In that case, which as Max points out was not the case in question, there was, as you point out an element of harassment. But beneath it there is one interesting quote that seems, by implication, to apply to this case: [rquoter] Tiller's most egregious action was his threat to terminate the contracts if the construction site was closed for the entire day of Bill McLure's funeral. [/rquoter] Despite all the months and months of intimidation and harassment, the most egregious action was preventing his employees from attending the funeral, which seems like small beans compared to what Phelps did. One of MadMax's points earlier on about the location of this particular transgression - a funeral - being specifically and specially protected or regarded seems really to have struck a chord with me. As a pastor I’m sure you have more intimate and personal first hand knowledge with that insane level of grief at that exact moment that I do. I guess the final measure of what Phelps did essentially is measured in the volume of grief inflicted. The fact that it was done as the man was burying his son indicates a degree of mental anguish that I honestly have difficulty imagining. The openness to emotional injury at that point seems to me to be near absolute. I have a hard time believing that there is any confluence of time and situation where one can inflict more emotional damage. From what I can determine the 'intentionally inflicted emotional damage' tort was created to reflect an emotionally measured and containable equivalency to the tort of assault, where damages are defined by what can be physically measured. In my opinion that describes what Phelps did better than anything else I can think of - emotional assault.
Yes as a pastor I am very protective of the family and their wishes. I did a funeral recently where a little boy died. The father and mother were divorced and had problems. At the viewing they tried to start a fist fight and a brawl. I (against better judgement- stepping into a fist fight and grabbing the assailants) along with the funeral director stopped it and calmed down the warring factions. I then met with the funeral director, we came real close to shutting it all down. But with respect to the entire extended families and the little boy I met with the two of them and told them one more outburst and we shut down. I requested police presence during the funeral the next day. There were no further incidents but we had about 6 officers on site. As a Pastor I try to bring grace, dignity and respect obviously to every funeral. I still don't know the details of this case but the little I know is just terrible.
Ugh....that story makes me sick to my stomach, literally. But I'm so glad you were there to bring peace.
Again I will have to concede to your greater knowledge of the law in this matter but I will still stand by my dissagreement that this isn't about speech. Phelps only action was speech and speech delivered on public property. Nothing I have heard about the case indicates that he and his followers were interfering in the funeral in any other way or somehow impeding the progress of the funeral. Also as Hotballa had supplied the definition of slander and libel it doesn't appear that Phelps was slandering or libelling the Marine in particular but just using his death as an example. What this comes down to me, and nothing posted seems to counter that, is that this was extremely unpopular speech and that Phelps is being punished, since punitive damages were awarded, for extremely unpopular speech. I don't think that is a good thing for our society.
I haven't had a chance to read the case cited but I don't agree that threatening to fire people for attending a funeral is less egregious than what Phelps did. Frankly I don't find it comparable as Phelps had no power over the participants in the funeral other than through speech. While that speech is despicable I don't see how that is comparable to causing them to lose their livelihood. I don't deny that a vast amount of emotional harm was inflicted but this standard is used a lot and seems to be highly subjective. As I noted earlier anti-abortion protestors have been cited as causing much emotional harm and part of the point of civil rights protests were to shame and humiliate segregationists. There is no doubt that speech is powerful but I believe that is the risk that we face if we value the idea of free speech. Mad Max may be very well correct regarding civil law and that anyone can sue anyone else if they feel they are harmed by speech. I personally find that very disturbing.
If what you say is correct then we don't need to amend the Constitution as it isn't a Constitutional issue. What we should do is consider more carefully the standards for bringing torts regarding speech. As for getting approval from every other citizen that we are affording free speech my argument is that we don't need approval and that free speech, even offensive free speech, is a given. Your argument is that we do as we could be sued for our speech if someone found it harmful.
It's just so happens that speech that harms people is usually unpopular. This is extremely harmful given the context. And if you look at case law, even here in Texas, regarding harassment with words, I think you'll see this isn't exactly stretching the law to get there. I'll disagree with you. I think it's just fine. If a jury decides that someone suffered real harm at the hands of another, I think they ought to be able to determine that from the evidence presented (which you and I weren't in the courtroom to hear) and decide damages from there. This isn't nearly as easy as "sue anyone for anything and you'll get something"...these are very difficult cases to prove...(see the standards here in TX for example in the GTE case)....and they are rarely successful. But a jury decided THIS particular instance was particularly egregious. And I agree 100%. I want peace at my son's funeral if, God forbid, I actually have to be alive to attend it. If someone disturbs that intentionally, I can assure you that I will at least consider suing them...particularly if they are as nasty as Phelps is. Because he's systematic, and I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through that. I see this case as an example of justice actually coming about through our judicial system...a judicial system I'm pretty critical of otherwise.
and there's about 200 years of american case law and roughly 500 years of english case law to back that up. libel/slander is a whole area of law that completely flies in the face of your notion that anyone should be able to say whatever they want no matter the consequences. not even the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court affords us what you're arguing for.
btw rocketsjudoka...you're good people...i hope i didn't come off like an ass to you in this thread. i do that sometimes. sorry.
Now I'm confused. I was assuming that a church or some group protested at a funeral and distrupted the funeral by the things they said or spoke out. Did this Phelps disrupt the funeral or interfer in the funeral. I should read up on this situation but I really don't care to read about a group showing up and disrupting a funeral. What happened? EDIT I was assuming a family asked a church to use the church for a funeral, the church later found out the person deceased was gay and the church members showed up and disrupted or protested the funeral- is that it?
These people are from Westboro 'Baptist Church' which is really more of a closed enclave. The location of the funeral and the deceased person have nothing to do with Westboro. I wouldn't really think of them as a church, outside of the fact that they choose to call themselves one. The Church members drive around the country and go to many soldier's funerals and stand outside and scream "Praise God for Toe Tags", "God Hates Fags", and carry signs that say things like, "Thank God for explosively formed projectiles." They’ve even shown up in the past with pictures of the dead soldier on a placard with the slogan, “[Son's name] is in hell” underneath. The son wasn't gay and nobody involved had anything to do whatsoever with these protesters. They just show up at every soldier's funeral that they can to scream disruptive, hateful, and painful things at the family, presumably for publicity. Their assertion is that God hates homosexuals so much that because some people tolerate them, God has damned all of America. That damnation is in the form of the war in Iraq and these soldiers were struck down by God's divine wrath for the sins of our country.
Again I don't deny that libel and slander, along with hate speech, flies in the face of the First Ammendment. My limited understanding though regarding libel and slander is that it is very narrowly determined. I still don't know if those apply to this case and if I read you right you're not saying they do just that they are an example of legal impediments to free speech.
Thanks and I appreciate that and I never felt you were being an ass or attacking me personally. I've been worried as coming off as an ass for defending people that I truly find despicable but this is an issue that I am very concerned about.
Otto's description is right. I don't know too much about them but they don't seem to be a very organized church in terms that they conduct things like funerals or weddings but more of an interest group that goes around protesting. Everything I've heard about this case and other cases where they have showed up at soldier's funerals is that they protest along the procession route and, for obvious reasons, aren't allowed onto the cemetary grounds or where the services are held. I'm not aware if they have ever tried to crash an actual service or onto cemetary grounds. In addition to protesting soldier's funerals they've also been involved in protesting against homosexuality at a variety of other events and locations. A few years ago a kid was suspended from a highschool in Suburban Minneapolis for wearing a shirt that said "Straight Pride" and Fred Phelp's group showed up to protest the school.
They don't fly in the face of the First Amendment at all. Because libel and slander laws govern speech among private parties. Not restrictions of speech from the government. Before there is any Constitutional analysis in these cases the first question is always: is there a "state actor" restricting speech? If there is, then it raises First Amendment questions. If not...then it doesn't.
Good timing. http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=ca5de54a31ed2eb0 Courts: Governments can't sue for libel By Rhiannon Meyers The Daily News Published November 6, 2007 GALVESTON — An appeals court ruled in 2002 that school districts can’t sue for defamation, so Galveston school district may face some hurdles if it moves forward with its lawsuit. In a case that Galveston school district’s attorney argued is different, Port Arthur’s public school district in 2001 tried to sue a blogger for defamation. The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals tossed out the lawsuit based on black-letter law: New York Times v. Sullivan clearly prohibits such lawsuits. “The question presented is whether a governmental unit may sue for defamation,” the opinion states. “The answer is no.” Galveston public school district’s attorney David Feldman said the district would not be the plaintiff if a suit were filed — the firm would file a suit on behalf of administrators in their official capacities and individual board members. The suit, however, would be funded from the district’s budget. Galveston public school district’s law firm last week sent gisdwatch.com administrator Sandra Tetley a letter demanding she remove what it termed libelous statements posted by her or anonymous users on her Web site www.gisdwatch.com and refrain from allowing such postings in the future. If she refuses, the district plans to sue her, the demand letter stated. The so-called libelous postings accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for “personal gain,” violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things. Feldman said Galveston’s potential lawsuit and Port Arthur’s suit are completely different – Galveston’s cases involves what its attorneys claim is defamation of individual officials rather than the district as a whole, he said. “These (cases) are night and day,” he said. Port Arthur Sues A Blogger Philip Klein of Nederland runs a Web site called SouthEast Texas Political Review, a commentary on local issues. In April 2000, Klein wrote a story reporting mayhem at a Port Arthur public high school prom. Klein wrote that there was a “huge gang fight” at Thomas Jefferson High School’s prom, labeling it: “TJ’s Prom From hell.” The distinct sued Klein for defamation. The appellate court tossed out the district’s appeal because its lawsuit was filed by a “unit of the state” and not a public official, the 2002 opinion states. Prosecutions for libel on government have no place in the American system of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled in Times v. Sullivan, which set the standard for defamation. “If the government is permitted to use public resources to bring defamation claims against its critics, criticism of government will be silenced through, at the very least, fear of monetary loss,” stated the opinion authored by Justice David B. Gaultney. A government or public official, however, could file individual lawsuits, if the defamatory attack is specifically targeted at them, the opinion states. That’s why Feldman said the district has a sound legal basis to sue Tetley, he said. Depending on what Tetley removes, the lawsuit will be filed in the name of individual officials, Feldman said. Reputation Port Arthur public school district argued that the alleged defamatory statements injured the district’s reputation, which was important in an era of competition for students between public and private schools. “The importance of maintaining a government’s good reputation does not justify permitting the government to attack its critics by defamation suits,” the opinion states. Cleveland has said trustees decided to take legal action after several board members asked what could be done about material on the site that was deterring potential employees and families from moving into the school district. “It affects the image of the district; it affects teacher recruitment,” she said. The statements, Feldman argued, accuse administrators and trustees of crimes — that kind of disruptive speech hinders the district from running effectively and efficiently, he said. “They have a deep and abiding obligation to taxpayers to function in an effective and efficient way,” he said. “If you got people out there accusing or stating that your public officials are committing crimes, it disrupts the effective, efficient operation of government.” Tetley has not removed any postings. She said she’ll consult with her attorneys before deciding what, if anything, to delete.
