjective.

[john5746]

You could say the same about rape. I mean sometimes it may not be so bad physically, but the emotional scars are real. I would rather be beat up then be raped myself, so I think the majority of people can understand this as a truth, not just an opinion. With the exception of psychopaths.

[Sisyphus]

You could say the same about rape. I mean sometimes it may not be so bad physically, but the emotional scars are real. I would rather be beat up then be raped myself, so I think the majority of people can understand this as a truth, not just an opinion. With the exception of psychopaths.

 

But rape is a pre-established as a crime with definite consequences. That's quite a bit different from anyone being able to sue anyone else for emotional damages whenever they get offended by anything. "Being mean" is not a crime.

[ParanoiA]

BUT, that doesn't mean that they can say whatever they want wherever they want. saying it in their own sermons, in a political arena, in interviews on the tv, protesting outside military centres, etc, fair one; but outside places where there's likely to be someone grieving a recent military loss, and whilst the only reason they want to be there is specifically because they want to cause maximum offence? no.

 

Dictating where they can speak is as important as what. Protesting an abortion clinic could be said to be cruel, inflicting harm on someone going through an emotional crisis and loss - with seemingly no more persuasive power than the Phelps' message - causing no more than maximum offense.

 

I don't think you get to dictate free speech based on taste and expect it to be of any value to the people.

[john5746]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages

 

Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.

 

Punitive damages are often awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. They may be rationalized as preventing under-compensation of plaintiffs, allowing redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system.[1]

 

Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously invidious. Punitive damages cannot generally be awarded in contract disputes.

 

 

 

Intentional torts

 

Main article: Intentional tort

 

Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories, including tort(s) against the person, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant. Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion.

 

 

 

 

Extreme and outrageous conduct

 

The conduct must be heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Whether the conduct is illegal does not determine whether it meets this standard. IIED is also known as the tort of "outrage," due to a classic formulation of the standard: the conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" in response.

 

Some general factors that will persuade that the conduct was extreme and outrageous: (1) there was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it; (3) the defendant was in a position of power; (4) racial epithets were used; and (5) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty. Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1998);GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999);

[Dak]

Dictating where they can speak is as important as what. Protesting an abortion clinic could be said to be cruel, inflicting harm on someone going through an emotional crisis and loss - with seemingly no more persuasive power than the Phelps' message - causing no more than maximum offense.

 

I don't think you get to dictate free speech based on taste and expect it to be of any value to the people.

 

freedom of speech does not obligate everyone to listen to what you're saying. as much as phelps have freedom of speech, the recently berieved have a right to ignore them, which is impossible to do if they're protesting outside the funeral.

 

as long as phelps have somewhere to say this, and as long as they're allowed to speak in political arenas, then i don't see the problem.

[ParanoiA]

freedom of speech does not obligate everyone to listen to what you're saying. as much as phelps have freedom of speech, the recently berieved have a right to ignore them, which is impossible to do if they're protesting outside the funeral.

 

as long as phelps have somewhere to say this, and as long as they're allowed to speak in political arenas, then i don't see the problem.

 

If it's impossible to ignore, then a case can be made for harassment, or maybe noise ordinance.

 

You don't have a right to not be bothered or annoyed.

[Sayonara]

That is all very well, but where is the objective quantification of that harm? Emotional distress as a result of someone else's lawful words or actions cannot count since it is completely subjective.

 

Hence why these things end up in a court - to establish what "counts". The law is not restricted to only dealing with that which can be objectively quantified.

 

 

ParanoiA, you raise some interesting points as usual. Sometimes I would like to see what ParanoiAland might look like.

Bear in mind when you read my viewpoints that, as I mentioned earlier, I am culturally inclined and equipped to discuss this issue from a UK law viewpoint (in which causing the type of distress that the Snyders suffered would be unlawful). As far as the fine points and issues surrounding the legal right to free speech in the US go, you have me at something of a disadvantage.

[Severian]

The law is not restricted to only dealing with that which can be objectively quantified.

 

But it should be.

[iNow]

But it should be.

 

How? Even that which is "objective" first becomes "subjective" before being described.

[ParanoiA]

Sometimes I would like to see what ParanoiAland might look like.

 

Rocking horse people eat marshmellow pies, newspaper taxis, cellophane flowers of yellow and green....kinda like that

[mooeypoo]

I know I'm jumping in the middle here again but I had a thought about this --

 

Isn't claiming that "If you restrict something in the freedom of speech, you will end up restricting all freedom of speech" a slippery-slope argument?

 

The idea that there may be rights that are more important than *some aspects* of the freedom of speech right (for instance, the rights of the family; so the Phelps should not be allowed to use *personal attacks* -- isn't this slander, btw? -- or something like that) doesn't mean that we will end up with no freedom of speech at all.

 

I think that freedom of speech is important above many other rights, but that doesn't mean it should come at all costs; I do believe that the laws against Slander were created for that -- they, in principle, restrict the freedom of speech -- but they do that for a reason deemed as a GOOD one by society.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure *how* or *what* should be banned, but I don't think that the Freedom of Speech should be ultimate and untouched.

 

Claiming that if we touch it we'll end up losing it altogether is the slippery slope argument, and it's not supposed to be valid, as much as I understand where it comes from.

 

Just a thought.

 

~moo