Westboro Church Loses Big

[fuzzis]

Father of slain Marine wins case against funeral protesters (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story?coll=bal_news_local_x promo)
Pa. man awarded nearly $11 million in compensatory and punitive damages

...The courtroom fight came down to whether Westboro had a legal right to demonstrate at the March 2006 funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder or whether the protesters crossed the line because their message impugned the grieving family's reputation and unlawfully invaded the Snyders' privacy.

The Marine's father from York, Pa., sued the church and three of its members for intentionally invading his privacy because his deceased son did not have that right any longer. For the claim to be successful, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later, in a posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.

Albert Snyder also claimed that the church's actions were an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under the law, the five women and four women of the jury needed to find that the church's conduct was "intentional or reckless" to find for Snyder. Jury instructions also required that the conduct be "extreme and outrageous," leading to severe emotional distress....

Not at all sure how I feel about this. I find the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church to be reprehensible (let me say it again: I find the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church to be reprehensible and highly inappropriate...an awful way to make a point), but...

I don't know if we should be about the business of silencing speech that we find distasteful. Things like the Freedom Riders Guard I can get behind, but...this, and the amount of the award, makes me uncomfortable.

:confused:

[Hob684]

yes the 11mil is a bit overboard but how would you feel if someone protested at your son's funeral?

i'd be a little more than hacked..

[aaron]

So, I guess this would fall under the definition of trial law. I don't really think that they should have the right to protest a funeral. He's dead. Protest something else.

[Baloo]

fuzzis, I am all for free speech, but I am so happy that the judge ruled in favor of the grieving family!!!! I really am not trying to make this an agree with or disagree the war post, but one of the rights of the grieving family. I don't care if the protestors want to march up and down Main Street in the middle of rush hour traffic and shout their opinions to the world, but there are times when I feel like some protestors do cross the line into assault, invasion of privacy and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... If a protestor blocks traffic or impedes someone from traveling through any public place or if the protestor gets within three feet of another individual who is not part of their protest, I think that they are crossing the line from free speech to obstruction, assault and invasion of privacy. Again, I do belive in our first amendment and it is part of what makes this a great nation. However, I do not think that protestors should have the right to interrupt something as scared and personal as a funeral. I know that if it were one of my loved ones that I was laying to rest and I had a bunch of people screaming protests in the background and disrespecting the honor and memory of my loved one, I would be livid, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the death. I just think that there are times when the protestors exceed their rights to protest and intrude on the rights of others and that the verdict was a fair check and balance to remind protestors that freedom of speech does not mean free to insult, verbally assault, degrade or make derogatory remarks to others, especially to a grieving family whose loved one died to protect the protestors right to free speech...

[fuzzis]

yes the 11mil is a bit overboard but how would you feel if someone protested at your son's funeral?

i'd be a little more than hacked..

If my son had gone to war, supposedly he was fighting so they could have that right to do just that...

It can piss me off, but...again, I'm not sure that's enough reason to say it has to stop. Hurtful and hateful speech at abortion protests has been ruled constitutional. I'm not sure this should be a whole lot different.

:confused:

[58ford]

I am a vocal supporter of free speech. That being said, I believe that is not universal & that there are some venues where certain speech should be legally restrained.
Yes, the amount of the award was out of line, but the ruling was correct.

[amanda]

They should have awarded more, IMO. I'm just as much for free speech as the next guy, but not when it crosses the line of decency. These people lost a son, a brother, a friend...they didn't deserve this kind of behavior. If there was a need to protest, they should have found another avenue to do so.

[fuzzis]

They should have awarded more, IMO. I'm just as much for free speech as the next guy, but not when it crosses the line of decency. These people lost a son, a brother, a friend...they didn't deserve this kind of behavior. If there was a need to protest, they should have found another avenue to do so.

What does "crosses the line of decency" mean? And who gets to decide when that happens?

[amanda]

That line is pretty easy, for a lot of people. Protesting at someone's funeral? Yeah, common sense tells me that line is pretty wide.

[Hob684]

when you start being indecent

[fuzzis]

That line is pretty easy, for a lot of people. Protesting at someone's funeral? Yeah, common sense tells me that line is pretty wide.

when you start being indecent

"Common sense"? "Indecent"?

