Randall Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/ BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress. Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again." Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags." A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman. The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress. Award 'exceeds the net worth' of defendants Even the size of the award for compensating damages alone "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted. Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event. The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 If ever a verdict is likely to be overturned, this is it. Much as I despise these people, the First Amendment is going to win this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 If ever a verdict is likely to be overturned, this is it. Much as I despise these people, the First Amendment is going to win this one. I thought about that... But is a funeral a public event? Is specific speech being discriminated against if a law outlaws all picketing at a funeral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 If ever a verdict is likely to be overturned, this is it. Much as I despise these people, the First Amendment is going to win this one. What about the protection of people's privacy? Seems like this is gray area... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 If ever a verdict is likely to be overturned, this is it. Much as I despise these people, the First Amendment is going to win this one. not so sure........ U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett instructed jurors at the start of testimony Tuesday that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements. Bennett said the jurors must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous, and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 not so sure........ Ah...the reasonable, prudent person understanding of the law. To me, yes, protection of people's free speech is key. But at some point, when it becomes hateful and misguided, they need to be curtailed to protect the other party involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress. Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again." Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags." A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman. The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress. Award 'exceeds the net worth' of defendants Even the size of the award for compensating damages alone "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted. Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event. The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality. I have heard of this Westboro group before and (for the life of me) cant get my head around how some people can be that soul-less and ignorant. If I were at a funeral and these maggots showed up, I would find it VERY difficult to keep from attacking them. My heart goes out to the families who have had to endure these protests on top of the loss of a loved one. Hell will not be hot enough for Fred Phelps and his sick followers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Ah...the reasonable, prudent person understanding of the law. To me, yes, protection of people's free speech is key. But at some point, when it becomes hateful and misguided, they need to be curtailed to protect the other party involved. It is called Time, Place, and Manner restrictions. USSC has restricted lots of speech. The way I see it, the only way these kooks win on appeal is if the USSC actually declares their speech protected. At least these crazies have Justice Alito in their pocket....ALAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 In case you missed it the last time I linked it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I thought about that... But is a funeral a public event? Is specific speech being discriminated against if a law outlaws all picketing at a funeral? What about the protection of people's privacy? Seems like this is gray area... not so sure........ Ah...the reasonable, prudent person understanding of the law. To me, yes, protection of people's free speech is key. But at some point, when it becomes hateful and misguided, they need to be curtailed to protect the other party involved. Y'all have a point - except I don't think "misguided" could ever be banned. Dunno.......not as obvious as it seemed earlier. I would personally enjoy setting fire to these people one by one but anything that curtails rights under the First has to be really well thought through, whatever the nature of the speech involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I wish this would stick. Those people are evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 What would be the sentence for assault if someone has no priors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controller Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) Are you sure this article is not from The Onion? I mean, the attorney fighting against the side that thinks we are being punished for allowing homosexuality is named Trebilcock? Edited November 1, 2007 by Controller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I hope all other families that have been harassed by this group sues them as well for the same thing. I wish ruin upon them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I hope all other families that have been harassed by this group sues them as well for the same thing. I wish ruin upon them. i did in hudson wi when they came... we had a lot of fun with them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellab Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Many states have passed non-protest laws dealing with funerals in general. In South Dakota you can not protest 1/2 hour before to 1/2 hour after all services are scheduled to start, or within 500 yards this includes the procession to the cemetery. It was the whole yelling fire in a crowded theater. Unnecessary. Once the funeral is advertised in an obituary or funeral notice on the radio or newspaper it is a public event with anyone welcome. I inform families that once you publiize the time and you don't want certain people (mistresses, ex-wives, estranged family in general) there, you must hire your own security to ask those people to leave, but they don't have to as long as they conduct themselves in a proper manner. I am just tickled that this has happened to them. They are all attorneys and they make their money by being assaulted during their protests and suing people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 We should ship these f'ers to the Middle East with a sign that says "Allah is a peckahead" around their neck ala Bruce Willis in Die Hard (the one with Samual Jackson). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 It is called Time, Place, and Manner restrictions. USSC has restricted lots of speech. The way I see it, the only way these kooks win on appeal is if the USSC actually declares their speech protected. At least these crazies have Justice Alito in their pocket....ALAS. Agree! Ya still can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded event. Sic the dogs on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 What would be the sentence for assault if someone has no priors? Dunno, but I would have found out for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I hope they take everything, and continue to take everything they make until the judgement is paid off, leaving them penniless and living in a cardboard box under the freeway...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Dunno, but I would have found out for sure. when they came to sconny there were about 30 cops there to protect them..... could even get to them but the bikers did a fine job of drowning them out .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 If ever a verdict is likely to be overturned, this is it. Much as I despise these people, the First Amendment is going to win this one. i have no doubt that has been and will continue to be a key peg of their defense, but i don't see this as really being a first amendment issue. the jury held that phelps invaded their privacy and intentially inflicted emotional distress. the first amendment protects you from the government censoring your speech....it doesn't exempt you from liability for damage your speech causes to others, except in a few rare circumstances (like the jerry falwell, hustler magazine case, where the court specifically made exception because fallwell was a public figure). if the first amendment was a general bar, i don't think there would be ANY intentional infliction of emotional distress cases that would survive that challenge, because almost all of them are directly tied to actions that could be considered "speech". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Fred phelps gives democrats a bad name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 i have no doubt that has been and will continue to be a key peg of their defense, but i don't see this as really being a first amendment issue. the jury held that phelps invaded their privacy and intentially inflicted emotional distress. the first amendment protects you from the government censoring your speech....it doesn't exempt you from liability for damage your speech causes to others, except in a few rare circumstances (like the jerry falwell, hustler magazine case, where the court specifically made exception because fallwell was a public figure). if the first amendment was a general bar, i don't think there would be ANY intentional infliction of emotional distress cases that would survive that challenge, because almost all of them are directly tied to actions that could be considered "speech". You converted me. Whatever, if these pigs are made bankrupt, so much the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 That probably gives Fred Thompson $2,200.00 less to work with too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.