Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In winning protest case, father vows to put church out of business (Phelps)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 04:54 PM
Original message
In winning protest case, father vows to put church out of business (Phelps)
In winning protest case, father vows to put church out of business
By Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2007


WASHINGTON — You can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And if Albert Snyder gets his way, you won't be able to go to a military funeral and hold up a sign that says, "Thank God for dead soldiers."

It might come as a blow to purists who want to defend free speech, no matter how ugly it is. But Snyder figures the First Amendment will survive just fine.

A day after winning a $10.9 million verdict against Westboro Baptist Church and its leaders for picketing his son Matthew's funeral last year, Snyder was tired and drained Thursday. But he was defiant, too, promising to run the Topeka, Kan., church out of business to make sure that other grieving families don't have to put up with demonstrators at funerals.

"I don't expect to collect $10 million, but I do intend to collect everything they have," Snyder said in an interview.

Snyder, 52, a salesman from York, Pa., said he celebrated the verdict by getting some sleep. Under a gag order the judge imposed, he was barred from speaking to reporters during the seven-day trial in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, but he awoke to do interviews.

"I want to spread the word about these people," he said. "I want other people to try to come forward if they've been terrorized by these people. I basically want to shut them down."

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21018.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've got no problem with this
I don't think it's a free speech issue when you protest an individual's funeral, I think it's harassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's one thing to say they have to keep half-a-mile from the grave...
...during the funeral. It's another thing to say that they can't make themselves visible at all to anyone going to a funeral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. I don't know what this specific ruling says
but I think it's harassment, period, if you're in any way interfering with someone's private ceremony. Whether standing .51 miles from a funeral is still interfering, I don't know. I'll have to go measure at the next funeral I see.

Following a funeral procession to hold up hate-speech signs or waiting outside a cemetary as one is coming in smacks of deliberate harassment to me, just as interfering in an individual's medical decisions by protesting her right to control her own body in front of a clinic does.

I don't see this as remotely equivalent to a political protest. I grant that others might use it that way, but I think they'd be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Regarding the latter example,
...the Supreme Court upheld a 100 foot distance law from clinics.

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.abortion/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ol' Fred and his litter...
May well have met their Waterloo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GCP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. I only hope the ACLU doesn't get involved with this
If they do, I'll lose all respect for them forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Uh, unlike some, they do distinguish between government and private citizens.
Funerals are private matters, not government operations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Exactly
I'm not sure why some people aren't getting this. Public/private. Seems clear to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Not likely. The don't usually get involved in defamation cases or malicious infliction of distress
cases.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. We're going to come to regret this decision.
And I predict sooner rather than later. I can easily see this precedence being used by some soldier's family against anti-war protesters, claiming that such protests cause families of soldiers distress. Sorry, but freedom of speech means that it is free for everybody, whether we agree with them or not. Especially if we don't agree with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. This is NOT a precedent
this guy only won a jury verdict in a civil trial. If it's upheld on appeal, then it will be a precedent. Until then, it's just another jury verdict in a civil trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Talk to any lawyer,
They will tell you that any jury verdict can be used as precedent. It just holds up better if the verdict survives the appeals process. Right now, we can't even say for certain whether Phelps will appeal this since the paperwork hasn't been filed. Therefore, right now it is a precedent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. I don't know one lawyer
and I know quite a few, that would cite a jury verdict as precedent. For one thing, there is no written decision to interpret and apply. This is about as much a precedent as any other jury verdict in a civil trial. That is, not much if any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. juries determine questions of fact. the appeals courts determine the law
no one would use a jury verdict as valid precedent because the jury's job is to determine the factual questions in a case. juries don't interpret the law, that's what appeals courts do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. If and only if it is appealed
If it isn't appealed, then yes, it can be used as a precedent. This has been done before, and while it makes for a weak precedent, it is still a precedent none the less. Go check out case law in the late nineteenth, and frankly all the way into the mid twentieth century, this was a fairly common occurrence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Kindly, settle down. The Constitution protected hating the government, not eachother.
If you are going to assert case law from the late 19th C and into the mis 20th,...cite it.

NOTHING in the Constitution protected Phelps' hatefulness. NOTHING. NOTHING.

His hatefulness does not deserve protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PetrusMonsFormicarum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Harassment is not free speech
I agree with the first responder to this post: these shit-hurling monkeys can emblazon their own house or church with their hate-mongering slogans, and if they can get some ass clown reporter to give them airtime, fine for them. But interrupting funerals for soldiers killed in action, repeatedly, smacks of opportunistic, premeditated serial harassment.

As an aside, where the heck is the God they keep referring to, and why the fuck hasn't he struck them down for fucking with his name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Look, I hate Phelps just as much as the next person around here
However I guess I love the First Amendment more than I hate. Every single person in this country has the utter right to hold a protest, no matter where it is in proximity to, on public property, and speak whatever they wish. This includes people with whom we disagree, whether it be Nazi marchers in Skoakie Illinois(where many Holocaust survivors lived) or across the street from soldiers funerals.

