[Reuters]Westboro Baptist Church in Court

Then why "defend the indefensible?"

Shrewd question, but I would say yes in that instance because the effort is a last ditch one to save a child's life and to protest the process to end lives going on then and in that place.

 

Call it playing devils advocate or a deep interest in understanding where the limits are of free speech. While I find Fred Phelps speech offensive in the utmost I still have a hard time seeing a multimillion dollar judgement against a peaceful group on public property as serving societal interests.

Fred Phelps though would say that he is making an effort to save the US from God's wrath and further lives. As you know the abortion debate centers around whether someone considers an abortion to be ending a life so the argument that an abortion protestor is trying to save a life is a subjective matter of belief also, while something certainly a lot more widely held than Fred Phelp's beliefs. My own opinion, as someone not holding either belief, is that peaceful protest on public property should be tolerated at the risks of causing emotional pain.

 

Who enforces the judgement?

 

I'm not trying to be a jackass. But this couldn't be more wrong.

Again...free speech isn't guaranteed to you by private citizens. It's guaranteed to you CONDITIONALLY by the government through the First Amendment.

The last sentence in your post is absolutely inexplicable to me. It wouldn't be an issue for the courts??? Does every civil case then revolve around free speech issues in your mind?

This is a civil case. You can pretend there's not a distinction. But there is.

 

but the government didn't bring the charges.

so when you get in a car wreck...and you get hurt...and you sue for personal injury...is that actually the government suing or is it you??

civil matter.

 

the person who wins it. he seeks to collect his money. there are all sorts of ways that can happen.

the police do not come to the judgment debtors' home and force him to pay. the private citizen might use public means to collect on his judgment...but the judgment is his.

in fact...the plaintiff ( the father of the dead son) could sell his judgment to another private person or entity to collect.

 

What are civil judgements based on? Are they based on legally defined civil liberties or is it lawless and majority rules?

 

That's not how civil cases work though. People sue all the time under nuisance tort claims or defamation claims. You could argue that the first amendment trumps these but that's not how it works. Nowhere in the constitution is there ever a restriction on speech, but we see libel and defamation cases all the time. That's an example of civil lawsuits that operate under a different set of tort laws. We hear that phrase that your rights end when you infringe on anothers and that free speech isn't entirely absolute but that's not actually a statute anywhere in the constitution. The only restrictions on speech really come in the form of civil lawsuits like this one.

Another set of tort laws deals with nuisances on property (even public property in some cases). I mean just read a lot of tort decisions and you'll come out thinking how arbitrary the decision is. The basis of civil compensation can seriously be almost anything because tort laws are so broad. That's why you see so many calls by people in Congress to restrict tort laws and civil lawsuits because people can sue for anything and win at that.

 

I think you are being generous in characterizing this protest as "peaceful." Granted there is no physical violence-- although their ugly message might provoke some.

There are many places for Phelps to protest the war. That time and place are chosen for sensationalism. The privacy of the family deserves protection.

 

They're not based on the First Amendment.

As much as you might see this is a free speech issue, I can assure you that free speech will not be an issue considered on review by appellate courts. Because the guy who lost his son is not a public actor/the government.

It's a personal injury case, essentially. You did x and it caused me injury...so I'm seeking compensation through the courts.

 

This is closer but still not entirely right.

First...let's start with a typical free speech case. A group wants to protest X and seeks space to do it. The city denies them the space. They petition that they want to peacefully protest. The city still says no. There are reasons why the city can deny them this...even though they're a public actor. THIS SORT OF SITUATION RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES FOR A COURT TO CONSIDER. One of the very first considerations to determine whether it's a Constitutional issue is to decide if there is a public actor that is limiting the speech. So there's tons of case law refining the First Amendment...limiting it in many ways and expanding it in others...defining different sorts of public actors/extensions of the government. There are all sorts of time/place restrictions on free speech. You can't protest wheneever, whereever you wish. For example....just because you have a right to free speech, doesn't mean you have a right to publicly protest something you despise at 2:30 in the morning in a residential neighborhood...or even in a public park adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

Next...civil cases. The key first analysis the court considers...whether a public actor is involved. In this case...it's an individual trying to bury his son. No private individual owes any other private individual rights to free speech. A great example of that is this website. Clutch owns it. He ain't a public actor. So you can ramble on and on about free speech and how you're entitled to say what you want...but he can still shut your ass out FOR WHATEVER REASON HE WANTS...INCLUDING NOT LIKING OR AGREEING WITH THE CONTENT OF YOUR SPEECH. But in this case...the man isn't suing saying this guy can't protest. He's suing saying that at this specific time these words caused him injury. And a jury agreed. Then they considered punitive damages....and taken into account in determining punitive damages is the egregiouness of the underlying act and the wealth of the defendant. They heard all sorts of evidence on that and decided to punish the church for the injury they caused...for the egregiousness of protesting a man's funeral.

Let me also say this...there's lots of case law of heightened damages for those who jack with funerals...even if it's by accident. If you run a funeral services company and you make an innocent mistake, you're going to get nailed in a courtroom, most likely. So with that background...and the values that support them...I'm not the least bit surprised this "church" got tagged.

No one is saying they CAN'T make asses of themselves and say what they want. They have for years. But when, in the exercise of your rights otherwise, you cause harm to someone else...you're going to have to pay for it.

 

Not sure if this is already posted, but I find the following info on Fred Phelps is quite an eye-opener.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm

A preview

So yeah, the sadistic nature seems to come straight from Saw.

 

One more thing:

I wasn't at trial. So it's possible the court made some sort of mistake that will call for this case to be overturned. Maybe they allowed in some evidence they shouldn't have.

But more likely, if anything is going to be overturned in this case it will be the amount of punitive damages. Those could absolutely be reduced. Particularly since the article states that the compensatory damages were 3x the defendant's worth.

But honestly, I hope not. I hope this is the last we hear of Fred Phelps. And I hope he learns something that creates peace from him instead of the hate and venom he spews.

 

Remember the days of MLK's civil disobedience?

How far we have fallen...

Now we have dipwads like Phelps and we are supposed to clear a path for them?

 

Not to defend Phelps' specific actions morally or even legally; but that specific contrast is what makes free speech so sacrosanct. You can never predict in advance which ideas, ideologies or individuals will be perceived as threatening or unpopular: forty or fifty years ago, for many more people than today, it was King.

 

I think we are on the same page here... in a way.

Back then the dipwads were institutionally sanctioned. Brave men like MLK stood up to it/them and risked civil disobedience to inspire change.

Now the dipwads are loose cannons taking WRONG advantage of our civil protections.

Seems like we could find a way to be smarter; we don't allow hate speech do we?

 

Not so sure that I agree.

Many people recognized the truth that MLK spoke; very, very few are so inspired by Phelps blathering...

At some point we have to stand for something besides "anything goes."

 

That's pretty much what this country was founded on. The idea of the founders was to promote a marketplace of ideas through free speech. Bad ideas will be defeated by good ideas. MLK's ideas were considered wrong by the vast majority buy over time, protest and speech created change. The same works the other way. Bad ideas are squelched by other speech.

The idea of silencing sets a bad precedent. Laws that were built to stop the KKK (for example the COINTELPRO program) were also used to track MLK and monitor him by the FBI. All speech suppression is a double edged sword.

That being said, I agree with Max on the fact that the civil suit is legitimate.