And what if someone decides that their "common sense" means that what you're doing is "indecent"?

It's a very subjective thing...and that makes me uncomfortable...in a much broader context. This might be "easy" to decide, but what about things that are much less clear? It feels like a slippery slope we're heading down.

[Yeehah283]

Fuz, are you agreeing with westboro? I think that protesting a funeral comes pretty dang close to buying you a ticket to hell. I think what they did is "indecent" and anybody with "common sense" should know better.

I say give Snyder more money.

[Honey]

"Common sense"? "Indecent"?

And what if someone decides that their "common sense" means that what you're doing is "indecent"?

It's a very subjective thing...and that makes me uncomfortable...in a much broader context. This might be "easy" to decide, but what about things that are much less clear? It feels like a slippery slope we're heading down.

I say if you are making someone cry then you have gone to far.

[Pirate_129]

"Common sense"? "Indecent"?

And what if someone decides that their "common sense" means that what you're doing is "indecent"?

It's a very subjective thing...and that makes me uncomfortable...in a much broader context. This might be "easy" to decide, but what about things that are much less clear? It feels like a slippery slope we're heading down.

I tend to agree that it is a slippery slope. I also believe that we have a the judicial branch of government in place to make these decisions.

I also believe in free speech, but I also feel very strongly that your rights end when they infringe on another person's rights. IE your right to extend your arm ends at the next persons face. The protesters have a right to say what they want, but when they infringed on the rights of the family and friends of the slain Marine to mourn his death and honor his sacrifice, the protesters rights ended.

My 2 cents....

[fuzzis]

Fuz, are you agreeing with westboro? I think that protesting a funeral comes pretty dang close to buying you a ticket to hell. I think what they did is "indecent" and anybody with "common sense" should know better.

I say give Snyder more money.

:smt105

Please re-read my first post. Sorry for the bitchy tone, but geezameeza what a dumb question.

:smt105

[fuzzis]

I say if you are making someone cry then you have gone to far.

The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion protesters have the right to "make someone cry"....

[amanda]

"Common sense"? "Indecent"?

And what if someone decides that their "common sense" means that what you're doing is "indecent"?

It's a very subjective thing...and that makes me uncomfortable...in a much broader context. This might be "easy" to decide, but what about things that are much less clear? It feels like a slippery slope we're heading down.

I don't think so. As the Federal Judge in this case pointed out, it became an issue of a families right to privacy and a group's right to free speech. This Marine wasn't gay - but his family and friends had to see signs that said "Thank God for IEDs" "Semper Fi Fags"? What? Further, it appears this "church" get's off on disrupting funerals of fallen soldiers. Why? If they were so inclined, then they could picket to their hearts content in front of the White House or Crawford, Texas. But no, they aren't even protesting the war - - - they were protesting GAYS??? What? Then go to San Francisco. This dead soldier wasn't gay, so why his funeral? It's tacky, classless and free speech be damned - I'm personally glad to see that this "church" got their butts handed to them. I think the foregoing speaks volumes to their message:

"Carrying brightly colored signs with inflammatory messages at reportedly more than 30,000 protests, including hundreds of military funerals, members of the congregation say the nation is losing soldiers on the battlefield because the country has been too accepting of gays in every part of American society, including in the military."

I think a bunch of people should protest in front of their church carrying signs saying that the reason that there are gay's in the world are because of people just like them.

[Honey]

The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion protesters have the right to "make someone cry"....

You said it was subjected and if I make someone cry then I have gone to far. I can only say what I view it as. To get the opinion of an abortion rights protector please ask them.

[58ford]

A funeral is a sacred time. It is about saying goodbye, to a loved one, a friend, an associate or even an enemy. Bringing anything else into it, be it a protest that that person would not have supported, a cause that would upset their loved ones, or selling Amway, it doesn't matter, it is wrong & wrong in such a way that it should be punished.

[Yeehah283]

I guess you are right about the amount of money.

I just find it hard to swallow their attacks on individual people as opposed to speaking out about a cause as a whole. This group has been doing this for years. In reference to amandah, what they do draws the line between free speech and harrassment. If you are going to speak out, don't provoke someone's grief.

[SoMissTV]

While I certainly agree with fuzzis concern that we are on a slippery slope, the Supreme Court, beginning with Schenck v. United States, has consistently ruled that free speech has limits, especially when the speech is ruled to be inflammatory and designed to incite panic. Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the unanimous Court, stated that, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Indeed, vocally and graphically protesting during, and in close proximity to, a funeral seems to be the type of speech that could cause civil unrest when emotions are running high among so many in an emotionally-vulnerable state of mind. I'm a big believer in the free of our speech, but we have a nearly 100 year old test used to determine how free speech is defined and protected. If a jury has found that WBC's protested failed the test, then they should be held accountable.

[fuzzis]

Fair enough...but, the SCOTUS has also ruled that protesters outside of abortion clinics have the right to say horrid things to women entering clinics. Their privacy can be violated, but this is different?

:confused:

[SoMissTV]

but this is different?

According to the SCOTUS, yes. Please don't ask me to explain why; I don't know.

[Hob684]

the son didn't have a choice to die....

[fuzzis]

the son didn't have a choice to die....

So as long as it's a cause you support, then it's OK. Thanks for proving my point from earlier...it all depends on who's saying it and who is offended. :laugh:

[amanda]

Fair enough...but, the SCOTUS has also ruled that protesters outside of abortion clinics have the right to say horrid things to women entering clinics. Their privacy can be violated, but this is different?

:confused:

So as long as it's a cause you support, then it's OK. Thanks for proving my point from earlier...it all depends on who's saying it and who is offended. :laugh:

Abortion protestors have limits on how close to a clinic they can get now, finally. I get where you are coming from, Fuzzis, because I've been against abortion protests too. It is a double standard, I agree, but just because one is allowed - should the other be permitted in spite?

[58ford]

So as long as it's a cause you support, then it's OK. Thanks for proving my point from earlier...it all depends on who's saying it and who is offended. :laugh:
I don't think having a cause you supported endorsed at you funeral is a bad thing. I don't particularly support the Teamsters, but my day did, They sent a wreath, and I had it prominently displayed because it's what he would have wanted.
Once again, the funeral is about the dead & how they would like to be remembered, not us.

[fuzzis]

Abortion protestors have limits on how close to a clinic they can get now, finally. I get where you are coming from, Fuzzis, because I've been against abortion protests too. It is a double standard, I agree, but just because one is allowed - should the other be permitted in spite?

I don't know that it's about spite...but I also don't know how you can say one is OK but the other is not. You can't argue one way in one instance yet say that doesn't apply in another. This opens a can of worms. It's not OK to hurl invectives at a funeral. Check. Sacred ceremony and all that. About honoring the dead. Check.

When is it OK? And who gets to decide that?

This will be appealed, and given the precedent already set, even though it's reprehensible, my bet is that not only will the award be reduced, but the ruling will be overturned.

[amanda]

I don't know that it's about spite...but I also don't know how you can say one is OK but the other is not. You can't argue one way in one instance yet say that doesn't apply in another. This opens a can of worms. It's not OK to hurl invectives at a funeral. Check. Sacred ceremony and all that. About honoring the dead. Check.

When is it OK? And who gets to decide that?

This will be appealed, and given the precedent already set, even though it's reprehensible, my bet is that not only will the award be reduced, but the ruling will be overturned.


Neither is okay to me. But you are trying to compare apples to oranges. In one case you have Pro-Lifer's protesting abortion in front of abortion clinics. In this case, you have Anti-Gay protestors at a funeral of a dead soldier saying that his death was brought on by our acceptance of gays?

[chaz]

At least it will keep them busy awhile and prolly cost them a hunk of change to appeal. Do you think the ACLU will defend them in the appeal process?

One could only hope it would cost them money. The crazy grand wizard of this group has a daughter... who unfortunately is an attorney. :smt009

[Hob684]

One could only hope it would cost them money. The crazy grand wizard of this group has a daughter... who unfortunately is an attorney. :smt009

maybe she'll turn out to be a lesbian and said grand wizard will off himself.



i wonder if they'll protest his funeral??

[fuzzis]

Neither is okay to me. But you are trying to compare apples to oranges. In one case you have Pro-Lifer's protesting abortion in front of abortion clinics. In this case, you have Anti-Gay protestors at a funeral of a dead soldier saying that his death was brought on by our acceptance of gays?

Hurtful, hateful, often untrue, speech at an intensely personal and private, difficult moment in a person's life. With the same kinds of limits.

It's an ugly situation yes. In a polite society it wouldn't happen...but I can't feel that making it a criminal activity is the way to deal with it because it's too easy to decide one instance is more deserving of protection than another.

[chaz]

It's an ugly situation yes. In a polite society it wouldn't happen...but I can't feel that making it a criminal activity is the way to deal with it because it's too easy to decide one instance is more deserving of protection than another.


It hasn't been criminalized; this was a civil case. Just as Snyder filed suit against WBC, those seeking abortions have the same rights to file suit against protesters.

As to who decides what is decent and what crosses the line, that decision lies with the jurors. I feel certain that such a jury verdict could be won against abortion protesters in a venue such as San Francisco.

[B.T. Justice]

The crazy grand wizard of this group has a daughter :smt009

I haven't heard/read anyone mention the grand wizard is a native of Meridian MS.

Just a little known interesting fact.

[wilebill]

So, I guess this would fall under the definition of trial law. I don't really think that they should have the right to protest a funeral. He's dead. Protest something else.I think aaron has it right. It's one thing to protest against someone who can fight back, it's entirely different to pick on someone who's dead and can only rely on others to fight back for him/her.

[aaron]

If my son had gone to war, supposedly he was fighting so they could have that right to do just that...

:confused:

Well, this is a blanket statement used in every freedom speech there is. If they are the ones fighting and dying for it, let's ask them to define what our rights are. I'm sure that a majority would vote no to the "You have a right to protest, shout things at my family, and invade my private life when I die" amendment. I am partly against this judgment though, simply because money does nothing. If a judge has ruled you can't do it, then they should make a law that you'll be locked up if you do it. This judgment won't mean you can't protest funerals, it means you can't do ALL the things they did and not have to pay for it.

[Honey]

Yeah Aaron but that judgement will keep me from doing that kind of protest. It may be too much money but it will do the trick.

[aaron]

Yeah Aaron but that judgement will keep me from doing that kind of protest. It may be too much money but it will do the trick.

Well, it won't to people like this. This judgment isn't against the protest. It's against all the things done. They conspired to invade his privacy. This guy wasn't a public figure, he was a private citizen, which is different under the law. This case has a good chance of being overturned in a higher court. WBC is experienced at these protests and have plenty of lawyers to insure they do things within the scope of the law. They just went a little too far this time. That doesn't mean they can't keep doing it as long as they don't go that far again.

[eyescene]

For me funerals are private. Protest the day after! Protest the day before! but leave people be, while burying their dead!

Have some respect!!! This chruch deserved it and should pay up!!! But that amoun$ is way over the top!

[Astra]

My initial reaction was that it couldn't happen to a nicer person, HA!

Phelps is a con artist. He baits people who are already upset and hurting, daring them to lash out at him so he can sue them. It's how he funds his little sprees of hate. Just take a look at his history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps). He's pathetic excuse for a human being.

I'm a full believer in free speech, but I also agree that it comes with responsibilities. My right to swing my fist ends when it hits your nose and all that. Phelps is poking people in the face and then screaming "Mommy make them stop touching me!" any time someone calls him on it.

[eyescene]

Well said Astra!!! I totally agree.... :clap:

I just don't understand why folks don't get that responsibility along with common sensibility, comes with free speech and many other American Rights!

[Conveyor Belt]

When we start sliding down the slippery slope, I'll recognize it. However, this isn't anywhere near it. What they did, they did with the intention of causing controversy and pain. They deserve to pay that family every penny of the $11M. None of that will bring a memory of a peaceful funeral. But maybe it'll make that damned stupid church think twice about doing something like this again.

They're one crazy nut away from having someone gun them down.

[Astra]

I maintain that one day, Skidmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rex_McElroy) will repeat itself with Phelps. He is one of a rare set of individuals so devoid of any valuable contribution to society that (aside from his immediate family) I honestly don't think anyone would miss him. Not that I condone murder, but when someone manages to unite pretty much the entire country against him, it wouldn't surprise me.

[aaron]

Ohh, I agree, they are terrible people. And unfortunately, generally used as a representations of Christians in America by anti-religious groups. I hope everyone here realizes we're talking about this church: http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[mac]

When we start sliding down the slippery slope, I'll recognize it. However, this isn't anywhere near it. What they did, they did with the intention of causing controversy and pain. They deserve to pay that family every penny of the $11M. None of that will bring a memory of a peaceful funeral. But maybe it'll make that damned stupid church think twice about doing something like this again.

They're one crazy nut away from having someone gun them down.


I don't know if it'll even take a crazy nut to do it. If some fanatics showed up at my family member's funeral and started making a scene, I don't know that I could control myself.

[bpitt]

This is were this cyber pirate stands........

If those mofo's come around here and try to protest a soldiers funeral, and if I know about it in time, I'll be there to whip their ass's, period. This is another incident I don't mind going to jail for, which I think would be a load of shit.

That soldier has fought and died for their very right to speak. They are not a church by any definition that I've read in the Bible. They are evil disguised as a church.

It's despicable that they'd even protest a soldiers funeral. Sometimes, harsh actions deserve harsh punishments, outside the law, that's my belief. The law can only go so far, and be in so many places at once. Sometimes, the common man, a real citizen of our great country, has to say enough, and make a friggin' stand.

I wholeheartedly support the 'Freedom Riders'. I think that's their names. They're the ones who will block the protesters at the funerals, they line the route with their bikes and flags.

I believe the 'Freedom Riders' should have the right to 'kick ass' on the followers of Westboro Church.

Be warned, Westboro, that Bpitt the cyber pirate will not tolerate your antics in the greater Pine Belt area............carry on.

[aaron]

When we start sliding down the slippery slope, I'll recognize it. However, this isn't anywhere near it. What they did, they did with the intention of causing controversy and pain. They deserve to pay that family every penny of the $11M. None of that will bring a memory of a peaceful funeral. But maybe it'll make that damned stupid church think twice about doing something like this again.

They're one crazy nut away from having someone gun them down.

So, are you saying what they did should be against the law?

[Hob684]

I don't know if it'll even take a crazy nut to do it. If some fanatics showed up at my family member's funeral and started making a scene, I don't know that I could control myself.

i'd atleast give 'em a warning shot.. about 3 inches to the right.

[maxim]

I am a vocal supporter of free speech. That being said, I believe that is not universal & that there are some venues where certain speech should be legally restrained.
Yes, the amount of the award was out of line, but the ruling was correct.

Forget the First Amendment. It prohibits the government from enacting laws restricting freedom of speech. This suit is a private action, alleging a civil wrong done by one party, the WBC, against another party, the parent of the slain Marine. There is no government action involved, so no First Amendment rights are involved.

The suit alleges, among other things, the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That sort of thing often does involve speech of some sort. For example, if I were to call a subordinate into my office and berate them for their poor performance and advise them that the taxpayers of the Great and Sovereign State of Mississippi would be better served by replacing that subordinate with a box of rocks and just in general belittle them in a manner completely unfitting for a superior to treat a subordinate, I would have inflicted emotional distress. Could I be charged with a crime? Certainly not. Could I be sued for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress? Certainly so.

Or, to use another example given here... If I am harassed by persons picketing an abortion clinic to the point where I suffer emotional distress, can those inflicting that distress be arrested? The USSC has said "No." Can I file a lawsuit against them? Yes, I can. Once again, no First Amendment issues are involved. By it's very nature, the intentional infliction of emotional distress will often involve speech or those communicative actions that, while non-verbal, are the legal equivalent of speech.

I predict that the WBC will be unpleasantly surprised if they attempt to use a First Amendment defense in their appeal.

I also predict more suits in this vein. The WBC does not make a sympathetic defendant to a jury. It would be difficult not to get a substantial jury award if the facts are as we have heard repeatedly on the news.

[Conveyor Belt]

So, are you saying what they did should be against the law?

nope.

[TheKing]

as disgusting as what they did is...

im not so sure i like the precedent that is being set by this...cause we all know how this stuff works...

pretty soon well all be suing other people for hurting our feelings.

[bpitt]

Instead of suing for money, maybe the court should have given the family a 'right to whip ass for 1 hour' on the Westboro gang. That'd been neat.......

[CUPCAKE]

"I wholeheartedly support the 'Freedom Riders'. I think that's their names. They're the ones who will block the protesters at the funerals, they line the route with their bikes and flags."

bpitt, Google "Patriot Guard" and you can read about the bikers who protect families of slain servicemen at funerals. They are a nationwide organization with members right here in the Pine Belt. One I know personally rides for his son who lost his life in Iraq. Many are Veterans and some are still active duty military. They all understand what the slain Marine's parents are going through. Our service men who die for our country should be honored, not ridiculed. I wonder how many Westboro Church members have known the pride of wearing the uniform or, better yet, how many have not come out of the closet?

[bpitt]

"I wholeheartedly support the 'Freedom Riders'. I think that's their names. They're the ones who will block the protesters at the funerals, they line the route with their bikes and flags."

bpitt, Google "Patriot Guard" and you can read about the bikers who protect families of slain servicemen at funerals. They are a nationwide organization with members right here in the Pine Belt. One I know personally rides for his son who lost his life in Iraq. Many are Veterans and some are still active duty military. They all understand what the slain Marine's parents are going through. Our service men who die for our country should be honored, not ridiculed. I wonder how many Westboro Church members have known the pride of wearing the uniform or, better yet, how many have not come out of the closet?

Patriot Guard, that's it! I couldn't remember the right name, but you know who I'm talking about!

[CUPCAKE]

Patriot Guard, that's it! I couldn't remember the right name, but you know who I'm talking about!

Yep, I knew....nice bikes, good looking leathers with patches for the slain soldiers....sincere in what they do! Fund what they do personally and through donations. They don't do this for attention or through selfishness.

[amanda]

as disgusting as what they did is...

im not so sure i like the precedent that is being set by this...cause we all know how this stuff works...

pretty soon well all be suing other people for hurting our feelings.

This wasn't merely a suit due to hurt feelings. It was for defamation, libel, intention harm.

I watched this "Preacher" on CNN this morning. IMO they should just throw his crazy butt into an insane asylum. He was certifiable. Also interviewed with the soldier's father, who I truly wanted to give a hug. When asked if he was tempted to take matters into his own hands during the service, he calmly replied that he hadn't, but that many of his friends and family wanted to. I'm with BPitt....if they show their happy butts down here to pull such a stunt - I'll be there, waiting to show them just how we deal with those kinda behaviors in Mississippi. :smt118

[bpitt]

I dig your sig amandah.....

[amanda]

I dig your sig amandah.....


Thanks! :smt023 But I had to get rid of pirate girl....she just wasn't being taken seriously. :kekeke:

[aaron]

Forget the First Amendment. It prohibits the government from enacting laws restricting freedom of speech. This suit is a private action, alleging a civil wrong done by one party, the WBC, against another party, the parent of the slain Marine. There is no government action involved, so no First Amendment rights are involved.

The suit alleges, among other things, the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That sort of thing often does involve speech of some sort. For example, if I were to call a subordinate into my office and berate them for their poor performance and advise them that the taxpayers of the Great and Sovereign State of Mississippi would be better served by replacing that subordinate with a box of rocks and just in general belittle them in a manner completely unfitting for a superior to treat a subordinate, I would have inflicted emotional distress. Could I be charged with a crime? Certainly not. Could I be sued for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress? Certainly so.

Or, to use another example given here... If I am harassed by persons picketing an abortion clinic to the point where I suffer emotional distress, can those inflicting that distress be arrested? The USSC has said "No." Can I file a lawsuit against them? Yes, I can. Once again, no First Amendment issues are involved. By it's very nature, the intentional infliction of emotional distress will often involve speech or those communicative actions that, while non-verbal, are the legal equivalent of speech.

I predict that the WBC will be unpleasantly surprised if they attempt to use a First Amendment defense in their appeal.

I also predict more suits in this vein. The WBC does not make a sympathetic defendant to a jury. It would be difficult not to get a substantial jury award if the facts are as we have heard repeatedly on the news.

