Jury awards father $2.9M in funeral case

[mooseandsquirrel]

Source: AP

BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a $2.9 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.

U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court. The jury was to deliberate later on punitive damages.

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."

EDITED TO ADD LINK & CORRECT HEADLINE.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/funeral_protests;_ylt=ArsBh6pYKtvu7nzdJm3ztkas0NUE

[cal04]

1. Kansas church liable in gay Marine funeral protest (link)

A jury on Wednesday ordered a Kansas church to pay $2.9 million in compensatory damages to relatives of a gay U.S. Marine after church members cheered his death at his funeral.

The jury in federal court determined that the Westboro Baptist Church based in Topeka, and three of its principals had invaded the privacy of the dead man's family and inflicted emotional distress when they protested at his funeral last year.

The soldier's death was God's punishment on America for tolerating homosexuality, the church's members said.

Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder died in combat in Iraq in March 2006. The Westboro Church was sued by his father, Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania. The case was the first civil suit against the church, which has demonstrated at some 300 military funerals in the last two years.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31342251.htm

[rodeodance]

12. He is a low life to do this at a dead troop family.

[katty]

72. there's never a shortage of cruel, righteous, imbeciles

[cal04]

13. Jury awards father $2.9M in funeral case

- A federal jury on Wednesday awarded the father of a fallen Marine $2.9 million in compensatory damages after finding an anti-gay Kansas church and three of its leaders liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress for picketing the Marine's funeral in 2006.

The jury was to begin deliberating the size of punitive damages after receiving further instructions, although U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified monetary damages after members staged a demonstration at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/funeral_protests

[Occulus]

14. AWESOME

the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

Excellent! Could this really shut those hateful bastards down?

Or will it be appealed and overturned?

I want that dried up old fuck and his family flipping burgers for the next several years.

[karlrschneider]

26. they won't ever pay a cent, mark my words.

Legal tricks and delays...a judgment is worthless against someone who doesn't want to pay.
:grr:

[northernsoul]

39. Sadly, I think you're right

They've probably done a good job of making sure all of their assets are non-attachable. IIRC, several members of Westboro have law degrees.

[NeedleCast]

43. You're right, but

perhaps more important than the cash award is the precedent set against these protests at funerals. Now, the 300ish people the Phelps Klan has protested could also file suit with a precedent to win. Even if WBC never has to pay a dime, people could sure tie up a lot of their assets by keeping them in court until the end of days.

[Orsino]

62. I think he raised all his kids to be lawyers, too...

...doubtless anticipating this day.

[katty]

70. yup, they won't get a dime

[The Doctor.]

75. Yes, but they can never own assets again.

They have to find every means they can to not make an income or own personal property. They may live on their machinations, but they will die broke.

Far as I'm concerned, they're lucky a grieving parent didn't just run them all down and claim TI. No judge or jury would put the parent in jail for long if at all.

[mlevans]

151. True enough...

but with this hanging over their heads maybe next time they pull their little stunts they'll get arrested.

[connecticut yankee]

29. It wasn't enough

[The Doctor.]

73. Who the hell would eat at any restaurant they worked at?

I guess they would remain a 'family affair'.

[Blue Fire]

94. I want to be a fly on the wall in god's judgment room

when that dried up old fuck and his family get their pathetic asses unceremoniously tossed into the express elevator going.....DOWN!!!!! :evilgrin:

An entertaining thought for an atheist like me, anyway!

[DCKit]

136. Not MY burgers, thank you!

Those freaks are TOXIC!

[Occulus]

149. As a matter of fact, you're right

Let's ship 'em off to Paris and make them clean the sewer.

The really deep and oldest, most remote parts.

[Hobarticus]

21. "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants"...I don't care, do you?

Looks like they'll have to drop their hateful pilgrimages and get goddamned jobs.

[blayne]

22. That's right.

Time to sell the church and shut the whole operation down.

[baldguy]

58. Strip them naked & make them beg for sustinance in the street.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

71. It's about time these jerks were stopped

[Mz Pip]

2. Good

It's about time someone made those terrorists pay. Phelps is a terrorist, a home grown fundie terrorist.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Hayduke Lives]

78. I wouldn't use that word

We English speakers are blessed with the largest vocabulary of any language on Earth. I'm certain there's a better word for Mr. Phelps.

I don't mean to nit pick, but that word is broken and unsightly tool, regardless of who wields it.

[madinmaryland]

3. It's about time they hold those terrorist responsible!

:woohoo:

[MuseRider]

4. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh it hurts laughing this hard!

It is about damned time someone was able to do to them what they do to everyone else who has ever crossed them. I feel somewhat vindicated, that is only a little more than they have collected from my city over the last dozen years or so by suing us.

[Sequoia]

28. Suing the city? What's that all about?

[MuseRider]

50. We tried for years

to stop them but every chance that we took they found a reason to sue and they won. He has cost us a lot in terms of money but much more in terms of reputation. We ignore them now and catch hell for that but it is the only thing we can do, we can't afford to sue until something sticks. Really, he just wants attention and this will get him lots. Too bad, he will win in the end and the case will be lost for the father and Fred and his merry band of evil cretins will have gained more attention than they could ever hope to garner at most funerals.

[Ian David]

5. Link: Jury Awards Father $2.9 Million in Funeral Protesters Case

By ALEX DOMINGUEZ
Associated Press
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; 4:04 PM

BALTIMORE (AP) -- A federal jury on Wednesday awarded the father of a fallen Marine $2.9 million in compensatory damages after finding a fundamentalist Kansas church and three of its leaders liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress for picketing the Marine's funeral in 2006.

The jury was to begin deliberating the size of punitive damages after receiving further instructions, although U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendents," according to financial statements filed with the court.

<snip>

The York, Pa. man 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 the deaths of soldiers are due to the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Their attorneys argued in closing statements Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102278.html

[DeSwiss]

6. Its probably not that significant....

...but I find it comforting that this verdict was rendered on Halloween. It all somehow seems fitting....

K&R!!!

[Mad_Dem_X]

7. Score one for the good guys

Fuck you, Phelps!

[Ian David]

8. See also:

MR. ROGERS IS GOING TO HELL, THE FDNY IS EVIL BUT HE LOVES THEM ANYWAY: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PASTOR FRED PHELPS.
By A.J. Daulerio
04.02.03
Mr. Rogers is in hell, apparently. So says America's most vitriolic and controversial Baptist preacher, Reverend Fred Phelps. On May 3, Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church congregation will picket a memorial service for Rogers, attempting to educate its attendees on the evils of the revered PBS icon.

Rev. Phelps and his band of devotees gained national notoriety when they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old gay University of Wyoming student who was beaten to death in Colorado in 1998, parading around with "God Hates Fags" signs and vociferously insisting that Shepard had gone to hell for his homosexuality.

In his 55-year career as a preacher he's picketed homosexuality and immorality all across the country and the world more than 22,000 times.

The Black Table spoke with Reverend Phelps about Mr. Rogers' sins, the war in Iraq, and the many other reasons why God hates America.

More:
http://www.blacktable.com/daulerio030401.htm





Fred Phelps Going To Minnesota To Protest At The Funerals Of Bridge Victims
Topic started by DeSwiss on Aug-07-07 10:08 PM (36 replies)
Last modified by Cheap_Trick on Aug-08-07 01:50 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1538881

Dealing with Fred Phelps
Topic started by ck4829 on Mar-08-07 02:16 PM (173 replies)
Last modified by jmowreader on Mar-11-07 11:10 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=369727

Anti-gay group plans picket ("God Hates Fags" attacks Ellen essay)
Topic started by sonicx on May-13-05 05:00 PM (32 replies)
Last modified by DS1 on May-14-05 04:05 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1470630

[Mad_Dem_X]

15. F*ckin' psychotic a**hole

(Phelps, not Mister Rogers.)

[TwilightGardener]

9. Good. That bastard deserves it.

[Ecumenist]

10. HOT DAMN!! God bless that jury! ! ! bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Pause, as she inhales--BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHHHAHHAHA...HAHAHA..TEE-HEE-HEE!!

BOY HOWDY!! Whoooo-wee!! HAHAHAHA-BWAHAHAHAHA-BWAHAHAHA-HOOO-HOO-HAHAHAHABWAHAHA!!


There is indeed a God!!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NC_Nurse]

11. Who doesn't?

He's a really mean psycho.

[JNelson6563]

16. Wonderful news!

Those wretched hate-mongers.

[mooseandsquirrel]

17. Here in Kansas City

Because KC is so close to Topeka, Fred and his inbred clan are frequent visitors to our Metro area. Scores of thousands of us are rejoicing this first victory and we hope more are sooner than later to follow. He is such a vile and evil man and to see him up close, which I have, will give anyone the creeps.

m&s
http://moose-and-squirrel.com

[Sequoia]

25. Going to Kansas City, Kansas City here I come

They got some crazy fundie preachers there
And I'm a-gonna kick me one!

Way to go jury !!!!! Best news today.

[Inkyfuzzbottom]

33. Yes indeed,

Those of us in the KC area have grown up with Fred and his psycho posse
of religious nutjobs frequently in the news for doing something horrendous "in the name of god"

[dflprincess]

18. "Jury Does the Lord's Work - Smites Phelps"

This is wonderful news.

[cboy4]

19. Awww. That's a shame. I'll pray for him.

[Mad_Dem_X]

115. Repulsive

If I say a prayer for him at all, it will be that he burns in Hell.

[cboy4]

152. Yup, that was the prayer I had in mind. n/t

[Sixty_cycle_humm]

126. I was there

in the upper right picture with the woman standing next to the fire hydrant, had the photo shown about 30 more feet to the left I would be in the picture counter protesting them. That was taken in Martinsville Indiana last summer.

[knitter4democracy]

135. "God hates your tears"?! How f'in' sick are these people?!

I mean, seriously--that's unbelievably f'd up. People are crying, and they honestly think God is mad that they're crying?! Have they never read the Bible at all? Oh, right, I forgot--they only read the eight verses or so that make them feel righteous and ignore the rest (especially all the warnings against false prophets and against judging others).

[closeupready]

A just verdict.

n/t

[bluestateguy]

20. They'll never pay a cent

They'll drag it out with frivolous appeals and those ninnies at the ACLU will be right there to help them.

[Sequoia]

31. You mean those commie pinkos at ACLU don't you.

Insert sarcasim smiley ('cause I'm too lazy to look for it right now.)

Don't rain on our parade. (Sadly you might be right)

[EST]

34. You are right--they will probably, ultimately, manage to squeak by

on free speech grounds, especially with some of the appellate judges who have prospered via the * administration. I would like to take exception to the slur against the ACLU, however.

The American Civil Liberties Union is exactly what and who they purport to be and their defense of civil liberties in this country has benefited all of us, even though we sometimes experience a lot of frustration at their choice of missions.

The ACLU has a marvelous track record. Their advocacy is at its best when I am absolutely sure the creep they are advocating for doesn't deserve it.
Human rights are such slippery things.

[left is right]

35. To settle this ruling, can the father seize the Phelps's family cars, houses?

How about their church building?

[ronnykmarshall]

56. Hopefully

but you know the pieces of shit (the Phelps) will tie this up in court.

But I'd love to ram a bulldozer over that "church" and put up a big ol' gay bar!

[cboy4]

97. I can't beathe!

:spray:

I'd be right behind you trucking in the lumber for the gay bar.

HAHA That's hilarious.

[SaveAmerica]

91. Forget that, just see that their sharpies and poster board are taken...

[dickbearton]

57. Bluestateguy, when did you get your law degree...

"They'll never pay a cent". When you make a flat
statement like that, it makes you sound stupid. You
"ninnies" make statements you know nothing about.

[karlrschneider]

63. A civil judgment is worth exactly what the defendant is willing to pay.

Been on both sides of that debacle...trust me on this.

[LostinVA]

68. Oh brother -- careful, your agenda is showing

I don't agree with BSG on alot of stuff, but one thing I suspect we do agree on: this is a personal attack against DU rules, and the "you ninnies" is very telling.

See you.

[Jacobin]

87. I got mine in 1976

And he's probably right. insurance doesn't pay on this kind of claim.

maybe they can seize and sell the church building.......unless its mortgaged to the hilt, which it probably is.

maybe they can seize some church pews and some hymnals....okay, maybe you're right. They might collect a few pennies.

however, if they can fund an appeal, there is also a good chance the verdict will be overturned at some point in years to come on first amendment grounds.

[immoderate]

23. Phelps deserves it -- but this worries me...

*Takes deep breath*

Aren't there First Amendment issues here? It's problematic for both the free speech and anti-establishment clauses.

Sure the Marine father and Phelps both deserve this outcome. And y'all know I'm not a defender of churches.

I'm open to instruction. Do I need the flame suit?

--IMM

[TommyO]

30. This was a civil case filed by an individual citizen

Not government interference in the Phelps klan first amendment rights. I'm not sure how this one will go.

[immoderate]

51. I can see it being appealed.

Thanks for your response.

--IMM

[Eric J in MN]

82. Suppose you criticize Bush to your Republican neighbor, and he sues you...

...for causing him emotional distress and gets awarded a million dollars.

Would you see any First Amendment issue with that?

[northernsoul]

96. That isn't IIED

The common law elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress require to underlying conduct to be so far beyond the pale that an average person would find it utterly outrageous. Statements of political opinion about a public figure don't even come close. A textbook case of IIED would be a crank call to someone pretending to be a hospital reporting that their child had been killed, resulting in articulable harm to the person the receiving end due to the emotional stress of the (false) news.

[Eric J in MN]

111. In that example, there is a lie involved.

Holding a sign, speculating about how God feels, isn't lying in the sense of saying something the protestors believe is false.

[BadgerLaw2010]

117. He'd lose, and you'd sue him for unjustifiable litigation.

IIED requires "extreme and outrageous" conduct that actually causes severe emotional distress to result.

[northernsoul]

137. Hey BadgerLaw!

Is 2010 your J.D./liberation year? Assuming you're still in LSchool, good luck with all your endeavors. Give 'em hell!

[Jacobin]

88. See Falwell vs. Flynt

Pretty much the same kind of thing, although in my opinion Flynt was right and Phelps is an asshat...the importance being that my opinion doesn't count when it comes to someone else's right to speak.

[cboy4]

32. In a twisted way, I think Phelps indirectly helps gay

people because he is vicious toward straight people as well.

I've heard families of soldiers say now they understand what gay people go through.

Of course, I'd rather Phelps just go away.

[TommyO]

36. When Phelps was just going after gay people, many people didn't think about it

Once he started attacking the families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's when a much larger group of people started to denounce what he was doing. Where were they when it was just gay people he was attacking?

[cboy4]

38. Oh I know. I absolutely agree. n/t

[northernsoul]

40. There's all kinds of speech & conduct not protected by the 1st Amendment

I can't use speech to harass, defame, or defraud. I also can't use speech to commit the common-law tort of "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" (which basically covers people acting like flaming assholes and messing with peoples' heads - the good Reverend Phelps and his dismal band pretty much wrote the book on this tort).

[immoderate]

52. No doubt it's harassment.

Thanks.

--IMM

[sdfernando]

46. I can see your point...

There do seem to be some 1st Amendment issues involved here. We should be careful in this regard because this ruling will have effects & consequences far into the future. So, on the face of it, in strict interpretations I don't think this ruling should have happened.

However, I don't really believe that these Phelps people fall into the 1st Amendment category. I believe their sole purpose in protesting is to get people to assault them in some way so they can bring a suit and get damages. This whole "schtick" is a money making venture for them. Any "religious" belief is secondary and only a means to get more money. So in my view, they don't have the 1st Amendment to stand on.

[immoderate]

53. Thanks for that.

It's one of those tough cases. But the responses to my post made me feel better.

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

64. Phelps' argument is that a funeral is a public event. Do you think a funeral is a public event?

[immoderate]

84. I really don't know how to answer that.

Can anyone attend? Is there a list? Does a cemetery restrict entrance? Is there a color guard, procession?

If it is a private event, it's different from most. My father, who was active in the community, had hundreds of people at his funeral. I didn't know many of them. It seemed like a public event to me.

I'll go back to I don't know.

--IMM

[rateyes]

90. I think he sued for mental anguish...

and that can be inflicted by words, and words that inflict mental anguish to this degree, IMO, are NOT protected by the first amendment. He can say all he wants about his beliefs...when he attacks ONE person like this, IMO, he has broken the law.

[immoderate]

103. Thanks.

I'm looking for the answers and that helps.

--IMM

[pattmarty]

24. All I can say is "amen, brothers & sisters"!!!!!!!!

[probablereason]

27. This is how you dismantle hate groups

The same tactic of litigation enabled Morris Dees and allies to take down Richard Butler's Northern Idaho hate ranch. Through civil judgements, they managed to actually take ownership of the racists compound in Northern Idaho. While you can never erradicate stupid or evil thought, you can sure as hell sue their asses off and take away their worldly possessions. Bankrupt the A--holes and see how many funerals they can fly to...

[Puckster]

37. Great!! Now how about a restraining order on the lot of them,

so they can't harass another grieving family, without being arrested. Ole Fred and his brood can share a cell for all I care.

[northernsoul]

41. Naw, I want 'em to come to Minnesota now

I'll be more than happy to represent any Minnesotan who wants a piece of these bastards and has a legitimate claim.

[puebloknot]

49. Just as when a woman comes forward in a rape case...

...and then others begin to come forward, maybe this will be the tipping point, and others will take courage from this decision. I'd like to see Phelps, et al. so covered up in lawsuits that they won't be able to take time to go to the bathroom, for the rest of their misbegotten lives.

Your other post about the limitations of free speech -- not being able to legally inflict emotional damage without consequences -- was helpful.

Is there any way that "disturbing the peace" statutes could come into play in cases like this? (Maybe that's only for disturbing the *public* peace, and not the private peace of a grieving family.)

[northernsoul]

95. Most states have statutes against Disorderly Conduct / Disturbing the Peace

They are usually misdemeanors and the elements tend to consist of "conduct that would tend to cause undue alarm or apprehension in a reasonable person," with some variation. It's usually reserved for conduct like shoving matches, etc. where there is some aggressive conduct but no real injuries. In Minnesota it includes invading someone's privacy - it is actually the offense that Larry Craig pleaded guilty to.

[puebloknot]

105. Quaint concept, *privacy*, eh? Thanks for the information. nt

[puebloknot]

47. But take pity on the cell that would contain them! Welcome...

...to DU, Puckster.

We, the Rational need to be careful that we don't accept the idea that free speech can be contorted for legal justification of any nefarious deed.

[lil d]

42. Right On

That's terrible how they would twist the war into punishment for homosexuality.

[Whoa_Nelly]

44. Are any members of Westboro Baptist Church in the military?

Have often wondered about this.

My guess would be that there are none from that group because they are chickenshit cowards.

Right on that this lawsuit won out on behalf of the plaintiff! :bounce:

[MNDemNY]

45. It would be a sin to serve in the US military.

And the "church" is his inbred family and some "reformed" manson family members.(soon broke asshats, I hope.)

[lonestarnot]

48. That oughta fix 'em.

Heh :toast:

[ronnykmarshall]

54. I hope this sticks

and they bankrupt the mother fuckers.

[Initech]

55. It's about fucking time these assholes got what was coming to them!

:woohoo:

[toadzilla]

59. wonderful.

im sure the money will be tied up in appeals for years, but its nice to see some sort of repercussions.

[Eric J in MN]

60. We may hate the Phelps, but if they don't have rights, then neither do we.

The First Amendment includes "intent to inflict emotional distress." The verdict should be overturned.

[KittyWampus]

67. No one has the right to harass others. Nor intrude on a private occassion such as a funeral.

The Phelps defense includes the assertion a funeral is a public event. It is not.

[LostinVA]

69. Nope, not if it's an invasion of privacy, harassment, etc.

It was a civil suit, as well.

[Eric J in MN]

77. When liberals protest, will you call it harassment? NT

NT

[northernsoul]

98. It would be if they harassed people attending a private funeral service

I appreciate your concerns, but just because an activity involves expressive conduct does not mean it's 100% immunized from criminal or civil liability. There are plenty of activities involving speech that the 1st Amendment does not protect: soliciting contract killings, phoning in bomb threats, creating child porn, standing outside your house at 3 a.m. screaming obscenities through a megaphone, and going out of your way to harass and disturb people who are grieving the untimely death of a loved one.

[Eric J in MN]

113. The article doesn't say how close they were to the family

...or to the grave.

If they were a foot from the grave, then I'd say that was harassment.

If they were a mile away from the grave, I wouldn't call it harassment (in the legal sense.)

[Hobarticus]

129. Loud enough to be heard, and close enough to be seen, is too close.

And they were. Many times.

I would find it reasonable, as would most people, that someone deserves a little privacy and respect when laying to rest a child who died horribly for reasons that are becoming increasingly vague and pointless, if not flat-out lies.

Wouldn't you?

[LostinVA]

102. Yes, I would, if they also were harassing someone

Actually, I have said it.

[Hobarticus]

131. If actually harrassment, yep. NT

[SoxFan]

74. You are wrong

The First Amendment does NOT allow for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That's a settled, One-L torts class, basic legal standard.

[Eric J in MN]

76. So can Cheney sue the guy who said....

"Go fuck yourself" to him for intentionally causing him emotional distress?

[SoxFan]

89. No

There are established legal precedents that determine what constitutes an actionable offense. Telling Uncle Dick to fark off wouldn't meet the standard (he's also a public figure, which complicates any chance of a defamation suit). Showing up at a funeral, flapping signs that say the deceased is going to hell and generally making a scene during a time of emotional trauma? That's enough to shock the conscience of any human being.

[Ian_rd]

108. Hang on there Bluedog

You posted above: "The First Amendment does NOT allow for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That's a settled, One-L torts class, basic legal standard."

It could easily be argued by Dick Cheney that the guy who told him to fuck himself caused, and intended to cause, emotional distress. Why else would you say that to someone if not to make them feel bad?

And "shock(ing) the conscience of any human being" is most definitely not against the law and sure hell does not nullify the First Amendment, even if such a subjective thing could be proven.

[BadgerLaw2010]

118. Case law. Basically, passing, "minor" insults don't constitute IIED.

The conduct has to be "extreme and outrageous" and intended to cause "severe" emotional distress. People are generally rude. This general rudeness means that saying "Fuck off" or "You stink to me" is neither extreme, nor really intended to cause a "severe" result. It's too common, and it doesn't produce a severe result in the overwhelming majority of people.

Now, if you follow someone around for a while and continue to curse at, demean and insult them, that starts to get up there.

[Ian_rd]

121. So it falls where many legal arguments fall: What a "reasonable person" would consider ...

"extreme and outrageous." Is this phrase "extreme and outrageous" established in a law somewhere?

[northernsoul]

138. It's determined on a case-by-case basis; very fact-dependent

at the end of the day, if the judge thinks it's a close enough issue, the jury, acting as "the conscience of the community," will decide. That's exactly what happened here.

[Ian_rd]

139. I see. Thanks for the explanation!

[northernsoul]

141. My pleasure

This is frequently a confusing and controversial area of tort law, although it has precedents going back to the 16th/17th century.

[northernsoul]

99. Well, for starters it was Cheney who said that to Pat Leahy, not the other way around

and for seconders the conduct is not sufficiently outrageous enough to meet the elements of common law IIED.

[Eric J in MN]

109. I don't want to punish outrageous speech.

I don't know how close the protestors were to the grave, but if uninvited people could legally stand where they were with signs saying "America is Good," then they should be able to stand there with offensive signs.

In 2005, a man told Cheney to go fuck himself:
-----------
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_told_to_go_fuck_yourself_in_Gulfport_Missi_0908.html

Vice President Dick Cheney, in Gulfport, Mississippi on a tour of the Katrina hurricane zone, was told to "go fuck yourself" twice on live television, RAW STORY has learned.

During a discussion on hurricane relief efforts, an off camera protester shouts, "Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney. Go fuck yourself."
-----------

[SoxFan]

142. IIED

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress

Quick explanation from the LSU law school site:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/tortsF01/IIEM.htm

[BlueIris]

61. What, you mean there's some justice?

Geeze, who would have thought?

[Gin]

66. the jury came back later and awarded him 11 + million..

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.

[downindixie]

65. 11 million total awarded.

I just read on MSNBC that the total damages is 11 million!

[ironflange]

79. Next step: take care of this guy

[Miss Chybil]

80. 10.9 million

Now, if every one of the family members of the 300 other funerals this "church" has protested sue, perhaps Fred Phelps will learn some manners. I doubt it, but there is always hope.

[apnu]

120. Here is the CNN link saying $10.9 million

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/funeral.protest/?iref=mpstoryview

[Swagman]

81. thank you jury members !!!..are the horrible Westboro lot the

ones who keep attacking the Moran family as well ?

[onehandle]

83. Why isn't this voted up to the front page?

Too little "I hate Hillary" context?

Vote it up. Phelps is a major dick.

[fujiyama]

85. This may be wrong, but I can only hope

that Phelps doesn't die of natural causes.

[rateyes]

86. Good. Now, sue the fucking commander-in-chief for

wrongful death because of issuing an illegal order to go to war in Iraq.

That sorry sack of dog shit they call a minister, Phelps, if there is a hell, will spend eternity in the deepest darkest part of it accompanied by all the members of that lunatic organization they call a church.

Good for this family. Now, I say that all the other families he's done this to follow up with suits of their own. Let's see if this guy puts his damned money where his mouth is.

[AnnieBW]

92. YESSSSS!!!!

Someone finally beat those a**holes! Obviously, this young Marine came from good stock. :patriot:

[Maestro]

93. Shut the asswipe down!

I really detest that man and his followers!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

100. US anti-gay church to pay $10.9m

Source: BBC News

A US church whose members cheered the death of a soldier as "punishment" for the nation's sins has been ordered to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) in damages.

The Westboro Baptist Church was taken to court by the father of Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder, a marine who died serving in Iraq in March 2006.

The church cited its constitutional right to free speech in its defence. But Albert Snyder's lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning.

Members of the church - based in Topeka, Kansas - have denounced homosexuality for years, initially targeting the funerals of Aids victims but later extending their pickets to the funerals of soldiers, who they say are being punished by god.

More at link...

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072404.stm

[IndianaGreen]

101. Westboro Baptist Church is not a Christian church, but a cult made up of inbreds

Church members are all related to one another.

[0007]

104. I just hope they pay up!

[Az]

107. They don't have that much. This is going to be another SPLC situation

The Southern Poverty Law Center before it became the large group it is today found itself targetted by a NeoNazi group. As a result they sued them. They won the case and were rewarded $12 Million. The group could not pay the entire amount so the judge gave their Headquarters to the SPLC which they turned into a museum dedicated to tolerance.

[Ian_rd]

106. What was the crime?

Believe me - I couldn't be happier that the Phelps will be squeezed for their horrendous cruelty against people in their saddest moment, but I'm troubled by the case.

The legal basis to sue was the invasion of the family's privacy (at least the compensatory phase). I've seen a lot of footage of Phelps demonstrations, and I've never seen them anywhere but the public areas such as sidewalks near the funeral grounds, so I'd assume that this case was no different. What if, instead of shouting and cheering, they were just standing there quietly? And what if they also didn't have their picket signs? Would they have lost the case? If not, then the only difference is their ranting and their signs, which are most definitely protected by the First Amendment.

The only possibility I can see for the ruling to hold water is if their shouting invaded the privacy of the funeral grounds as it traveled from public domain to private, much like you could argue damages against a neighbor whose stereo is always blaring loud enough to keep you awake in your own house. But this would assume that the funeral grounds can be considered private. And if they can, could they also have sued, for instance, an unrelated outdoor concert a few blocks away if it disturbed their ceremony? If not, then the only difference is the nature of the noise - the anti-gay ranting - again, protected by the First Amendment.

Someone please convince me of the merits of the case so I can simply sit back and laugh at these assholes.

[Eric J in MN]

114. I agree with you that this case hurts the First Amendment.

Liberals who protest may get sued now, because a family coincidentally saw the signs when they were going to or from a funeral.

[BadgerLaw2010]

116. Tort, not crime.

[Ian_rd]

123. Then, What was the "tort" with regard to the alleged invasion of privacy?

How did the "invasion of privacy" argument succeed?

[cstanleytech]

125. Because phelps is an

asshole thats how and why he lost.
I am not exactly crying over his damage but I don't think the jury made the verdict with a cool head but because they in the end just did not like him. In a way its similar to what screwed over Scott Peterson with his defense, the jury in that case thought he was an asshole for cheating on his pregnant wife, not a capital crime usually but they managed to find a way to make it one you could say.

[Ian_rd]

127. I'm a firm believer than juries on occassion deliver verdicts ...

... based on, or weighted by, their opinions of what is right and not necessarily whether civil or criminal damages were incurred. And this may very well be one of those cases. But in situations like this that speak directly to constitutional rights, I get particularly nervous.

[Hobarticus]

130. So, if they catch whoever hung the noose in the black fireman's locker...

or painted the swastika on the Columbia professor's door, it's no harm done? If the targets decide to sue whoever did it, even though they technically broke no laws outside of hate crime laws, they shouldn't get a dime, as a punitive measure against the perpetrator?

Do someone else's rights trump my right to not be threatened and harrassed, to a measure that any normal person (including a jury) would find unreasonable?

[Ian_rd]

134. In this particular sub thread, the issue brought up was not the punitive damages ...

... resulting from the causing of emotional distress, but rather the compensatory damages that were awarded for the alleged invasion of privacy. I want to know how this invasion of privacy was argued and why it succeeded, because on its face,it seems to me that it should have failed.

To address your examples, the noose incident seems like it can be considered an invasion of privacy because it was the fireman's personal locker. The swastika incident doesn't seem like an invasion of privacy, but can be argued to be unlawful harassment that is subject to punitive damages which are used to deter such behavior that the public considers "egregiously invidious."

[Hobarticus]

143. Could harrassing funeral-goers be considered an invasion of privacy?

True, you or I could walk right up and attend a graveside rite.

But if we walked up and loudly interrupted the proceedings, is that not an unreasonable violation of privacy?

[Ian_rd]

146. My assumption from seeing footage of many Phelps demonstrations ...

... is that they were not on the funeral grounds but rather on the sidewalk or in some other clearly public place. If they were on the grounds and reasonably within the limits of the ceremony itself, then it would be another matter.

I think their actual specific location is a vital issue of the case that has not been reported. But because it wasn't reported, I'm going off my assumption from all the other Phelps incidents I've seen.

[northernsoul]

140. My best guess

is that there was not an explicit invasion of privacy count in the lawsuit, rather the extremely outrageous intrusion upon what reasonable people expect to be a private and solemn ceremony was a factor in creating the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress tort.

[DuaneBidoux]

110. They are the lowest of lowest pre-evolved pond scum to ever call themselves human

and my reptilian and even some of my cerebrum celebrates but i wonder on exactly what they got them? Was it obstructing the path and harrassing people physically as they tried to attend the funeral? A sign may say something incredibly ugly and offensive but last I checked we are are not protected from being offended (even deeply so).

Under so circumstance think I would ever defend this bunch of lowlifes. but I just wonder on exactly what they were found guilty and how, in technical terms, the verdict and award was justified.

[Eric J in MN]

112. Suppose a gay rights group holds signs outside a church, saying "God Loves Gays."

And suppose a right-wing family attends a funeral service at the church and sees the signs before and after the service.

Should the family be able to sue the gay rights group for interfering with their mourning?

My point is that when one person loses Free Speech, so do the rest of us.

[Hobarticus]

132. It wasn't just "holding signs", Eric J.

Just holding signs, while tacky, is not the issue. You can't let go of that, can you, and see beyond the messenger for the message? THAT is what this is about.

They were shrieking and verbally harrassing the funeral the whole time, waving signs with slogans that said their son/daughter is dead because it is God's revenge on America and the family for embracing a non-Phelps morality.

Your example is weak. If the gay rights group in your example were hollering out that God HATED their family member and he DESERVED to die, then yes, it would be harrassment against the right-wing family. But somehow, I have a hard time seeing that happen.

I'm sorry, but you seem to not be very well informed about what exactly Phelps was up to, as evidenced by the parallels you draw.

[Eric J in MN]

153. Can you give me a link with details of what the Phelps did in this case? NT

NT

[Hobarticus]

154. You can't be serious. eom

[Eric J in MN]

155. You seem to have read a more detailed account...

...than what the article in the OP says, and I asked you for a link. Yes, I was serious.

[probablereason]

133. there are limits to even the first amendment

Your point is well intentioned but poorly reasoned. This is one case, the very first civil case in which these laws have been tested. Therefore the facts at hand in this particular incident are not some automatic litmus test that you can apply in reverse to entirely new first amendment scenarios. This case will probably be appealed, and it is likely that there will be similar cases, as I am presuming Phelps and his sick puppies will continue doing this. Other state law will be tested and eventually the courts will establish prcedent for a test to determine how one should interpret the reasonable limitations on the first amendment in such a case. This test should be precisely defined and narrowly crafted and when in doubt, the benefit should go to the speaker, not the censor.

But none of that prevents us as a society from collectively deciding that there are some acts that transcend speech and cross the line into harassment and should not be tolerated. The ACLU often likes to use the KKK march as an example of unpopular, but protected speech. Howver, I'd argue that theire are limits. Should the klan be allowed to march down the square and show the world what idots they are? Sure. Should they be able to surround a young black girl as she walks to school and shout using racial slurs why they think she should not be in school? Hell No.


We should be careful to set the bar high, and to be wary of the impact on unpopular speech, but the Fred Phelps of the world and their funeral attacks are in my mind, a perfect example of harassment that ought to be restricted.

[Hobarticus]

144. Welcome to DU!

Making a splash, right out of the gate. Ya got Moxie!

[CBHagman]

119. Finally a cause the entire country can get behind.

Red staters, blue staters, and purple persuasion types can agree what a hateful, nasty lot the Phelpses are.

[0007]

122. Fred, the new sheriff in town is coming after you and it is not

to be taken personally.


The posse is on its way .. be very scared!
The new sheriff has decided to launch an attack that will reduce Fred and his group to ashes...
I want the boys and the died hard girls from Iowa, Idaho, and Indiana
to round up every vicious criminal and gunslinger in the West. Take this down: I
want rustlers, cut-throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperadoes, mugs, pugs,
thugs, nit-wits, half-wits, dim-wits, vipers, snipers, con-men, Indian agents,
Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bush-whackers, horn-swagglers,
horse-thieves, bull-dykes, train-robbers, bank-robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers,
and Methodists!..............

[Ian_rd]

124. 0007, you use yer mouth pertier than a $20 whore!

:rofl:

My mind is aglow - with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of invention!

[0007]

148. LOL!!

:hi:

[poverlay]

128. YES! GOD LOVES FAGS! nt

[opihimoimoi]

145. Them assholes should be in Jail.....locked up for 5 years each...bastids they are

[Tarc]

147. Swimming against the tide here, but

I'm not really sure this was the right decision in the legal sense. If they really were protesting at a distance down a street as some here have said, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. As for the distress infliction, I just don't know. Isn't this opening up a rather dangerous precedent? What if evangelicals become "emotionally distressed by open displays of homosexuality and decide to sue?

Please note that I loathe the Westboro people and am disgusted by their antics at the funerals of gays, soldiers, and whoever else irks them on a given day. But the legalese of this case is not sitting well with me.

[John Kerry VonErich]

150. My roommate's brother is in Iraq.

His brother made a will before basic training that states if those Westboro Church people show up to protest his funeral, he wants armed guards to shoot to kill. Although I hate the message the church people were saying, I questioned his decision, he said that "if they think I'm going to hell, I am taking them with me."