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 ...
The ONLY reason I mentioned my serving soldier is that I could potentially be in the shoes of the Snyder family and looked at the suit from their perspective and how I would feel if the Phelpses showed up if such an event occurred. I don’t think my adult child’s status confers anything special on me or my opinions.
Thank you for your 32 years service. I have always appreciated the service of those who serve and have served.
I agree. Why not just make it $11 billion? It might make more sense if this had been a class-action suit and the money was divided among all those who have been "harmed". I do feel that the families of those whose funerals were picketed are entitled to damages, but perhaps the law should be more clear on exactly how much.
MEG33 wrote: “I would not think this kind of speech at a fallen soldier’s funeral is what our Founding Fathers had in mind.”
Probably not. Perhaps I haven’t written well enough previously. I was interested in the legal aspects of the case and did not and do not support what Phelps and his “church” do.
I think I understand full well what you are getting at. However, it all depends on where you draw the line. For example, I don’t support laws against flag burning or hate crimes, because I would rather allow some offensive speech than cede more authority to government.
I was unaware of the legal concept of “Fighting Words” until Polybius posted it. Given that, I agree Fred Phelps crossed the line. Ignoring this, for sake of discussion, what if Fred’s clan protested the funeral with less inflammatory signs? Where do you draw the line? Do you set up a perimeter around the funeral, or do you say all funeral protests, no matter where they appear, are illegal?
Obviously this isn’t as clear cut as some here believe, because Phelps and his ilk have evaded the law for years in spite of attempts by legislatures to draw the laws tighter. It’s almost as if Phelps is doing this for ulterior reasons as others have posited. For example, you didn’t see them protesting at the premiere of Brokeback Mountain, did you?
EDINVA wrote: “I don’t think my adult child’s status confers anything special on me or my opinions.”
Well stated. Like personal attacks, claiming you speak with greater authority because you’re a member of a particular group or have a son or daughter in the military is another logical fallacy. I think it’s called an appeal to authority, and the liberals use it all the time.
I have spent a good portion of my life in hostile fire areas of the Middle East (not in direct combat, but definitely in areas where I could have been bombed). My son-in-law fought in Afghanistan and is scheduled to deploy to Iraq. Stating that in my posts doesn’t and shouldn’t give my opinions any greater weight than anyone else, even someone who never joined the military.
right.
To serve this nation is an honor and a privilege. Your thanks are greatly appreciated, but please accept my thanks for the honor to have served.
If you think that you have been attacked personally then perhaps your perception and courage are suspect. Your sense of self martyrdom is not.
I notice that you still have not addressed my posts.
Figures.
And, any points you made likely won’t get addressed.
*sigh*
I gotta head out, I work third shift tonight.
Be safe!
Thank you, Bigh4u2 for explaining the difference ... I was late getting back to this thread
Because this was a civil case ... it is not about violation of the 1st Amendment ... it is about the consequences of one's actions and the words they choose
#2 Is this particular case likely to be overturned on appeal?
IMO ... I doubt it
The Phelps family better get some decent lawyers next time they go to court. The judgement was arrived at in a court of law. Until Phelps appeals, it stands. I will assume the judge carried out his duties. If you are still concerned see if you can find a transcript. Look it over and send the court your concerns.
No problem Mol.
Interesting theory, but I doubt anyone in particular is bankrolling them. I saw the Louis Theroux in-depth special on them (”The Most Hated Family in America”) and 1) their costs are low (until now) and 2) they pool all their money from legitimate business.
and then there’s 3) these people, this whole famiy are real-thing true believers. They are nuttier than a pecan tree and utterly devoted to their brand of nuttiness, real fanatics of the most intense core. You can’t pay anyone to be that nutty and live as ordinarily as they do.
All things are possible, of course, but I really doubt someone from the Left is paying them, much as we would love to expose something like that.
I get your point. Hang ‘em.
Perhaps you didn’t understand my point. We are a nation of laws. You say you expect folks to behave “decently.” Fine. I agree. The problem is how do you define “decently” from a legal perspective. That was the point I was trying to make throughout this thread. We probably all agree Fred Phelps is a pretty offensive guy. However, how do you write the laws so he can be punished without going too far and limiting other forms of speech?
Example: we don’t want people protesting at funerals. Fine. How do you write laws against protests without affecting other forms of protests we’d want to protect? Do you set up a perimeter around the funeral? If so, how much? Do you prohibit certain types of sayings? If so, how do you legally define those sayings?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be concerned about any law that gives government greater power over the citizens. If you reread the thread, you’ll see some of the posters presented information that clarified the case against Fred Phelps. In particular, the case wasn’t necessarily about the funeral protests. It was about slanderous information about the soldier’s family on the church’s web site. Also, the legal concept of Fighting Words was presented.
The truth is, I’d rather allow Fred Phelps to speak than give the government the right to prohibit all offensive speech. In this particular case, other FReepers convinced me the laws aren’t overly broad.
The only point still unclear to me is the distinction between civil suites and the constitution. Several FReepers kept posting how it was a CIVIL matter without further explanation. As I stated, I wasn’t aware civil matters had precedence over constitutionally protected freedoms. I understand slander and libel are not protected speech. I also understand people can try to sue other citizens for just about anything. What I don’t understand is how people can win civil suites against things that are constitutionally protected, like free speech that isn’t slanderous/libelous.
Some FReepers apparently prefer to SHOUT in caps rather than discuss the topic or explain concepts other FReepers may not fully understand. If this is how conservatives intend to win people over to our point of view, we’re sunk.
Eaker wrote: “If you think that you have been attacked personally then perhaps your perception and courage are suspect.”
In point of fact, you did engage in personal attacks. I posted the definition. Any time you direct your comments to personal attributes of a poster rather than sticking to the topic of the discussion, that is a personal attack. My perception is fine.
As for my courage, I patiently replied to many FReepers in spite of their personal attacks. I also clearly took the more unpopular position on this thread. Finally, I didn’t run to the administrators even though I was treated improperly. My courage is fine.
Nevertheless, I get your points. I’m a total cad. Thank you.
Mo1 wrote: “Because this was a civil case ... it is not about violation of the 1st Amendment ... it is about the consequences of one’s actions and the words they choose.”
Thank you for your civil post. I’m having difficulty understanding how someone can win a civil case against someone for a constitutionally protected activity. For example, my right to bear arms is guaranteed. Let’s say I carry my weapon openly. Could a neighbor sue me for feeling threatened and/or intimidated? Even if they could sue, how could they possibly win, thereby restricting my right to bear arms, since my right is guaranteed? Please explain.
You, for what ever reason are refusing to note the difference between civil and government cases .. and there is a huge difference
As for carrying your weapon openly .. one, you need a permit and second, your neighbor would have to prove you pointed the gun at them and threaten to harm them .. we don't live in the wild wild west anymore
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.