Posted on 11/24/2007 7:44:20 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
TOPEKA | Countless flights across the country. Car rentals, gas money, food and lodging. All those cardboard signs. For the 71 members of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church, the costs of doing business must add up.
And those costs could soon grow a lot higher. A Maryland jury recently ordered Westboro to pay nearly $11 million to the father of a fallen soldier whose funeral was the subject of one of Westboro’s protests.
Many hope the lawsuit, and future ones like it, will put the notorious church out of business for good. It’s something that new funeral picketing bans, now passed in 43 states, have proved unable to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
We have allowed this entire thread to get sidetracked by the First Amendment issue.
There IS no First Amendment Issue.
The case is based on the actionable tort of willful infliction of emotional distress. It was done with premeditation and done to maximize outrage. At no point is the Government or it legislators attempting to suppress the excercise of free speech, or the practice of religion. Certain laws or norms trump anything. Try to establish a church that conducts Human Sacrifice, for example.
It's all abstract anyway, since the "church" has unlimited free resources to stretch the case out forever, and it is unlikely they will ever pay anything.
It’s still a ‘CIVIL SUIT’.
So what’s your point?
fish hawk wrote: “In a case like yours (which seems hopeless to reason) one can only say that if a loved one of yours does pass away, it would only be fair to have these idiots do what they do at your family funeral.”
It’s not hopeless to reason. I have no doubt whatsoever that I would greatly dislike having a family member’s funeral protested. I would almost certainly want Fred Phelps and his bums carted off.
Nevertheless, there’s a legal side to this as well as an emotional one. Obviously, I got on some people’s nerves, but there ARE reasonable concerns whenever we use government to restrict speech we find offensive. This isn’t something new. I remember the 70’s discussions on obscenity laws that made their way up to the SCOTUS.
If speech that causes “emotional distress” is illegal, what standards do you apply? I’m NOT talking about libel or slander, which Fred Phelps’s church clearly did not do. A sign saying, “God hates...” does not slander or libel does it?
My concern is simply that just about anything could be hateful or offensive speech to someone. I’m really hesitant to give government more power in this area, i.e. hate crimes law, because I fear it could be easily misused later on.
Not per your definition.
Please refrain from personal attacks.
You would know if it was a personal attack.
I’m not “emulating a Clinton.”
Yes you are.
You’re wasting your breath..
Or, in this case, you typing..
“How is sign stating, “God hates...” slanderous?”
It’s not (just) the signs.
It’s what phelps & co. shout out and spew over megaphones.
But as far as signs go, let me provide some examples of what phelps & co. have at military funerals....
“Thank God for IED’s”
“Thank God for Dead Soldiers”
“Soldiers Die, God Laughs”
And those are the more “tame” ones his group has used, and yeah they may not be “slanderous” but like I said it’s the chants and the taunts that phelps & co. say to the families.
Now put yourself in the position of any one of those family members and tell me that you wouldn’t sue phelps for his actions.
It’s been explained repeatedly by more than a few on here that this is a ‘civil’ case with NO government interest. And therefore ‘free speech’ rights do not apply.
This person is either being willfully dense, or trolling.
I can’t believe someone would be that ignorant of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the intent to protect citizens from Government.
Not from each other.
I’ll go with troll.. and possibly some trollettes here.
Bigh4u2 wrote: “He/she doesn’t seem to understand that the Bill of Rights was written to protect you from Government intrusion and has nothing to do with civilians suing each other.”
Thank you. Aren’t the states also required to follow the Bill of Rights?
From Wikipedia: “Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making (”legislative”) authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment’s terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states.”
It may be an overly broad interpretation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, but if a state says someone can sue me for saying something offensive, then couldn’t that reasonably be ruled to be a restriction on free speech? Wouldn’t that be similar to a state saying someone can sue me for carrying a gun if the plaintiff is frightened/emotionally distressed? Aren’t civil suites (what you can and cannot sue for) defined by law? If so, doesn’t the constitution override civil law, too?
You have a Constitutional right to your political opinions. You can voice your opinions in public until your throat is raw.
However, if you disrupt the funeral of one of my family members to communicate to his grieving family that he deserved to die, I will do whatever I legally can to make your life a living Hell until the day you die.
What Phelps did is not protected free speech. It comes under the category of Fighting Words.
“A soldier is an employee of the federal government.”
A soldier may be an employee of the federal government but that does not make them a public official.
“Are you saying it’s illegal to stand on a public street in front of a neighbor’s house with a sign protesting them? For example, let’s say my neighbor doesn’t cut his grass. Is it illegal for me to walk in the street (not on his property) with a sign saying, “Cut your grass!””
Yeah if you’re doing it without a permit.
UCANSEE2 wrote: “But, others have just as much of a right to sue the hell out of you for what you say, if it is slanderous or libelous.”
Agree. I did not know Fred Phelps’ church was being libelous or slanderous. However, someone recently posted the signs also attacked our troops as baby killers. I can see how this could be considered slander, but all it takes is proof that one of our bombs killed one baby and Fred wins. As I understand it, libel and slander are typically very difficult to prove.
Again, let me stress I don’t like Fred Phelps or his so-called “church.” I’m taking a lot of hits here simply for discussing the legal ramifications. Emotionally, I’d love to hammer the guy, but that’s got absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the case.
Excellent info. Thanks.
“It’s still a ‘CIVIL SUIT’. So what’s your point?”
Who said it wasn’t a civil suit? There may be criminal issues, but I have never heard of any being pursued. I don’t know where the “civil suit” (or not) discussion even arose. Certainly not from me. It is a civil suit filed in federal court under laws granting protections to the plaintiff Snyder and his family, notably his late son. The suit was for Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy.
The ‘civil’ I am concerned with is what has been lacking in some quarters in this thread.
What if I say sinners are going to burn in Hell? Are those “deliberate, outrageous, provocative Fighting Words?” Seriously, people say offensive things all the time. Doesn’t the 1st Amendment protect offensive speech?
If you say, "Sinners are going to burn in Hell", that is a generic religious belief, directed at nobody in particular, and is protected under the First Amendment.
However, if you show up outside of the funeral of a young woman and hold up a sign that states "Mary Jo Billings was a whore and sinner who is going to burn in Hell" you will have crossed the line that the U.S. Supreme Court drew:
If the funeral is in the South and Mary Jo's brother, Bubba, chokes the life out of you with his bare hands, Bubba's lawyer will bring up the Fighting Words doctrine at trial simply to spare the jury any guilty feeling over the Constitution after they acquit Bubba under the time honored "He Needed Killin'" defense.
“As I understand it, libel and slander are typically very difficult to prove.”
Not Defamation or Libel per se:
“All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:
Allegations or imputations “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”
Allegations or imputations “of loathsome disease” (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of “unchastity” (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)”
And:
“libel per se, means “by itself” or “on the face of it.” The reader or viewer does not have to interpret or study in order to understand the libel per se because it is obvious or evident. Libel per se is the more serious of the two types, and persons libeled in this manner do not have to prove that they suffered damage to their reputations, monetary loss or other injury. Libel per se can support a lawsuit in itself.”
Then you have:
“libel per quod, means “because of circumstance” or “by means of circumstance.” In libel per quod, the statements, words or phrases involved maybe harmless in themselves, but become libelous because of attached circumstances.”
“And the article you quoted applies to the STATES suing you.”
And I might also stress, not just suing you, but prohibiting free speech in general.
States have an interest in protecting it’s citizens and therefore pass laws, generally based on a ‘public’ referendum, to do just that.
All law, whether state or federal, must be ‘reasonable’ and ‘prudent’ and must not infringe on others rights.
Libel and slander laws are reasonable and prudent because it protects citizens from vicious attacks and harm to reputations and personal comfort.
You are looking for a way to defend the undefendable by ignoring the fact that States have the right to defend it’s citizens, barring Constitutional mandates, from verbal or physical attack.
Your argument has been show to be wrong, and yet you continue on your blind search to find a defendable position that would allow the Phelps the right to say anything they want to anyone.
Until you understand that citizens have those rights to peaceable coexistence, then arguing with you is pointless.
And I don’t have that many hours in the day to waste.
So please, either educate yourself, or find someone else to argue with.
I have other things to do. I’m not going to waste anymore time with you on this.
Thank you very much for the link. Pages 16-18 were particularly revealing. Essentially, they had to prove
1) Defamatory statements were made to a third party.
2) The statements were false.
3) The defendant was at fault for the statements.
4) The plaintiff suffered harm.
Perhaps Fred Phelps and his gaggle of lawyers aren’t as good as I originally thought, because they essentially tried to hide from being served. I’m sure that won them a lot of points with the judge.
It appears they really messed up when they posted specific statements about the plaintiff on the church’s web site. General statements about soldiers being baby killers would be much easier to defend I think.
After reading the judge’s Memorandum Opinion, maybe this will hold up on appeal. Oh, it appears they won not only against the church itself but anyone related to the church. That would give them the authority to collect from sources funding the church, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.