Father wins 2.9 million award against Fred Phelps

[Arborealus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_ ... protests_4

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.

While in general I'd be happy to see Westboro Church take this hit...In principle I think it may well represent a violation of first amendment rights depending on the exact reading of the complaint..

[Canelek]

Having recently gone through a funeral, I think I would have gone apeshit on those cocksuckers.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Having recently gone through a funeral, I think I would have gone apeshit on those cocksuckers.

I would have been very upset, but never would I have thought to sue anyone over it. It is disgusting what this man has done and repulsive what our judicial system has done here.

[Canelek]

Oh, not sued--apeshit as in apeshit throwdown of embarrassing proportions. If that was my kid? Just speculation, of course.

[Sueven]

While I agree with the general point about some people being too quick to sue, and I don't know anything about the case and thus have nothing to say about its merits or the merit of the award, I do have this to say:

The judicial system exists so people have an alternative to violence for solving some problems.

[Fash]

The judicial system exists so people have an alternative to violence for solving some problems.

Good point...

The demand for litigation is high, but the supply side doesn't scale up in any significant fashion. Maybe the problem isn't frivolous litigation, it's insufficient resources in the court system.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The judicial system exists so people have an alternative to violence for solving some problems.

No, it doesn't. It exists so people who break the law can be tried and charged appropriately for their crime. It doesn't exist for sensitive assholes who try and capitalize on some bullshit emotional wrong and make out financially.

[Boogahz]

This fuck named Phelps plays things in a way that finally being able to catch him in a lawsuit is almost a miracle. He has skirted laws for years, and what he, and his family, does at funerals is insane.

[Zaelath]

Well, here's the thing. I'll go along with the free speech thing, if you'll agree that this kind of action is incitement to violence, and the picketing fundies deserve to be arrested if someone beats their ass.

Otherwise, this is just another case where free speech should be limited, as any other incitement or "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" is.

I'll also agree that the award is disproportionate, but I think they should have a criminal case to answer instead of a civil one, so the point is largely moot.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Well, here's the thing. I'll go along with the free speech thing, if you'll agree that this kind of action is incitement to violence, and the picketing fundies deserve to be arrested if someone beats their ass..

I agree 100%. These scum bags should be free game, if someone wants to pound them into the ground for fucking with people like this.

[Arborealus]

Add another 8.1ish in punitive damages...total award is around 11 million...

Yeah I'm sure I'd prolly be tempted to beat the bejesus out of Phelps and his cronies if it were my child

I like to think I'd act as the father in this case did but who knows.

Anyway Westboro Church will be out of pocket all of its assets which is the intent of punitive damages

I'll be interested to see the ACLU's review of the case

Inciting to violence/riot is a bitch to prove and I don't recall ever being applied backwards because you'd have to prove Phelps intended to get his ass beaten...I'm not even sure the statutes can be read to imply reverse causality (Sueven?).

No, it doesn't. It exists so people who break the law can be tried and charged appropriately for their crime.

Oh look another fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial system...color me stunned...It never ceases to amaze me that in a country where people have so much access to education, so few actually take advantage of it

[Nick]

About time those assholes got shitcanned for being fuckheads.

[Leonaerd]

Ugh... religion

[Mak]

No, it doesn't. It exists so people who break the law can be tried and charged appropriately for their crime.

Oh look another fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial system...color me stunned...It never ceases to amaze me that in a country where people have so much access to education, so few actually take advantage of it

Criminal courts... civil courts... they're both right. But you knew that, right Arb?

[Boogahz]

Ugh... religion

yeah, because Herr Phelps represents all religious people.

[Arborealus]

No, it doesn't. It exists so people who break the law can be tried and charged appropriately for their crime.

Oh look another fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial system...color me stunned...It never ceases to amaze me that in a country where people have so much access to education, so few actually take advantage of it

Criminal courts... civil courts... they're both right. But you knew that, right Arb?

Ermmmm what?...Mid stated that the function of the judicial system was solely criminal...That's clearly wrong...I was alluding to the existence of the civil functions as in the case at hand...

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Civil courts should be used to recoup "real" lost money from a crime, not frivilous bullshit hurt feelings.

[Fash]

Civil courts should be used to recoup "real" lost money from a crime, not frivilous bullshit hurt feelings.

It's not that black and white.
I'm sure someone else can post an example that you'd agree with... I'm too busy at work today.

[Wulfran]

For the argument about your First Ammendment rights, that doesn't include immunity to libel/slander. Some (most?) here may support gay rights but to some its a touchy subject that could be slanderous for someone to accuse them of supporting them. Phelps et al obviously feel supporting gay rights is a bad thing thus for them to accuse someone else of it, without adequate documentary evidence, is it not slanderous/libelous? You have the right to express opinions in public forums but a) you have to prove any allegations you make or risk being held accountable for them and b) is a funeral really a public forum, even if paid for by the government? IMO a funeral is not such an open forum and I'm glad the judge/jury in this case appear to have found that.

Up here, I don't think it would have become a civil case, because in Canada, Phelps and Co. would likely have been charged with promoting hatred, a criminal offense under Canadian law. I think its interesting in the way our systems work differently but achieve a similar end.

[Leonaerd]

Ugh... religion

yeah, because Herr Phelps represents all religious people.

I didn't say he did, ass.

[Ashur]

Civil courts should be used to recoup "real" lost money from a crime, not frivilous bullshit hurt feelings.

It's not that black and white.
I'm sure someone else can post an example that you'd agree with... I'm too busy at work today.

Goldmans vs. OJ Simpson? No "real" money was lost. It's not like they sued OJ for their son's lost future wages. They sued him for wrongful death of thier son Ron Goldman even though he'd been aquited of the criminal charge.

[Sylvus]

The judicial system exists so people have an alternative to violence for solving some problems.

No, it doesn't. It exists so people who break the law can be tried and charged appropriately for their crime. It doesn't exist for sensitive assholes who try and capitalize on some bullshit emotional wrong and make out financially.

How do you think you would react to a similar situation? From what I hear (and can imagine) outliving one of their children is one of the hardest things that can ever happen to a person. God forbid that happened to you, you're trying to deal with the loss of your child and this asshole and his organization come protest outside of the funeral for whatever reason.

What would you do?

Let it go? I'm sure that'd be a tough pill to swallow, but it's the high moral ground that I hope I'd be strong enough to take. Unfortunately that does nothing to deter him from doing this again next week to the next family.

Physically harm the guy? Assaulting him accomplishes little, it might make you feel good momentarily, but then you're in the position where you could be imprisoned for it, and anything short of killing the guy will do little to prevent him (or his organization) from doing this again at the next funeral.

Litigation is the only recourse I can see that would have an impact, and I don't think it necessarily equates to "capitalizing" on a bullshit emotional wrong. If he runs an organization that requires money to finance his protests, spread his message, etc., the only way to harm said organization is to attack its bottom line.

I have no disagreement that people sue much too quickly and for too little reason in this country, but I don't think that this is one of those instances. Suing someone for an accident, particularly when they were trying to do good, often seems like greed making someone try to capitalize on an unfortunate situation and is a bad thing (in my opinion). Suing someone who is doing wrong, in order to try and get them to stop doing wrong, is exactly why that exists as an option and is a good thing.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Slyvus,

If you read my earlier post, you'd see what I said about handling that situation.

As far as the OJ thing goes....I think he's guilty as hell, but I do not agree with being able to be found guilty in civil when you didn't get found guilty in criminal. You should not be able to be charged twice for the same crime. So, no, I don't think they should have done that and received that monetary settlement.

[Sylvus]

This one:

I would have been very upset, but never would I have thought to sue anyone over it. It is disgusting what this man has done and repulsive what our judicial system has done here.

Or this one:

I agree 100%. These scum bags should be free game, if someone wants to pound them into the ground for fucking with people like this.

?

I suppose the question I should have stated more clearly was: Put in the same situation, do you think you would you do everything in your power to stop this guy from doing that again? To spare another family the pain he caused you, or just for your own vindication. And I'm not passing moral judgment on choosing the latter.

I only ask because if your answer is the affirmative, I think it might help you see that not all lawsuits (and more specifically, this lawsuit) are frivolous or motivated by greed.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This one:

I would have been very upset, but never would I have thought to sue anyone over it. It is disgusting what this man has done and repulsive what our judicial system has done here.

Or this one:

I agree 100%. These scum bags should be free game, if someone wants to pound them into the ground for fucking with people like this.

?

I suppose the question I should have stated more clearly was: Put in the same situation, do you think you would you do everything in your power to stop this guy from doing that again? To spare another family the pain he caused you, or just for your own vindication. And I'm not passing moral judgment on choosing the latter.

I only ask because if your answer is the affirmative, I think it might help you see that not all lawsuits (and more specifically, this lawsuit) are frivolous or motivated by greed.

I stated what I would do in the quote of me. In the second quote I agreed that they should be beaten. I'm not into violence. I would never harm them nor would I sue them for money for hurting my feelings. I would be upset, very upset. But, I'm a grown up and I would get over it. I don't think I should become a millionaire because I got my feelings hurt.

[Arborealus]

For the argument about your First Ammendment rights, that doesn't include immunity to libel/slander. Some (most?) here may support gay rights but to some its a touchy subject that could be slanderous for someone to accuse them of supporting them. Phelps et al obviously feel supporting gay rights is a bad thing thus for them to accuse someone else of it, without adequate documentary evidence, is it not slanderous/libelous? You have the right to express opinions in public forums but a) you have to prove any allegations you make or risk being held accountable for them and b) is a funeral really a public forum, even if paid for by the government? IMO a funeral is not such an open forum and I'm glad the judge/jury in this case appear to have found that.

Up here, I don't think it would have become a civil case, because in Canada, Phelps and Co. would likely have been charged with promoting hatred, a criminal offense under Canadian law. I think its interesting in the way our systems work differently but achieve a similar end.

Libel and Slander are not protected by the first amendment. But unless god files suit they can't be hit for either charge...they are very careful to avoid libel and slander unfortunately. It is not necessary to prove that god hates fags...One can publically lie and nothing will come of it unless there is slander or libel involved. And they refrain from saying anything personal about the dead GI. They limit their rhetoric to basically God Hates Fags and Political Tolerance of Homosexuality is responsibility for everything that goes wrong in America. Their protests are always carried out on public streets/sidewalks and rights of way obeying all local regulation.

They love to be sued because they are within their first amendment rights and as such this case will be overturned...they will countersue and use the proceeds garnered to further their protests...countersuits are how they have funded most of their protests to date...So this plays right into their hands basically, which is why they were smiling at the verdict.

[Sueven]

Inciting to violence/riot is a bitch to prove and I don't recall ever being applied backwards because you'd have to prove Phelps intended to get his ass beaten...I'm not even sure the statutes can be read to imply reverse causality (Sueven?).

Sorry for the delay!

There's a separate area of first amendment doctrine dealing with hostile audience reactions (the rubric is slightly different than the 'inciting violence' unprotected speech). The bottom line is that it's basically protected. There is an exception for "fighting words," which are unprotected speech, but it's really, really rare that anything is found to fall within the exception.

Basically, speech which is so inflammatory as to cause a reasonable addressee to beat the shit out of the speaker is unprotected, but that category is construed so narrowly that virtually nothing falls within it. Almost certainly this does not fall within it.