[rquoter] Kansas church liable in Marine funeral protest BALTIMORE (Reuters) - A jury on Wednesday ordered an anti-gay Kansas church to pay $10.9 million in damages to relatives of a U.S. Marine who died in Iraq after church members cheered his death at his funeral. Church members said Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's death was God's punishment of America for tolerating homosexuality, and they attended his 2006 funeral in Maryland with signs saying "You're going to hell" and "God hates you." The federal jury determined the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, and three of its principals invaded the privacy of the dead man's family and inflicted emotional distress. Albert Snyder, the Marine's father, testified that his son was not gay, but the church targeted the military as a symbol of America's tolerance of gays. Matthew Snyder died in combat in Iraq in March 2006. The jury awarded Snyder's family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages in the first civil suit against the church, which has demonstrated at some 300 military funerals the past two years. The lawsuit said church Web sites vilified U.S. soldiers, accusing them of being indoctrinated by "*** propaganda." "I hope it's enough to deter them from doing this to other families. It was not about the money. It was about getting them to stop," said Snyder, of York, Pennsylvania. The church, which is unaffiliated with any major denomination, is headed by Rev. Fred Phelps, who has led a campaign against homosexuality for years. Most of the estimated 70 members of the church belong to his extended family. "It will take the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals a few minutes to reverse this silly thing," Phelps said. His daughter and co-defendant, Shirley Phelps-Roper, vowed to continue protesting military funerals and called the court's decision a blow against free speech. Outside court on Wednesday, Phelps and his children waved placards with slogans such as "Pray for more dead kids" and "God hates *** enablers," while passing drivers and pedestrians shouted abuse at them. 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. Craig Trebilcock, an attorney for Snyder, said jurors should award sufficient punitive damages to deter Westboro from repeating its actions. [/rquoter] source
I wonder if they root like that at the funerals of their own members? Aren't those deaths God's "punishment" also? What a bunch of kooks...
I don't see how tormenting relatives of a loved one a his funeral equates to free speech. There has to be some sort of protection against that. Whats the funeral goers supposed to do?
^ At the risk of defending the indefensible I agree with Space Ghost that there is a free speech issue here. While having Fred Phelps and his ilk protesting the funerals certainly causes pain and torment for the relatives of the dead soldiers but at the same time one could say that protestors protesting a company causes pain for the management and possible financial pain for the company and stockholders. There's obviously a difference in the degree of pain but then is free speech by the amount of pain it causes? Protests have led to the public disgrace of those beign targetted along with their families, loss of jobs and in some rare cases people have killed themselves in the face of public protests. So public protest isn't without consequence. Should the courts decide how much pain and anguish a protest is allowed to cause?
Oh, hell yes. There are privacy issues. Even decency issues here in my opinion. You still can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, can you? Some of these free speech arguments are just adolescent. Even the kid that got tasered shouting over John Kerry apologized!!!!!
yes, if the person being protested decides to haul them to court on a lawsuit, I really don't see anything wrong with it. if someone wants to stand outside my house and disrupt me from my everyday life and pursuit of happiness (or sadness), then I better have the right to haul his loud butt to court to get him off my back.
Do you have a right to privacy while you are on public property? I don't know enough about this case but I haven't heard that Fred Phelps and his ilk were on private property. The yelling fire in a crowded theatre intention is to prevent physical harm but there is no evidence that the protestors were intending to cause physical harm. If you think the arguments over free speech is adolescent then you must not put a lot of stock in free speech. In your mind should free speech only protect what most people don't find offensive? As for the kid who got tasered apologizing that has nothing to do with the question of where does the law weigh in.
What if a released sex-offender moves into your neighborhood and is seen spying on kids with binoculars but the police don't arrest him as he hasn't contacted kids yet. Do you think then that you should be able to protest on the street infront of his house to draw attention to what he is doing or do you think that not disrupting his everyday life is more important?
I love how people think "Free Speech" means saying whatever you want whenever you want in any situation. There are always limits. Is this one of them? We'll find out. It just irks me when people shout "Free Speech" without really knowing what they're talking about.
That's a weak argument. Tell me how what Phelps is doing is in any way contributing to any societal goal or helping to encourage discourse.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Where in this situation did Congress make a law limiting free speech?
Please inform me how this group of dumbasses are in any way different from KKK rallies or Nazi Party rallies (both protected, despite use of the "fighting words" or "clear and present danger" limitation on free speech argument). Try reading Brandenburg vs Ohio for some interesting takes on Free Speech by the Supreme Court, or Defending my Enemy (a book, I forget the author) for even better discussion regarding what should or should not be protected.
There are limits on KKK rallies too. If the KKK surrounded a black person's house (but stayed on the street - "public property") and protested all night long, burning crosses and what not, I guarantee you they would be stopped for disturbing the peace, and if the family in the house chose to see for emotional distress or whatever, I imagine they would win.
Hmmmm. Now that's a good point... I am unsure how freedom of speech works in a civil trial between two private parties. I guess I can see the "invasion of privacy" argument.... but emotional distress? I don't see it. People say things every day in this country that I could feasibly argue result in my "emotional distress". EDIT: just realized the above sounds really callous. Not intended that way. Another good point. Where is that "fine line" drawn?
well considering that you can get sued for libel and slander, I'd say that freedom of speech in a civil trial doesn't play out too well.
