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 ...
If you understand that it’s a ‘civil suit’, then why did you write this???
” However, as a legal matter, it is fair to ask if the verdict and judgment will hold up on appeal and how it affects everyone’s First Amendment rights.”
First Amendment rights have nothing to do with being sued by another citizen.
There is absolutely nothing in The Bill of Rights that protects you from other citizens, because it wasn’t written that way. It was written to protect you from the GOVERNMENT.
The laws, set forth by the Federal and State governments do that.
2CAVTrooper wrote: “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.”
Actually, I probably wouldn’t sue, but that’s beside the point. As you wrote, none of those signs or statements were slanderous. However, EDINVA posted a written statement from the judge in the case. It doesn’t appear signs like, ““Thank God for IED’s” were at issue. The church posted specific, slanderous comments about the family on the church web site. That makes it a completely different matter.
The 1st Amendment guarantees Phelps right to speak against the government without fear of reprisal. It does NOT guarantee him a right to harass ordinary citizens.
#119
Thank you, Polybius. I wasn’t aware of the “Fighting Words” legal definition. From your link:
Fighting Words: “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
Thanks again.
Polybius wrote: “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.”
LOL. Both you and EDINVA brought excellent information to the discussion. I learned something new today. Again, thanks.
There can hardly be any 1st Amendment protections against this defamation, as published in the Judge’s Memorandum Opinion, http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Snyder1030.pdf
“Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed several
intentional torts against him when they intruded upon and staged protests at the funeral for his son, a Lance Corporal in the U.S. Marines Corps who was killed in Iraq, and published defamatory information about Plaintiff and his family on the Internet.” P1
“They [the defendants] also maintain several websites ... . On one of WBC’s websites, www.godhatesfags.com, the Defendants posted specific comments that Plaintiff and his wife “raised [Matthew] for the devil,” “RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery,” “taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity,” and “taught Matthew to be an idolator.” {Page 2]
Christians know how to discern EVIL...they don’t stand up for it as Free Speech.
Ann Archy wrote: “Christians know how to discern EVIL...they don’t stand up for it as Free Speech.”
A lot of people misuse the Lord’s name on a daily basis. Misuse of the Lord’s name, from a strict biblical perspective, isn’t any less evil/sinful than what Fred Phelps says, but I wouldn’t want laws making it a crime.
Plus, I never stood up for the speech itself. Reread my posts and you’ll see I was interested in the legal ramifications. Don’t you see how an overly broad definition of obscene or offensive speech could easily be used against Christians in the future?
Some of the posters on this thread were patient with me and added very helpful information. Others, like yourself, engaged in personal attacks.
Personal Attacks (From Wikipedia): “Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person’s claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual’s personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person’s statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.”
Such as questioning my Christianity...
Nevertheless, I appreciate those who helped educate me, and I forgive you.
Just as wacky as Democrats, huh? As a matter of fact, I think they are Democrats and friends of Gore.
Still a Clinton, huh?
No, just someone who like to follow the board rules.
I do take issue with your justification as "the parent of a currently serving soldier". I might point out that at one time, Cindy Sheehan was also one. I would value your opinion as an individual, and this is speaking as one who served for 32+ years and had the "honor" of washing the spittle of protesters from my face and uniform.
In the end, we are all citizens. That is what really matters.
People have a right to privacy.
It was. It was tried in federal court because it was a matter between people from different states.
They picketed Gore, Senior's funeral back in 1998 so I believe the honeymoon is over. In fact, their support for Gore is 20 years old and due solely to the fact that in in his 1984 Senate race Gore said he opposed a 'gay bill of rights'. The whole Phelps mob opposed the Clinton-Gore ticket in 1992.
Non-Sequitur wrote: “People have a right to privacy.”
Within limits, yes. I was looking for something more specific. According to a statement written by the judge (provided by EDINVA), the “church” posted the family’s private information and made defamatory statements on the church web site. Also, Polybius posted the concept of “Fighting Words” from a SCOTUS decision. If the words are meant to incite and have no other significant value, they aren’t protected by the 1st Amendment. I agree with Polybius. The specific statements would likely be considered “Fighting Words” if the case was appealed on 1st Amendment grounds.
I’m particularly interested in “hate crime” and other legislation that limits or punishes offensive speech since it could be misused at some point. There are limits to everything (Fred Phelps has certainly pushed them), but I tend to side with free speech versus handing government more authority.
I think CitizenUSA could be Shirley Phelps. Who else would even consider the Vile and Evil things that they Phelps do as Free Speech.
I would not think this kind of speech at a fallen soldier’s funeral is what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
PERSONAL ATTACKS???? You have the NERVE to preach to ME about PERSONAL ATTACKS when you stick up for what the PHELPS KLAN does at soldier;s PRIVATE funerals??? What a HYPOCRITICAL thing you do!!
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.