Phelps church on trial for protests at soldiers' funerals

[babylonsister]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/carroll/bal-church1022,0,366866.story?track=rss

Trial starts for church that protests at soldiers' funerals


A fundamentalist church that protests at soldiers' funerals faces its first lawsuit today from the family of a fallen serviceman.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church face trial in Baltimore for an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit filed by the father of a fallen Marine from Westminster. Albert Snyder of York, Pa., says the church interrupted his grieving process at the funeral for his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq last year. Church members say they were only exercising their free speech rights.

The lawsuit is the first in the nation to be filed against the church by a grieving relative. The church believes war deaths are God's retribution for America's tolerance of homosexuality, and their protests have inspired almost two dozen states to put new limits on protests at funerals.

Last week, a judge threw out defamation claims against the church, but Snyder's lawsuit is proceeding on invasion-of-privacy grounds. He also seeks damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[Tesha]

1. If you value our Constitution and your right to free speech, ...

If you value our Constitution and your right to free speech,
you'll (unfortunately) be rooting for Phelps in this battle.
I believe the ACLU has lined up with him as well.

The free speech battles are *ALWAYS* fought over speech
that someone perceives as heinous, unworthy of protection.

Tesha

[MadHound]

2. Yep, as much as I hate these assholes, they have every right to do what they do

And if they go down in this lawsuit, it will set the precedence that will force many groups on the left to go down also.

[maine_raptor]

3. Sorry, but I have to disagree.

In the lawsuit, the father is suing over emotional distress caused by the Phelps family's actions (their exercise of "Free Speech"). That is, in my view, very legitimate and the father should win on those grounds.

Yes, you have a right to speak, but you also have a responsibility for the result of your speech. Remember, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowed theater.

This applies to both Left and Right.

[Tesha]

5. Fine. When you cause "Pain and distress" to a Republican politician and are sued for it...

Fine. When you cause "Pain, distress, and mental anguish"
to a Republican politician and his family and are sued
for it, don't say I didn;t warn you.

(DUers are frequently *VERY* sort-sighted!)

Tesha

[maine_raptor]

7. Quite a bit of difference

between a political (of either ilk) and a private individual.

In court, a political because they are considered "public figures", have a tougher row to hoe to prove actual distress than a grieving non-public father.

There are past cases of politicians trying this (suing), but to my knowledge none have ever been successful.

[MadHound]

10. So, let's give this hypothetical

There are weekly protests against the war in your city square. The family of a soldier in Iraq percieves this as anti-American and not supporting the troops(including their son or daughter). This is actually a fairly common view among the families of our troops. They feel this is causing their family emotional distress, and using a (hypothetical) success from this Phelps case and sue the protesters. Thus, anti-war protesters are brought into court and using this Phelps case as a precendt, lose, costing them money and stifling free speech and protest.

This is the double edged sword that such a precedent would present to us. Sorry, but free speech must be protected for all, not just those that we happen to agree with. Otherwise we will all wake up one day and find that all of our speech is controlled.

[maine_raptor]

15. A problem with your hypothetical.

The Phelps are staging their protest at the actual funeral, the protesters are in the city square well away from the site of your hypothetical funeral. Context makes a big difference. I don't recall if the Phelps case is before a jury or not, but if it is, then look at it from a juror's point of view: A grieving father whose son was killed in the line of duty has the celebration of his son's life interrupted and the solemnness of that event spoiled by protesters. Do you think many jurors would side with the Phelps's? In your hypothetical, the family "suffers" it's "harm" after their son's funeral and well away from it. Big difference and one that would be hammered home by any competent defense attorney.

Also, since this is a civil lawsuit, any decision made in the Phelps case is very unlikely to carry over.

I agree the free speech must always be protected, but as I said above, there is a responsibility that comes with that right. Phelps and his spawn have a right to scream their bloody heads off all they want, but if they interrupt a private family matter in doing so, then they must pay a price for their actions.