Like I said, this ruling can be used against protesters. All it would take is some soldier's family claiming that anti-war protesters are causing them emotional distress by holding a demonstration on main street.

This is how our freedoms are taken away, by setting precedents with unpopular people and unpopular actions. These precedents are then turned on us, and it is our rights that are taken away. Look at the drug war, sex offender laws, terrorist laws, etc. etc.

Let's not go down this slippery slope, if we do, we may not have any voice left to protest with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. It's not a "slippery slope". HATE speech against private citizens is WAY DIFFERENT FROM,...
,...free speech about government policies and operations.

THERE IS NO SLOPE!!!

Get that out of your head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. So, I guess I can't go out and protest against a private citizen then?
I can't go stand outside of Phelp's house, on public property, and call him out for his hatred and bigotry(in a non-threatening manner of course)? I can't go to Dick Cheney's residence and, while on public property, call him on his stance on Iraq, Iran, or even irises?

You can most certainly protest private citizens, it has been done time and again. Frankly my friend, if you're thinking that you can't, you're already far gone down that slippery slope.

Geez, it's fucking amazing how many people will rush to give up their civil rights simply to play some sort of "gotcha" game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Just because we don't agree that it's a free speech issue
doesn't mean we're rushing to give up our civil rights. If we thought it was a free speech issue and said, "but I don't care!" then you make that statement. As it stands, we simply disagree with you.

I believe you can protest a public figure. After all, Cindy and Code Pink camped out in front of Nancy Pelosi's house recently. But an individual citizen is not a public figure simply because they've died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Is that "we" in the royal sense, or do you think that you're speaking for all of DU?
You can indeed protest a private citizen. There has been case after case of people protesting private citizens for how they treat their children, their neighbor's behavior, etc. Hell, when I lived in Columbia Mo, there was a man down the street who was calling out his neighbor as a drug dealer on a daily basis. He had the First Amendment right to do so.

Sorry, but you are advocating giving up all of our First Amendment rights all so that you can get some short term schadenfreude. Really a shame that we can't have some more long term thinking around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. We, as in those of us who are disagreeing with you
Which is clearly something that you don't deal well with.

We don't agree. (That's you and me, got it?) Stop exaggerating and putting words in people's mouths. Try to accept the fact that not everyone will agree with you in life and that this does not automatically make you right and everyone who disagrees with you wrong.

"Sorry, but you are advocating giving up all of our First Amendment rights all so that you can get some short term schadenfreude."

:wtf:

I'm advocating nothing of the sort. I have said repeatedly that I do not believe this falls under free speech. Let me word it differently: I don't believe this is covered by the First Amendment. It is my opinion. You are welcome to your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. No. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HARASS ME! For that, I am grateful.
Dick Cheney IS THE GOVERNMENT.

I think it's amazing how willingly some people are to confuse issues.

Like, uh,...some kind of "gotcha" game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I have every right to stand on the public street outside your house
And protest your views on any given issue. Go look through the tomes and tomes of case law if you don't believe me, there are loads of cases where that has happened, with people protesting their neighbors' drug dealing to how they treat their dog. Frankly I could stand on the public street outside your home and protest your law of legal knowledge if I cared to.

But sadly, everybody sees the name Phelps, and are willing to give away their right to free speech in exchange for a little short term schandenfreude. How pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. No. You do not have the RIGHT to harass me. You have the right to speak freely against government.
You stand on the opposite corner of my property and scream my brother deserved to die,...you will be arrested for harassment and nuisance and whatever other laws are on the books to protect someone like me from your awefulness.

You can sit in your confused state about "free speech" and where it applies but you can not nudge me into that state.

Free speech is a protection granted to us against our government not ourselves. It is THAT SIMPLE. There is no slippery slope in that as blindly passionate as you may be to create one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. You keep talking about "protesting" against an individual
and then you launch into "protesting...drug dealing" or "how they treat their dog." This is a far cry from "I get to stand in front of your house and tell you God hates you for living." No, you don't. Why don't you come try it and see what happens? I'm willing to bet you money that the restraining order I will then file on your ass will be well and proper under the law and you will have to stay the hell away from me.

You can then screech "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" from outside the zone of the restraining order until you are blue in the face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. Darth is no more a Private citizen than the Chimp is. We have the right
to seek redress for our grievances from our elected officials. That does not give these homophobic morons the right to inflict themselves into our private family matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. This is NOT a first amendment case. This jackass is welcome to preach his hate on any street corner
he wants. He's just been dissuaded from intentionally magnifying the grief of a family who lost a son who was serving the nation.