So, basically, I can get around the Bill of Rights through the court system. Make it "illegal" because you can't afford to do it, but it's really not illegal.

[bpitt]

There is vagueness everywhere.......but real patriots know.

[TARZAN]

I'm glad, they deserve to be buried with respect.

-Will

[maxim]

So, basically, I can get around the Bill of Rights through the court system. Make it "illegal" because you can't afford to do it, but it's really not illegal.

The Bill of Rights is there to protect citizens from the actions of the gummint. Period. It cares not about the actions of private citizens.

Lawsuits for slander and libel have been around since Blackstone's Commentaries centuries ago. The idea that you can be sued for something you say to another pre-dates the Bill of Rights by several hundred years.

What prevents it from happening every time someone says something you don't like? First, most folks don't have enough money to make it worth suing them. Second, most lawyers don't see these as "slam dunk" cases, so they will want fees and expenses as you go, not on a contingency basis. Third, if you sue your life becomes pretty much an open book for the defense to use - similar statements you may have made yourself, truth as a defense to libel, etc. Most cases aren't this clear-cut... defendants are pretty much reviled and have at least some funds. Plaintiffs are pretty much revered.

I remember a case a few years back where a health club threw out a member for saying offensive things. Don't remember exactly what it was, but it was offensive. He claimed his First Amendment rights were being violated, to which the health club responded that they were not a government agency and did not receive taxpayer funds, so don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Folks have always been able to make people pay for these private wrongs by means of the civil courts, even if there is no law being broken.

[dollfus46]

I find the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church to be reprehensible and highly inappropriate...an awful way to make a point), but...

I don't know if we should be about the business of silencing speech that we find distasteful. Things like the Freedom Riders Guard I can get behind, but...this, and the amount of the award, makes me uncomfortable.

:confused:

I think this is much worse than "Nappy headed ho's" and that cost Don Imus his job and millions of dollars. More than 11 million, and probably jeopardized million in donations to kids with cancer

[dollfus46]

If my son had gone to war, supposedly he was fighting so they could have that right to do just that...

It can piss me off, but...again, I'm not sure that's enough reason to say it has to stop. Hurtful and hateful speech at abortion protests has been ruled constitutional. I'm not sure this should be a whole lot different.

:confused:

There's an enormous ambiguity that exists on free speech.

[dollfus46]

What does "crosses the line of decency" mean? And who gets to decide when that happens?
apparently this judge or this jury got to decide in this instance.

[dollfus46]

"Common sense"? "Indecent"?

And what if someone decides that their "common sense" means that what you're doing is "indecent"?

It's a very subjective thing...and that makes me uncomfortable...in a much broader context. This might be "easy" to decide, but what about things that are much less clear? It feels like a slippery slope we're heading down.

You'd certainly draw the line at the N word, or would you defend the use of that as free speech? No such thing as pure free speech. Society as a whole decides, not you, not me, not the principal of the school, just as society decides right and wrong in everything. We can't use certain words here, even. So pure free speech doesn't exist. I guess it's taken on a case by case basis. Some teachers are not allowing Bill O'Reilly's book "Kids are Americans too." to earn points if the student reads it. Free Speech being squelched in our public schools? I really grow weary of the free speech arguments. No such thing, really.

[threekidspa]

Slippery slope? Maybe. But saying we can't stop protests like these, which we all agree are WRONG, simply because it might, theoretically, possibly, take away someone's right to wear a peace sign on a t-shirt is sorta like thowing the baby away with the bath-water. Laws are here to protect everyone, not just a$$-holes. Like pirate said....let the judges sort that out when it happens....that's what they're paid for.

The example of protesting abortion clinics is a bad one, I think. People usually go there by choice. The parents, family and friends of this hero didn't really have a choice, did they?

[threekidspa]

"Common sense"? "Indecent"?

And what if someone decides that their "common sense" means that what you're doing is "indecent"?

It's a very subjective thing...and that makes me uncomfortable...in a much broader context. This might be "easy" to decide, but what about things that are much less clear? It feels like a slippery slope we're heading down.

Thanks! :smt023 But I had to get rid of pirate girl....she just wasn't being taken seriously. :kekeke:
Pirate girl ROCKED! Bring her back!

[dollfus46]

Slippery slope? Maybe. But saying we can't stop protests like these, which we all agree are WRONG, simply because it might, theoretically, possibly, take away someone's right to wear a peace sign on a t-shirt is sorta like thowing the baby away with the bath-water. Laws are here to protect everyone, not just a$$-holes. Like pirate said....let the judges sort that out when it happens....that's what they're paid for.

The example of protesting abortion clinics is a bad one, I think. People usually go there by choice. The parents, family and friends of this hero didn't really have a choice, did they?
Yep. I find it odd that radical lefties shout down conservatives on college campuses (who, by the way, were invited to speak) while claiming their free speech. Guess only the PC have free speech rights.:bash: That's why I grow so weary of even hearing the words "free speech." Makes my stomach roll over.

[dollfus46]

Slippery slope? Maybe. But saying we can't stop protests like these, which we all agree are WRONG, simply because it might, theoretically, possibly, take away someone's right to wear a peace sign on a t-shirt is sorta like thowing the baby away with the bath-water. Laws are here to protect everyone, not just a$$-holes. Like pirate said....let the judges sort that out when it happens....that's what they're paid for.

The example of protesting abortion clinics is a bad one, I think. People usually go there by choice. The parents, family and friends of this hero didn't really have a choice, did they?
Nope. Had it been my son I was burying, I'd be doing life without parole about now.

[jojobeans1120]

Nope. Had it been my son I was burying, I'd be doing life without parole about now.

You're not alone. I would have killed someone had it been my brother (who has served in Iraq twice) or my son, who isn't old enough to date, drive a car, etc.
These people are sick. These people were mourning the loss of their son and it should not have been interrupted in order for them to have their 10-15 minutes of news time. All of this BS about protesting outside abortion clinics is of another issue. It is like beating a damn dead horse. This was a PRIVATE moment for the family. Walking into the front door of an abortion clinic of family planing (whatever) isn't. The protesters are kept away from the main entrance,etc. WTF is wrong with making these assholes stay away from something so personal and sacred.
If you have ever lost someone very close to you, (I mean REALLY close. A child. A parent. A brother. A sister) you should be able to relate to what this family was going through. The grief, the pain, the heartache. I'm going to get a bit personal here, but I can't help myself.
As I said, I have a brother in the military. I would have gone the hell off on someone had it been his funeral and they did **** like this to my family.
When I saw this story, and I'm TOTALLY happy with the settlement that was give and wish they had gotten MORE, I tried to put myself in their shoes. I thought about how it felt when my dad died. There is no greater pain that losing someone that close to you. I thought that man walked on water. I simply could not even think about the pain of losing one of my children.

Dollfus, I'm glad to see you've made it back, my friend!!! ;)

[dollfus46]

You're not alone. I would have killed someone had it been my brother (who has served in Iraq twice) or my son, who isn't old enough to date, drive a car, etc.
These people are sick. These people were mourning the loss of their son and it should not have been interrupted in order for them to have their 10-15 minutes of news time. All of this BS about protesting outside abortion clinics is of another issue. It is like beating a damn dead horse. This was a PRIVATE moment for the family. Walking into the front door of an abortion clinic of family planing (whatever) isn't. The protesters are kept away from the main entrance,etc. WTF is wrong with making these assholes stay away from something so personal and sacred.
If you have ever lost someone very close to you, (I mean REALLY close. A child. A parent. A brother. A sister) you should be able to relate to what this family was going through. The grief, the pain, the heartache. I'm going to get a bit personal here, but I can't help myself.
As I said, I have a brother in the military. I would have gone the hell off on someone had it been his funeral and they did shit like this to my family.
When I saw this story, and I'm TOTALLY happy with the settlement that was give and wish they had gotten MORE, I tried to put myself in their shoes. I thought about how it felt when my dad died. There is no greater pain that losing someone that close to you. I thought that man walked on water. I simply could not even think about the pain of losing one of my children.

Dollfus, I'm glad to see you've made it back, my friend!!! ;)
Thanks JoJo. Many have been kinder to me than I deserved and I'm humbled by it. Still have questions, but I'm at peace now. My attitude now is, "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead." Everybody hits the wall sometime, and I plan on hitting it with the throttle widea**ed open. :clap: