Keep in mind, I agree this “church” is despicable, but unless they are breaking trespassing or other laws (not related to constitutionally protected free speech), what right do we have to punish them?
I think that you're getting things mixed up here. Yes, the Phelps do have "the right" to say these things. Having that right keeps the government from arresting you for saying it. However, it wasn't the government that brought the suit. This was brought as a civil case by the family of a Marine (I believe) who's funeral was protested by the Phelps mob. The civil suit was for intentional ... oh damn, I can't recall the exact words... But the key is that it's for intentionally causing emotional harm, which IS actionable. Remember, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that you won't suffer the consequences for doing it.
This isn't the government quashing "free speech." This is a group of lawyers having to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Mark
MarkL wrote: “The civil suit was for intentional ... oh damn, I can’t recall the exact words... But the key is that it’s for intentionally causing emotional harm, which IS actionable.”
I remember a case a couple years ago where a couple women sued an airline for using a term they thought was derogatory. I don’t know if the women won, but I hope they lost. Nevertheless, they probably needed to prove the airline used the term intentionally to intimidate them, right?
Here’s another example. Let’s say a minority angers you, and you respond with a racial slur. To be more specific, you call them a name but don’t use it in an assault. Could they win a civil judgment on something like that?