Reverend Jackass has not been stopped from speaking his message of hate; he's just been stopped from harassing some folks who don't deserve his harassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. And what happens when that "dissuation" is turned on anti-war protesters?
As you said, the jackass is welcome to preach his hate on any street corner. Including a street corner across from a cematary. Do I like this? Do I condone it? No, but I have to grant that the man has a right to do it. If I don't grant him his rights, how long before some uber-freeper with a son or daughter in Iraq will claim that anti-war protesters are spreading hate speech and causing them some sort of mental anguish? And don't think that they couldn't find a judge or jury to back their ass up with. Anywhere in Idaho or Wyoming comes to mind.

Sorry, but precedent is precedent, and this one can and will be used against us unless it is struck down on appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Precedent is precedent? NEVER has there been a right granted to INTRUDE on individuals' lives.
I'll tell you what would be REALLY FUCKING FRIGHTENING is if there is a precedent expanding "free speech" protection from the realm of government to the realm of citizens. Then, our society would become cannibalistic.

I seriously wonder whether you are thinking your position through, at all.

No. Madhound, if you are advocating that "free speech" goes beyond the kind intended to be protected by our Constitution, you are advocating for more freedom to the Limbaughs and Coulters and Phelps and other hate-mongerers who were NEVER BESTOWED THE FREEDOM TO HATE ALL OVER ME OR YOU. They were given the freedom to HATE their government, not us.

If anything, the laws that are supposed to protect US from such hate-mongering have been weakened ON PURPOSE by a government intended to PROTECT US from such oppressive shit.

THAT IS THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Then I tell you what, why don't you go talk to any Constitutional scholar, or Constitutional lawyer
And then fucking get back to me and tell me that everything that I studied in all those college classes was fucking wrong! You have absolutely no credibility with me because quite frankly your every post shows that you have absolutely zero fucking knowledge on this issue. All you are fucking doing is goddamn kneejerk posting, putting your own sense of outrage and schadenfreude ahead of what is in reality a wrongheaded position.

Don't fucking like what I'm saying to you? Then fucking go ahead and SUE ME. Sadly, the odds are you can actually win the case, since you and others like you are more than willing to flush away our civil liberties, all for a moment of feel good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. What if I told you the only constitutional "scholars" supporting your stance are RW ones?
Edited on Thu Nov-01-07 06:27 PM by sicksicksick_N_tired
Moreover, I'd like to ask that, you calm down, some.

As a person who does have a working knowledge of the Constitution, advocating that free speech applies beyond the constitutional application to the government would further violate civil liberties and protections.

Also, the only sense of "outrage and schadenfreude" I am seeing is coming from you. Hence, I am asking that you take a breath.

I advocate for your right to speak freely about those who hold the reigns of power over your country, your government. I also advocate protection against oppressive behavior against individual citizens. I can do so, simultaneously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. Why don't you quote your constitutional argument? The amendments I read say the Government shall
not make or limit whatever... This is a private citizen protecting their own right to quiet enjoyment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. A couple things.
One, we don't tend to do anti-war protests at funerals - most of us are decent enough to give grieving families their space.

Two, we don't use nasty rhetoric saying "Thank God that soldier's dead" - our signs are more likely to say "Bring em' home."

The WBC goes beyond the pale, into the territory of harassment and verbal assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. What we say and how we protest doesn't really matter.
So dumb ass freeper with a good lawyer, this precedent and a friendly jury could shut us down, claiming that any protest is disrespecting their dead child and harassing them. Given the nature of politics in states such as Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, etc. this could easily become a legal reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark414 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
41. only if anti-war protestors show up at funerals
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. good for him
there is a very fine line between Free Speech -- which should be protected -- and obvious harassment laced with disgusting hate-filled bigotry and bile -- which should have severe consequences. The fact that Phelps and his backward thinking brood of half-wits and knuckle-draggers have been harassing people since at least the early 1990s while claiming freedom of speech is troubling.

What's even more troubling is the subtle hypocrisy this event illustrates. Back when they only picketed and openly shouted hate at those who died from AIDS, it was fine and Freedom of Speech and there was nothing that could be done, really. But now that they're going after soldiers it's suddenly not okay?

Perhaps this man should share the money he is able to get from them with the parents and partners of those whose nightmare of a day was made infinitely worse by the hatred of Phelps and the willful ignorance and hypocrisy of a Nation that tacitly gave permission when it was directed only at gays and their grieving families and friends, but finally couldn't tolerate it when it involved soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. Hope he gets everything they own....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
18. I hope he does!!! It's bad enough theocrats have been allowed to seep into government.
IT'S WORSE certain crazy cretins have been allowed to HATE ON citizens in mourning.

I think he should be institutionalized, personally!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. Excellent! I'm behind them 100%!
Even though I'm a staunch supporter of the 1st Amendment, I also believe Fred Phelps is the biggest douchebag in the universe, no contest there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicole0214 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-01-07 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
32. They should do just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC