Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/funeral.protest/index.html)

A federal jury in Baltimore, Maryland, Wednesday awarded $10.9 million to a father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by members of a fundamentalist church carrying signs blaming soldiers' deaths on America's tolerance of homosexuals.


Sweet! I hope this touches off a huge chain of these things, and leaves those sick bastards in ruins.

I saw a documentary on those nuts.

Crazy

Good.

That's as bad as those anti-war protesters who kept interrupting soldiers' funerals a while back. A private, grief-laden funeral is no place to make a political statement.

EDIT - Fred Phelps isn't a Christian.

:ban: :repost: :ban:

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108607

I think people keep forgetting that "freedom of speech" doesn't guarantee that you won't be held accountable for your statements or actions....

I think people keep forgetting that "freedom of speech"

I think people are forgetting that freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

As loathsome a cockroach as I personally think Phelps is, I hope this gets overturned on appeal with prejudice. In fact, I fully expect it to.

doesn't guarantee that you won't be held accountable for your statements or actions....

What "statements" and "actions" by the defendants in this case are you referring to? They issued no threats to anyone (unless nonsense about God's vengeance counts as such?), engaged in no acts of violence, were apparently standing on public property for the duration of their protest, and impeded the coming and going of no one on public roads.

I think people are forgetting that freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

You have the right to not be censored by the government. You do not have the right to say absolutey anything, whether it be hateful, inaccurate, misleading, etc etc and expect to be protected from any response whatsoever.
And something being constitutional does not protect you from a civil suit.

I think people are forgetting that freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

It is also a constitutional right to defend oneself against "freedom of speech" if said FOS causes "defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

You have the right to not be censored by the government.

I agree.

You do not have the right to say absolutey anything, whether it be hateful, inaccurate, misleading, etc etc

I do not agree. We most certainly do have a right to say "hateful" things, especially since "hateful" is in the entirely in eye of the beholder. But okay, let's assume I'm wrong and you're right: Please spell out specifically what hateful things Americans have no right to say.

We don't have a right to make threats, but that's a different matter entirely. If anyone can show where Phelps and his crew made threats of violence against anyone, I'll agree that he should suffer some sort of penalty for that...and please note the vengeance of some fantasy god visited at some point in the future is NOT a threat.

And where did Phelps make any comments either way about the plaintiffs or decedents that would be termed as either "inaccurate" or "misleading?" Sounds like you're angling for slander or libel? Which makes even less sense than the rest of what you posted.

and expect to be protected from any response whatsoever.

Of course not. You meet ideas head on with ideas. Which is why Phelps has zero credibility with anyone with two brain cells to rub together.


And something being constitutional does not protect you from a civil suit.

I'm guessing in this case it may, since the statute permitting this suit smells like week old socks.

It is also a constitutional right to defend oneself against "freedom of speech" if said FOS causes "defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

What exactly are you quoting here? But, okay...

defamation - Doesn't apply in this case, I think. I doubt the Phelps crew even mentioned the soldier or marine by name. Besides, what exactly did they do that was "defaming?" Holding up posters saying "God loves IEDS" or "God hates fags" or "God hates America" is defaming to an individual?

invasion of privacy - As best I can tell, they here did what they usually do: spout their nonsense on public land. So how could this have applied, either?

intentional infliction of emotional distress - Maybe you have a case here, though this kind of subjectivity gives me the creeps...far more than Phelps does. I hope it would only be used in a punitive sense once the others had been shown to definitely apply.

Good points on free speech. Let's look at that "invasion of privacy" thing again. I understand they were on public property, but shouting loud enough so the funeral sermon and demented ranting could both clearly be heard by all parties at the funeral. IronW's point is that the protesters' have not invaded anyone's privacy. He would defend the right of someone standing in the street gutter outside his house, shouting absurdities at his front door through a megaphone. Hey, the decibl reading is still legal! Is this correct?
Now extend this imposition to a funeral for a former president. Would the protesters' free speech be protected as well in that circumstance? If the law does not apply to all, it does not apply at all.

It could be beside the point... the lawyers' fees alone should convince the church to keep the volume down and avoid what most everyone sees as an invasion of privacy. They can effectively offend just as many people by screaming at the entrance to the cementary, although they won't get as much nutjob press for being loud & intrusive in front of the grieving family members.

This is a hard case because I do NOT believe in the idea of censorship through intimidation with financial ruin. I think that this group has a right to believe as they will and I really encourage them to speak their minds so that people can see just what kind of leadership our nation will have if we keep moving towards religious governance. That being said, most states consider a funeral, although performed at a public location, to be a private event. There is legal framework for situations where a family wishes to deny an attendee access to the funeral or its participants without a restraining order in such circumstances where the person's presence or actions are unwelcomed (violate privacy of the family and service) or are emotionally harmful.
So, does this limited restriction where a private family service has to be performed in a public location (we don't let people bury Loved ones in their garage) preclude the freedoms covered in the First Amendment. We already have established that the First Amendment does not protect you from being fired for what you say. Nor does it prevent a proprietor for taking action against you for things that you say in their place of business. So, does the rights of the family to have a private ceremony free from harassment trump the First Amendment in this case. It is a very close call, but I would say yes. The family should be afforded the same recourse that they would have if this intrusion occurred on private property or that would be available if the defendants were blaring loud music at 3am just in front of the plaintiffs' homes. In addition to the matter of privacy, there is also the matter when the rights of two parties come into conflict, of which party's actions are voluntary and which are not. If I am making a public protest, and you take offense, you may remove yourself. My being removed limits my access to distribute my message. You could, in order to fully censor me, simply follow me around in an offended state. On the other hand, I have no right to harass you at your residence or place of work, as under those circumstances you have no recourse to remove yourself from the situation. This is a very careful line to walk, but I think in this instance, the court ruled correctly.

