Posted on 04/07/2010 2:18:37 PM PDT by RonDog
GOD HATES JUDGESby Ann Coulter
April 7, 2010
In an opinion that may have been written by Heidi Montag, a federal court of appeals recently threw out a jury verdict in favor of a father, Albert Snyder, who had sued protesters at his son Matthew's funeral for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Solely because Matthew was a Marine, a Kansas-based cult, consisting mostly of members of a single family, traveled to Maryland in order to stand outside Matthew's funeral with placards saying things like, "God Loves Dead Soldiers," "God Hates You," "You're Going to Hell," "Semper Fi Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags."
But wait, it gets funnier.
The cult's leader/father is Fred Phelps, who calls America a "sodomite nation of flag-worshipping idolaters." Since you won't read it anyplace else, Phelps has run for public office five times -- as a Democrat.
The Fred Phelps cult members travel around the country and hold vile signs outside military funerals because they believe that the reason American soldiers die in wars is that God hates the U.S.A. because it tolerates homosexuals.
I'll leave it to others to speculate as to why the very thought of male homosexuality gets Fred Phelps into such a lather.
Snyder has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, and now the court will have to decide whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) can ever exist in a country with a First Amendment.
Unlike many legal concepts, the tort of IIED is not an obscure legal doctrine written in pig Latin. It means what it says: speech or conduct specifically intended to inflict emotional distress. The usual description of the tort of IIED is that a reasonable man viewing the conduct would react by saying, "That's outrageous!"
The Second Restatement of Torts (1965) defines IIED as conduct "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
As a respected New York judge, Judith Kaye, described it, "The tort is as limitless as the human capacity for cruelty." Inasmuch as IIED claims are made based on all manner of insults, rudeness, name-calling and petty affronts, the claim is often alleged, but rarely satisfied.
But if a group of lunatics standing outside the funeral of a fallen American serviceman with hateful signs about the deceased does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, then there is no such tort recognizable in America anymore...click here for the REST of Ann's wonderful column this week
Coulter needs apology, teachers' association says
Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:55:52 AM · by Syncro · 9 replies · 809+ views
nationalpost.com ^ | March 26, 2010 | Robert Sibley
ping
The media loves these Democrats who protest at US military funerals. The media also loves these Democrats when they hold up “Christian” signs attacking homosexuality.
The media is much more vocal about their status as “Christians” and opposition to homosexuality than their opposition to the war in Iraq or associations with Democrat politics.
Semper Fi and God bless Ann Coulter!!!
Elections have consequences.
They are Dems, and I would betcha that they get most of their funding from the left, which is why the courts love them so.
I happened to see a photo of them at some funeral the other day. The girls were dressed like Daisy Mae, shorts so short they barely counted, and I thought right then and there that there is no way these people are nutty Christians - they’re leftists trying to look like what their idea of “conservative Christian” means. Daisy Mae is obviously on their scope, showing also that the people behind this are elderly, since most people younger than 55 or so have no idea who “Daisy Mae” was or how she dressed.
I think there needs to be an investigation of who is behind Fred Phelps and his group.
Oh well, the ends justify the means, right? It's all for the greater good. Social justice, and all that.
The panel of the Court of Appeals which reversed this judgment (unnanimously) consisted of two Republican appointees (1 by Bush I, 1 by Bush II) and one Democratic (Clinton) appointee. The Bush I appointee wrote the decision.
These people are the LOWEST of the LOW!!!
These crazed freaks are lunatics!
Why don’t these losers go to where “the boys are” and protest there? Why don’t they go to the homosexual enclaves of America and protest “those vile sinners”? Why don’t they go to an AIDS clinic and tell those suffering that “God is punishing them”? Probably because they know they would get the beatdown of their lives because homosexuals are the protected class and everyone hates these Westboro hypocrites! Heck, I’d support the homosexuals opening up a can of whoop-*** on them!
...But the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals noticed that the cult's malicious signs contained words, and that words are "speech" ... which is protected by the First Amendment! (Or was it the Seventh?) Anyway, that was basically the end of the court's analysis.
True, speech will often be involved in inflicting emotional distress on someone, say, for example, standing outside a funeral with signs that say "God Hates You!"
Similarly, words are used in committing treason ("The Americans are over here!"), robbery ("Your money or your life!") and sexual harassment ("Have sex with me or you're fired."). Copyright law prohibits speech that uses someone else's words, and insider trading and trade-secrets laws prohibit the use of words revealing insider information or trade secrets.
The fact that "speech" was involved in the Fred Phelps cult's assault on Matthew Snyder's funeral is a mundane and irrelevant fact.
The question is: Did that speech constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress? Hey, look! That reasonable man over there is nodding his head 'yes.'
If so, the First Amendment is as irrelevant as it is to a copyright law violation." - Ann Coulter
No, this decision is a correct application of the First Amendment. Otherwise, gays will be able to sue churches for IIED for preaching against homosexuality.
By the way, Ann doesn't mention it in her article, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled years ago that the First Amendment severely limits IIED claims based solely on speech (in the Flint v. Hustler case).
“Elections have consequences.”
Not in Russia.
Hmm. As much as I can't stand those Westboro nuts, you might have a point there. I can see homosexuals running to the courts, trying to suppress the church's free speech right, based on this IIED. Good point.
They don't go to those places because they think that there is no money to be made suing the "fags". Courts would likely not allow them to be sured it they administered a beat down to the Phelps Phamily. The Courts will continue to allow suits against the families of KIAs and their supporters.
Umm, no.
Look up the word "intentional" and get back to me.
A minister preaching what is written in the Bible in his own church bears no relation whatsoever to a group targeting the families and funerals of deceased military personnel with the most harsh and inflammatory language conceivable. ...other than the incedental fact that speech was involved, as Ann correctly noted.
One is clearly "intentional" in its infliction, the other might generate distress in others, depending upon the belief and interpretation of the hearer, who would have to choose to be there.
Your claim is akin to saying that the space shuttle is like a tricycle because they both have wheels, therefore both should be allowed on city sidewalks.
Do the Phelpsians sound off in opposition to the Iraq (and Afghani) war? Or does that war please them, knowing that it will produce lots of casualties that they can then conduct their sick pickets around? (Or both, however inconsistent?)
Only if they go after *specific" homosexual individuals, as they go after the families of our KIAs.
Generally, the people sitting in a church can get up and go if they dislike the pastor’s message. They can almost always come back next Sunday, or go to another church, for another service. A funeral is a one time thing; if you leave it to avoid hecklers you miss it forever.
OK, how about a street preacher in San Francisco?
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.