Bad People.  Bad Ruling.

This is a bad ruling.

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

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

The church cited its constitutional right to free speech in its defence.

But Albert Snyder’s lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning.

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

Last year they caused outrage when they attended the funeral of Matthew Snyder with signs reading “Thank god for dead soldiers” and “You’re going to hell”.

On Wednesday, the jury ordered the church and three of its leaders to pay $2.9m in compensatory damages, and an additional $8m for invasion of privacy and for causing emotional distress.

Don’t get me wrong… what these despicable pieces of somewhat human slug crap do is beyond contempt and I cheer those who show up to counter their obscene actions.  But if the 1st amendment is to mean anything, it should mean that we allow people to assemble and speak their minds - even if their minds are filled with garbage. 

1. I still think that people should be held accountable for their actions.  The Constitution wasn’t put in place for people to flaunt their rights at the expense of someone else’s.

   What about the right of a parent to bury their child with peace and dignity?

   The Constitution shouldn’t be used as a blank check.  The right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” applies to everyone and shouldn’t be used for this kind of abuse.  The Founding Fathers probably would’ve gone a step farther than offering a monetary settlement.

   Posted by on October 31, 2007 at 2316 hrs




2. This is such a complicated matter, since it’s really a balancing act between two rights: the right to free speech, which is in the Constitution, and the right to privacy, which has since been established by the courts.

   It’s worth noting that, as in most states, the jury was required to consider whether or not Westboro’s actions were highly offensive to a reasonable person, which is usual language at the state level for determining conduct that infringes on the right to privacy.  The jury was also required to find that Westboro’s actions were “extreme and outrageous” and that its conduct was “intentional or reckless.”

   No established right can be absolute, since of course rights that are granted can also be in conflict with one another.

   For better or worse, I think 98 out of 100 juries would rule the same way.  To the ordinary person, Westboro’s actions are simply not reasonable.  While the speech occurred in a public space, it was specifically targeted at a private event (a funeral) in which there was no explicit public interest.

   Unless an appellate court finds issue with the jury instructions, the only way Phelps is going to win on appeal is if a higher court finds that the case should have been thrown out to begin with.  They might lower the punitive damages, but considering how little money Westboro has to begin with, that’s probably a moot point.

   Funny thing is, if father of the slain soldier just mowed Phelps and his hate-spewing toadies down with an automatic weapon, you probably wouldn’t find a jury anywhere that would convict the father of anything more than a misdemeanor.  Would Phelps prefer that his targets exercise that alternative?

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 31, 2007 at 2342 hrs




3. I agree with Owen. This is the reason the First Amendment exists. Annoying speech doesn’t need protection. This type of speech does. And besides that, isn’t the state now prohibiting their (the Westboro people) free exercise of religion?

   There’s a special place in hell for these cretins, but they don’t belong in court.

   Posted by on October 31, 2007 at 2343 hrs




4. APC, everything is a balancing act.  Say, for instance, your next door neighbor started holding religious services in his house at 2 in the morning, and according to him, it requires him to play worship music at 95 decibels for an hour.

   Now, you and your fellow neighbors are probably going to say “screw that.  We have a right to peaceful enjoyment of our property at 2 in the morning.  Besides, we have noise ordinances.”

   So are noise ordinances an unconstitutional infringement on one’s freedom to worship?  Of course not.  Again, it’s a question of reasonableness in balancing your right to privacy versus your neighbor’s right to worship.

   In this case, a jury determined that, in effect, a reasonable person would believe that Westboro’s primary intent is not to worship, but rather to harass and intimidate.  Simply claiming that you’re doing it in the name of Jesus doesn’t get you a free pass in court.  It never has, nor should it.

   The issue in this case is not what the Westboro group was saying.  It is how they were saying it.  It was not their speech that got them into legal trouble.  It was their conduct.  It was their willful and flagrant efforts to deny another individual his legal right to privacy.  That’s an important distinction.

   I believe 100% that the content of their speech should be protected.  Their manner of speech - that is, their conduct - is not constitutionally protected.

   We are all free to say what we want.  We do not, however, have an absolute freedom to say it however we want or whenever we want - and legally, the test will always be reasonableness.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 01, 2007 at 0340 hrs




5. I was originally in complete agreement with Owen, but RS has made some compelling arguments. It doesn’t matter what the topic, there are very few black and white issues. Reasonableness must be the test. I always assumed it was school recess, but could it be court recess?

   Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 01, 2007 at 0636 hrs




6. I agree with RS as well—yes you have the right to free speech; however, that right does not guarantee you the platform of your choosing (or that the government must provide you a platform) nor does it guarantee that everyone must listen to it.

   What about a family’s right to bury their loved one in peace?  What about their right to have some privacy to mourn?

   This group is free to stand in the public square and shout whatever they want to—that is their right.  They do not have the right, however, to infringe on other peoples’ rights.

   Posted by hsgbdmama on November 01, 2007 at 0759 hrs




7. While there are certainly free speech issues involved, don’t confuse the Westboro Baptist Church with an actual church.  They are no more a church than any other whack job family that declares themselves to be a church.

   There are several groups in Kansas that keep the Phelps family in check, notably a group of Harley riders who have formed a barrier of bikes at some funerals and used their engines to drown out the protesters.

   Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 0828 hrs




8. Maybe someone should picket their houses with signs that say, “God hates Assholes.”

   Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 0837 hrs




9. The proper thing to do is simply stop covering Fred Phelps.  His protests aren’t based on anything the deceased have done.  He only protests funerals where he knows he will get media coverage, and he will like this verdict because it gives him more media coverage.

   Recess Supervisor: this protest took place in Maryland for a reason.  Phelps doesn’t protest in places that he isn’t likely to return from unharmed.

   Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 0850 hrs




10. I like the cut of your jib.

    Posted by Owen on November 01, 2007 at 0850 hrs




11. I’m sorry, I wasn’t really trying to be flip, but it did kind of come across that way.  I don’t think the state’s infringing on his rights to exercise his religion, but don’t you think that’s what he’ll say? RS, you’re right, it’s incredibly complicated, for all the reasons you mention, and more. If this is attacked on the right to privacy penumbra, then a whole lot of other decisions are suddenly on the table.

    It’s hard to tell from the story exactly what the charges even were in this case, and so it’s hard to say with absolute certainty how it was even argued. I will stand behind a near-absolute right to free speech almost every time, though. But, like you say, if it elevated beyond a certain point to harassment and threatening behavior, by all means, lock their sorry asses up.

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 1021 hrs




12. See, it was a *civil* case.  Not a criminal one.  The government, in this case, is not enforcing a law.  There is *no* first amendment issue here.

    That said, I wish the phelps clan would’ve had the judgement against them be more in the 100 million mark.

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 1029 hrs




13. There’s gotta be a balance between the right to free speech and common decency.  I think this court ruling is a good start.

    I’ve seen the signs they were using at their little demonstration, and it was more than just stating an opinion or viewpoint.  It was maliciously aimed at a specific target in order to get a specific response.

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 1132 hrs




14. 100% agree with Gman - the government is not restricting anyone’s free speech here.  Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean you can say it with impunity.

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 1246 hrs




15. I’ll agree so long as it is found that protesting my friend’s (no military friends dead yet but I can imagine) funeral constitutes fighting words.

    Legal or not, I would lay quite a serious ass pounding on anyone that celebrated at a friend’s funeral and I’d doubt they’d find a jury that would convict me.

    Posted by Moron Pundit on November 01, 2007 at 1501 hrs




16. I completely disagree.  This case is not about the (however deplorable) content of WBC’s speech, but rather their conduct.  In any event, nobody seriously doubts the need for drawing lines on content in extreme cases, e.g., defamation, not yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, etc.  While we permit organizations like the KKK to spew their hatred in the town square, that freedom appropriately does not extend to burning crosses in people’s yards. 

    Clearly this case is more like cross burning than legitimate speech; it involves direct, intentional infliction of serious emotional stress against specific individuals.  I for one am happy to see them pay a hefty price…

    Posted by on November 01, 2007 at 1740 hrs




17. Free speech is not absolute. Phelps got off lucky. They really deserve a crack in the head for their behavior.

    Posted by Jack on November 02, 2007 at 1540 hrs