Good points on free speech.

Let's look at that "invasion of privacy" thing again. I understand they were on public property, but shouting loud enough so the funeral sermon and demented ranting could both clearly be heard by all parties at the funeral.

I did not realize this was the case in this situation, in all honesty. Was it? As best I can see it wasn't what they were hit with the court judgment about; perhaps nuisance type ordinances would apply?

IronW's point is that the protesters' have not invaded anyone's privacy. He would defend the right of someone standing in the street gutter outside his house, shouting absurdities at his front door through a megaphone. Hey, the decibl reading is still legal! Is this correct?

If they did it for one or two hours one time and then left? I probably wouldn't be too concerned, in all honesty, especially if they got whatever permits they needed to act like idiots, so the cops knew where they were. Hell, I'd probably go to the store or something and wave to them as a I drove by. So they could protest in front on an empty house.

Now extend this imposition to a funeral for a former president. Would the protesters' free speech be protected as well in that circumstance? If the law does not apply to all, it does not apply at all.

I'm not so sure in the Age of Chertoff if this is correct any longer. I'd like to think it was, honestly. But you've honestly lost me as to how it applies to this case. :) What am I missing?

It could be beside the point... the lawyers' fees alone should convince the church to keep the volume down and avoid what most everyone sees as an invasion of privacy. They can effectively offend just as many people by screaming at the entrance to the cementary, although they won't get as much nutjob press for being loud & intrusive in front of the grieving family members.

I'll take some time tomorrow and try to read up on this. I may have been forming opinions from incorrect facts.

Long overdue.:nice::beer::w00t::usa:

It's one thing to claim freedom of speech. It's another to do something that any sane person would deem as offensive (aka: picketing a funeral). If they had some sort of personal beef with the guy that died, than I could see how this could be tolerated, but to intentionally inflict grief upon the family of the deceased that did nothing to deserve it? That's just plain wrong, legal or not.

It's one thing to claim freedom of speech. It's another to do something that any sane person would deem as offensive (aka: picketing a funeral). If they had some sort of personal beef with the guy that died, than I could see how this could be tolerated, but to intentionally inflict grief upon the family of the deceased that did nothing to deserve it? That's just plain wrong, legal or not.

Exactly. They aren't just speaking out, they traveled to this person's state, waited until the funeral, then picketed. They're not picketing the fact that he's dead, so waiting until the funeral and doing it there has no benefit to their message. They're specifically targeting grieving people because they know that, at that time and at that place, those people are extremely vulnerable and can be easily hurt. This is nothing but malicious and destructive behaviour.

If they were back in Topika, or at the recruiting stations, or at the White House or Congress, then maybe they'd have a point, but they're specifically trying to cause harm to the grieving people in the private funeral.

That should be off limits.

Let them speak their crazy-ass message, but they're using the message as an excuse to harass and harm people at the point that they're most vulnerable. That's sick, and it has nothing to do with their right to hate, or to talk about their hate, even publicly. It's about their obvious attempt to cause other people extreme emotional grief at the time they're most susceptible to it.

We most certainly do have a right to say "hateful" things, especially since "hateful" is in the entirely in eye of the beholder. But okay, let's assume I'm wrong and you're right: Please spell out specifically what hateful things Americans have no right to say.

You've got to be shitting me. If an untouchable ethnic group files into a public place and sits at a table next to me, and then uses language so obscene that I must move my granddaughter away from their dissemination of obscenity, I am not allowed to comment on their ethnicity in an unflattering manner as I throw my coffee in their faces, else my action is then labeled a hate crime.

****ing wannabes are worse than real ****ing lawyers.

Just remember, if you have the right to say anything you want and not have any consequences, I have the very same right.

If you say something that truly offends me (like "Your dead son, the Marine, is a fa66ot who will burn in hell"), then I can tell you to "Shut the Fock Up or I'll whoop your ass til it bleeds" and have no consequences.

You've got to be shitting me.

Given that your writing style is that of the terminally constipated, it sounds like you could use some additional fiber in your diet. So I'll consider this a public service. :)

If an untouchable ethnic group files into a public place and sits at a table next to me, and then uses language so obscene that I must move my granddaughter away from their dissemination of obscenity, I am not allowed to comment on their ethnicity in an unflattering manner as I throw my coffee in their faces, else my action is then labeled a hate crime.

Nice misdirection. The 'hate crime' is contingent upon you committing an act of violence, which I said nothing about...in fact I even noted that had the Phelps crew made so much as a threat, they should suffer a sanction.

But whatever....

****ing wannabes are worse than real ****ing lawyers.

****ing illiterates who don't realize they are illiterate are worse than real ****ing illiterates.

So we're suing people for free speech now? Not good.

What I'd like to know is how the father and maybe a few other people there didn't bumrush the ****ing loons and beat the snot out of them. I might have lost it if I was the father.

What I'd like to know is how the father and maybe a few other people there didn't bumrush the ****ing loons and beat the snot out of them. I might have lost it if I was the father.

Because assault is a crime. And possibly because he believed in the system his son died serving?

Because assault is a crime. And possibly because he believed in the system his son died serving?

Yes grim, my question was rhetorical.

Yes grim, my question was rhetorical.

Ahh... my bad.

For the record, it was the first thing I asked myself, too. One of the hardest things at the outset of the first Gulf War was remembering that beating people for voicing their opinion was directly in conflict with the principles of service. No matter how stupid the things they said were.

Had this been my kid, I would have driven to Kansas and burned the church down on a Friday night. No need to play greedy and get the money grubbing attorney's involved, just a good old fashioned vigillante payback.