[MadHound]

18. Doesn't matter where the event takes place, just so long as it is on public property

If it is on public property, the Phelps folks have the right to do what they do. Is it despicable, is it beyond crass, yes, but it is still their right. One can sue for emotional distress no matter where an event occurs, be it at a funeral or on the city square.

I realize that this is a civil suit, even so it would set a horrible, horrible precedent and would act as a chilling factor on free speech. This harkens back to the case of the Nazis marching in the heavily Jewish town of Skokie Illinois. It is despicable and horrible, and frankly it still needs to be defended because it is still freedom of speech.

Do you really not see the horrible consequences of ruling in favor of the families? Don't you see how this could be used to silence dissent. Anything, any sort of protest could easily be twisted as causing emotional distress, and using this case as a precedent, the protesters could be silenced. It won't be a nice narrow legal definition that one can't protest at funerals. It will be a legal license to came emotional distress at the sight of any protest. And trust me, it will carry over, it doesn't matter that it is a civil case, most landmark cases are(Brown vs Board of Ed, etc.).

You are allowing you emotional, visceral reaction to overwhelm your common sense. Yes, the Phelps family are beyond evil, but even they have the right to speak in this country. Hell, I imagine ol' Fred is going to die sometime soon, hey, let's go protest his funeral:shrug: But in our rush of rage and hatred, let's not tear apart our Constitution simply to punish those who we disagree with. Before you know it, it is us whose speech will be curtailed, and the fascists and authoritarians will be laughing long and hard, while we have to suffer in silence.

[maine_raptor]

20. MH, I hear what you are saying..........

and I will admit to a bit of "emotional, visceral reaction" in this matter: The Phelps have been to my home state and I know the family of the fallen.

But I go back to my comment about "yelling 'Fire' in a crowed theater". The reason why this example of "Free Speech" is illegal is because such "speech" is potentially injurious to the citizen. And there are other examples where "Free Speech" is curtailed both via law and custom. Shouting "Fuck" at the top of your lungs in the middle of town during lunch hour will get you arrested; doing the same at Aunt Millie's baby shower will get you dis-invited to her subsequent wedding. :)

In order to live with our "civilized' society we have to modify our notion of "Free Speech". And that modification has existed (and evolved) over the First Amendment's lifetime. One of the most general modifications made is that of the division of "political speech" vs "general speech". And that is generally defined by the context (setting) in which it is said. It also is defined by what is said and by whom.

A politician cannot successfully sue me if I call that person a "blood-sucking leach who lives on 6 year old virgin's blood". Can't be done, it's "political speech" because the person about whom I have made that statement is a "public" person. But reverse the tables, have the political say those same words about me (a "private" person), and I'll own everything his or her years graft-taking has ever given them via my lawsuit for defamation of character and emotional distress (just like is currently underway).

Now Phelps got the defamation count throw out. That's fair, after all he did not name the son personally as a "Fag". But the emotional distress part is still, AFAIK, up in the air. If Phelps wants to claim that his message is "political", then I'll reluctantly grant him that, but doesn't that then put him in the position of that politician I mentioned above?


Edit for typo

[MadHound]

21. Oh, hey MR, I hate the man with a passion. He lives next door in Kansas,

And is a regular visitor to Columbia for the MU/KU game, doing his hate schtick out on the corner, enraging people young and old on a day that should be fun. A couple of times I've been tempted to reach out and touch the guy, very, very hard if you know what I mean.

But I've still, legally, got to give him props, to admit to his right to spout his hateful garbage in the public square. He speech is both political and not political, but he has every right to spout it. Suing him for "emotional distress" would be akin to MoveOn being sued for their Betrayus ad, or suing myself for protesting in front of the post office.

Oh, and you can yell "fuck" at the top of your lungs in public, and not get arrested. Hell, I did it in front of a cop one time, having just done a header of the handlebars of my bike. When the law speaks of injurious speech, it is speaking of physical injury, or the distinct possibility of it. This is why you can't yell Fire in a theater, it creates the potential for people to suffer physical harm in the mad dash for the exits. Yelling fuck, or using hateful speech in public doesn't create this risk of physical injury. It is simply distasteful and hateful.

I am opposed to any such "modifications" that you speak of, and frankly believe that if we condemn the hateful right for their speech, it will turn around and bite us on the ass. Pretty soon most speech, even the most innocuous of criticism, will be swept up in the rubric of "emotional distress" and our "modified" notion of free speech, and we will all be silent.

But hey, we've all got our own opinions, and we'll have to await the court's verdict. Until then, we can agree to disagree. Peace:hi:

[maine_raptor]

22. It will be a interesting verdict, that's for sure.

On that we can agree.

You may oppose the modifications, but in real life they do exist. And BTW, you got a away with yelling "Fuck" because of the circumstances (doing a header), but try that same speech in the middle of town for no apparent reason and I'm willing to bet that same cop would not have cut you some slack.

Remember, in this case the father is a non-public figure and that while he may be in the "public square" when he spouts off, in this case his speech leaked into the private square of the soldier's funeral. That public vs private difference (not just where he says it, but also who he is saying it to) is very important; it is the line that cannot be crossed. I have no fear of any verdict in the father's favor on the emotional distress count doing any harm to our Free Speech right precisely because of that difference.

I am very much a Constitutionalist. I studied Constitutional Law under Henry Steele Commager at Amherst back in the 60' and early 70's so I feel I got a good education on the in's and out's of the 1st Amendment. That, and having once been an elected official, have taught me that when you stand in the public arena it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to what, where, how, and of whom you speak than when you are a private citizen.

It shall be interesting. Peace, my friend.

[Buns_of_Fire]

4. But this is a civil suit, is it not?

Phred Phelps & Co. aren't being brought to the Bar by the DoJ on Constitutional grounds. They're being sued by a private citizen. Am I seeing a difference here where there is no difference?

[mikeytherat]

8. You are correct. It is a tort, not a criminal matter.

It is a civil suit brought by private citizens.

mikey_the_rat

[Tesha]

14. You should still worry about the outcome, because...

You should still worry about the outcome, because your free
speech rights can be just as readily (or even *MORE* readily)
curtailed through tort actions as criminal actions.

Consider "SLAPP" suits and their effect to quell free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Tesha

[Zywiec]

9. You're correct. Apparently the other posters don't know what that means. n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

19. Sorry but I disagree.

There are plenty of avenues for free speech other than going to a private funeral and disrupting a family in their time of grief. Let them put up a billboard, hand out some flyer's or take out and ad in a newspaper. Free Speech doesn't mean you have the right to get in my face with a megaphone so loud it would blow out my eardrums.

[Beerboy]

6. It's fascist government repression

for the government to crack-down on Phelps. Phelps is an odious hate-monger, but his speech should be printed in every government anti-smoking leaflet.

[Toots]

11. And we all should be able to put LSD in the public water supply

:shrug: It should be every bit as much a Constitutional right as putting cigarette smoke in the public air supply. Don't you think?

[conscious evolution]

16. I wish someone would dose the water.

Maybe people would wake up then.

[Forkboy]

12. Hmmm....interesting.

I'm glad this is a civil suit or I'd be pretty uncomfortable with this, as much as I truly despise these people.

[gatorboy]

13. But if they just stuck to harrassing gay funerals, there wouldn't be a problem.

[Roon]

17. Yep,I knew about Phelps protesting AIDS victims' funerals since 1993

So funny how now, all of a sudden,they want to try and shut Phelps up.

[DeSwiss]

23. Well, this is one way to keep them away from funerals....

....keep em' tied up in court. Someone else should start suing them now so that when this trial is over, they won't miss a beat...



K&R!