Telluride

Jury awards father $11M in funeral case

I'm no fan of Fred Phelps and his funeral protests, but this is ridiculous. I guess we can now keep people from protesting by threatening to sue them for making us unhappy and "invading our privacy" by being near us when we're in public places.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

samcol

I totally agree.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Ustwo

You mean juries give out large awards based on how they feel, regardless if anything really wrong happened?

As a doctor I for one am SHOCKED!

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

inBOIL

I hope this gets overturned on appeal. Otherwise, I may have to stop flipping people off when I drive.

Telluride

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know this isn't the first dumb court ruling in American history. But this is a HORRIBLE precedent with "slippery slope" written all over it.

I actually saw this posted at another forum while browsing the internet, and way too many people were all giddy about it. I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune if some whiny Christian sued the organizers of a gay pride parade for emotional distress and won $11 million.

As someone who actually cares about individual rights (even when I disagree with the individual), this scares the shit out of me.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Baraka_Guru

Is this about the right to hate on someone's funeral?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

flat5

So where should you draw the line on the First Amendment?

inBOIL

What bothers me most about this is that it's based primarily on what the "victim" felt, not on what Phelps' loonies did. If I were to say "Jesus was just a man" and some Christian felt deeply offended, would I end up having to pay millions?

Shauk

you don't.

there weren't any lines when they wrote it, and there shouldn't be now.

ngdawg

OK....obviously no one here has had to deal with the details of the background of this case in any way.
What these morons do is stand in (attempted) full view of the grieving families of men killed in action in the middle east and shout things such as "Thank God for IEDs", "Your son died for faggots", "God hates America", ad nauseum.
I really and truly hope that none of you have to stand with crying mothers, sobbing fathers and bewildered children as an honor guard carries the body of your child to the back of a hearse as these lowlifes shout shit.
What these people do is now, thankfully, criminal up to the federal level; they can not 'protest' within the parameters of any national cemetery nor can they disrupt the services for any servicemen.
This is not about free speech. They are still 'allowed' to spew their venom. What they are not allowed to do is be disruptive, abusive and try to provoke the grieving, which is what they were doing and why they were sued.
I hope they're sued over and over until they STFU and crawl back to the hole they came out from.

Ustwo

When they wrote it, dueling was still an accepted and common practice.

Perhaps if that were back in, some people would be more civil.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

The "right" to protest has been gone for a while. See any recent national republican or democratic convention, or, every place the president went during his last campaign.

inBOIL

If they're disruptive, they can be prosecuted for disturbing the peace. Being verbally abusive and provoking people, while extremely asshole-ish, is defined by someone else's (e.g. the mourners, the jury) emotional response. Making that illegal is making people responsible for the emotional state of others. You're essentially saying "you can be mean, but don't be really, really mean or you'll have to pay more money than you have".
Where does this lead? Will you be able to sue an ex who breaks up with you in a cruel manner? What about someone who tells you your religion is stupid rather than just saying "I think you're wrong"? Is it ok only to offend/insult those with a thick skin? This precedent is all about punishing people for someone else's feelings.

casual user

$11 million dollars is ridiculous, but so is protesting at a funeral

people should show at least some class. i mean seriously, a person is grieving enough and they're trying to have some closure and you're standing there with a stupid sign. they didn't deserve to get sued, though

Frosstbyte

The right as it originally existed (and was interpreted without protest for some one hundred and some odd years) was the right to speech free of prior restraint, not free from consequences. That is to say, "There shall be no laws saying 'You can't say the king is a jackass'" as opposed to "You can say whatever the fuck you want whenever the fuck you want to say it."

Now, it fairly clearly DOES mean the first (and nothing about this CIVIL suit which has little constitutional merit changes that) it does not and has never meant the second.

This is the operative paragraph of the article:

Both of those torts have specific elements that must be met and the elements are tempered by the free speech rights of others. But no right is absolute, especially when it causes measurable legal harm to another person. You might be surprised to know this, but there are a great number of privacy torts and here the jury and judge determined that you have a right to privacy at the funeral of a family member, as you might have a right to privacy in your backyard. Furthermore, intentional torts (like intentional infliction of emotional distress-which I presume was ACTUALLY the tort in this case as opposed to "intent to inflict emotional distress") have NEVER been exempted, so long as the elements of the tort have been fulfilled. Also note that the "harm" required to fulfill intentional infliction of emotional distress isn't "I felt sad that someone said this to me" but rather "I have had to seek psychological counseling" or "I can't sleep at night thinking about it" or "I've had to miss work because I'm so upset."

Get off your first amendment high horse and do some reading about what it means, was intended to mean and has been held to mean. And then think about in the context of what ngdawg said.

This all would be very different if they were in a public park protesting to the general public. They're not. They're maliciously targeting specific families who are already grieving and trying to make them feel worse. You do not have a carte blanche right to free speech, particularly if it causes an individual legally measureable harm. Stop pretending that you do.

Edit: Since I'm noticing a lot of replies about this, almost every jurisdiction in the country recognizes intentional infliction of emotional distress as a common law tort action. So yeah, you can be mean to people, but if you're really really really really mean and are so hurtful that you cause them actual damages (as I tried to define above) you can be held civilly responsible for that. Important safety tip!

Elphaba

Phelps has stated that he will appeal, which will bring him more of the attention he is trying to bring to his "cause." He claims his right to express his beliefs has been given unequal treatment in order to silence him. Frosstbyte, does his claim have any standing in civil law?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ninjasideshow

1. You have the right to do whatever you want. I also have the right to sue you for whatever I please. Nothing has changed by this verdict.

2. Phelps will appeal. I imagine that even though he's an evil evil excuse for a human the verdict will be tossed.

Infinite_Loser

I saw this on the news earlier today. Really, there's not much you can say here. Idiocy wins again. Oh well... Like they say... If you've got a problem with someone, sue them.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Frosstbyte

Without knowing more about the case, it's hard to say. It's certainly no joke that he's running at a disadvantage to his rights because of what's he's saying and doing, and that's certainly the legal angle that you'd go after it. Essentially the argument is that this is "jury nullification." He has the right to protest and should be allowed to exercise it, but the jury was so repulsed by that result (i.e. it's ok to say "Your son died because American loves fags" at his funeral) that they ignored the law and found what they believed to be right instead of what the law says is right.

My response was mostly towards the general notions of what the first amendment does or does not mean. I have NO idea if those torts were adequately satisfied in this case. If they were, I don't think he's got much ground to stand on. If they were sketchy and the decision looks like one made based on a gut reaction to his beliefs instead of any real impact to the plaintiff, he has a good chance of pulling it off.

Crack

This is what I believe, you may think otherwise, and that's cool :-P

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

Willravel

I'm protesting at Fred's funeral by paying gay men to ejaculate on his casket.

telekinetic

So you wouldn't sue me for harrasement if i were to follow you around to all interviews and any business meetings or dates held in public places and scream "CRACK HATES FAGGOTS AND JEWS, IS LAZY, AND WILL GIVE YOU AIDS" etc etc at high volume every time you were not in the privacy of your own home?

This is not a free speech issue, it is a harassment issue. Noone is going to arrest them for saying God Hates Fags, that is perfectly legal. It is the manner in which they are 'saying' it that is illegal.

If I get arrested for pulling a bullhorn and screaming anti-Christian remarks during an outdoor easter service, to the point of disruption, would we be having this discussion?

I think the issue here is that he is doing two things 'wrong', and it is difficult to seperate them mentally. He is delivering hateful messages (legal), in a harrassing manner (illegal). One of them is a free speech issue, and one is not.

I may be misunderstanding the issue here. And also, IANAL.

analog

The overly dramatic sentiment expressed in the thread title notwithstanding, the opening post isn't telling me anything other than you disagree with the court finding. That doesn't really give me any indication of why you find it disagreeable (on what terms) or why you feel like the award of money is akin to the outright criminalization of protesting.

There's a huge difference between protesting something and intentionally trying to cause emotional distress by way of a public disturbance. Other things of importance, besides that of the right to protest, are the right to personal privacy, a basic level of respect, and the ability to live without persecution.

Phelps' organization is spreading his message of hate by protesting homosexuality under the dubious guise of religious freedom and freedom of speech. Their actions are disgusting both in intention and execution. They are using the high-profile and sensitive nature of the burial of fallen soldiers to gain the maximum amount of media attention by way of intentional outrage.

They're not simply protesting. They're not simply expression their religious freedom to believe that God is dropping our servicemen and women because America tolerates homosexuality. They're engaging in a calculated campaign of outrageous behavior to attract attention to their cause.

And you know what? Even if we took a step back and thought the impossible- that their intentions are true and they're NOT just doing it this way because it will garner the best possible attention- the rights of one person to protest do not automatically trump the rights of another to peaceably observe over the proceedings of a private funeral, most especially when the protest exists solely to slander the party involved and cause a disruption to the proceedings, which themselves are frequently going to be religious observations.

The bottom line is, rights do not trump or rule each other, they work with each other to attempt to guarantee the most liberty and freedom to each person without interfering with guaranteeing the same for anyone else.

Menoman

heh 11 million? I'd say they got off easy.

hopefully never occur but should one of my family in the force die and they show up.

They will have alot more going through their head than the money. Like a fucking bullet.

Any defending those people is insane and ridiculous, they are not protesting, they are harassing, and I'd be happy if sometime a military funeral blows the fuck out of them for it.

__________________

Infinite_Loser

Wait... Do you remember this thread? How's this situation any different than that one? If the KKK has the right to march through a predominantly Jewish/minority town without being sued for 'emotional distress', then why shouldn't Phelps-- Or anyone for that matter-- Be allotted the same right? It seems to me that most people's inherent dislike for Fred Phelps makes them unable to view this objectively. Oh well...

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

TotalMILF

QFMFT!!!!

It's one thing to stand there with signs, but it's entirely another to knowingly invade someone's privacy and scream these hateful things at them during the most horrible and difficult time of their lives.

They can protest and have their free speech, but they CANNOT harass these families!

linky
I'm so glad someone finally found a way to nail those motherfuckers. I hope the ruling sticks.

__________________
"I'm sorry, all I heard was blah blah blah, I'm a dirty tramp."

analog

Let's pretend for a moment that the thread you recalled was anything like what we're discussing now...

Marching is not a protest, first of all. It's convening in public as a group. It's displaying the right to assemble and to publicly express beliefs. That is not a protest of any kind, whatsoever.

So, let's also pretend that what the Nazis were doing was a protest.

Their presence was pre-arranged and a permit to march was obtained, which means someone approved their right to march and display their beliefs based on their intentions.

The only way this would have compared to the Nazi march is if Nazis showed up randomly to synagogues yelling racial slurs at people peaceably gathering to observe their religion with the agenda to harass and cause disturbance. As much as I may hate the Nazis, what they were doing was in no way illegal. Simply speaking words that offend people does not constitute harassing them.

You're also comparing a single event of marching against a constant, habitual act of targeted intent. They make it personal, and they do it every chance they get. The nazis, as I stated, are not running around yelling slurs in front of synagogues every time they hold services. If they were, they'd be similarly accountable for their targeted harassment.

Zodijackyl

Yes they do have the right to free speech, but I would consider celebrating our enemies killing our soldiers in war an act of treason.

Infinite_Loser

Analog:

No offense, but your post has nothing to do with anything I've said thus far. You stated that there's a difference between protesting something and intentionally trying to cause 'emotional distress' by way of service. Well what would you call the KKK purposely marching through towns mainly populated by minorities? What, exactly, are they protesting? The only reason they do such things is because they want to garner attention. They know that marching through a town full of the very same people they deem 'inferior' will undoubtedly get people upset, yet I don't see you sitting here telling me that I should be allowed to sue them for $11M because they'd happen to cause me 'emtional distress' (Which, by the way, they wouldn't). That's simply innane. Under the First Ammendment I have the right to say whatever I want as long as it's not advocating murder or the violent overthrow of the US government. Conversely, you have the right to not listen. Wonderful, isn't it?

The fact that you're trying to rationalize one action against the other based on a pre-arranged permit is, in my opinion, quite astonishing. Are you telling me that, assuming the state explictly granted FP and his Church the right to protest the military funerals, it would somehow become more acceptable? That suddenly that 'harrassment' would be transformed into a legitimate platform for protests? I'd be willing to bet that it wouldn't be. Really, this is nothing more than a case of punishing FP for being FP. The precedent this case sets is quite stupid. It gives yet another reason for people to sue just to sue. Simply because you disagree with what another person has to say doesn't entitle you to some sort of compensation.

Also, I'd encourage you to get out more if you don't believe the KKK makes a living of trying to incite the common populace into action.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

mandy

This has got nothing to do with being mean or breakups or religion for that matter. what this is people is HATE SPEECH. and in our bill of rights it states that freedom of expression/speech/religion is not prohibited as long as it doesnt amount to hate speech or incite violence, because that is in fact illegal and in fact can even amount to jail time.

you can protest, you can picket, you can march, you can demonstrate but do it for a cause that is meaningful.

And don't let closed mindness be the root of your protest.

and while i think the amount of $11 million is quite high and ridiculous, the family was well within their right to sue. and that church, like ngdawg said, should get sued over and over again until they get the message.

this protest is absolutely terrible and i feel horrible knowing that their are people out their who would pounce upon grieving families...

makes me wonder how it would pan out had the situation been reversed?

__________________
The Imagination equips us to see a reality we have yet to create

Plan9

The most democratic answer I've found here.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

analog

I have no idea why you said that, considering I specifically said:

So really, I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm writing. It's right there. It was my first point.

And the thing about the permit? Who gives a shit about a permit? I only mentioned it to drive home the fact that the Nazi march is JUST a display of "we are allowed to do this and we WILL do it". Phelps' agenda is just to harass people and get publicity. Constantly. In organized fashion. With signs. And yelling.

And yes, thank you for pointing out that Nazis aren't saints in their off time. Really. It brings the discourse to a whole new level when you take the time to point out that bigots aren't just mean and nasty in groups, but do engage in random acts of bigotry by themselves on the streets and such. This is not anything like the random, single-serving racial slurs some Nazi walking down the street may sling.

I then went on to explain why what Phelps is doing should be considered harassment, whereas the Nazi march is, conversely, NOT harassment. I don't give a flying duck (yes, duck) what community the Nazis march through. They do it, what, once a year? If that? If Phelps held an anti-gays rally once a year in the gayest damn town in all of the USA, we still wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's the volume. It's the constant, unrelenting attacks. They are at every funeral they can get to. They specifically seek to defame, demoralize, and cause public disturbance. Once again: Nazi rally- pretty damn infrequent, not going after anyone in specific, just there to speak their minds... Phelps- constant, personal attacks to defame, slander, and harass.

Not at all the same thing. Apples and oranges. The only common denominator is they're all scumbags.

Two extra points:

1. It seems like you're going out of your way to support Phelps without actually saying you agree with his position. Just an observation.

2. You keep switching Nazis and the KKK. It was the Nazis who marched. The KKK and the Nazis are not at all alike, other than they're both hate groups. Just because they both happen to hate some of the same people doesn't mean they're similar.

The_Jazz

I know that we all love to jump up on our soapboxes and expound how the world has changed for the better or the worse (depending on your point of view) when we read articles like this, but let me just remind everyone that it's WAAAAAAAAY to early to declare anything of the sort.

Westboro Babtist has already announced their appeal. That means that they don't have to pay anything at this point. The Appeals Court will hear their case, which I'll bet has a much more 1st Amendment-centric bent to it than the trial did. If that doesn't work, they'll keep appealing until they get a Supreme Court test.

This is not the law of the land now. It is not citable precedence for legal scholars, lawyers or even law students.

As far as the case itself goes, I think this falls under the conventional wisdom about juries that anyone involved in litigation follows: all juries are dumb all the time. They are not made up of the best and brightest, and they aren't intended to be. They were given two versions of the truth and told to pick between them. They didn't even have to be unanimous in a civil case, just have a majority.

So all of you who are ready to condemn this as the worst assault on the First Amendment there's ever been, calm down and wait until it actually turns into something. This is just the opening salvo of a long, long battle.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ngdawg

First off, they don't 'protest the military funerals'; their only purpose is to harrass. Period.
Second, this suit was not about 'disagreeing with what another person has to say', it's about a father who buried his hero son amid the venomous shouts of a small gang of verbal abusers whose sole purpose was to disrupt a solemn moment of grief.
Third, the WBC most times does not ask for 'permits', they show up and have shown up as far as here in NJ. Now that there are laws in most states that address the congregating of any 'protesting' group within the parameters of a military (or any other) funeral, they generally have to request a permit. Not getting one does not stop them, though.
You are not getting the reasons for the suit, apparently. It has nothing whatsoever to do with first amendment rights.

Push-Pull

Just because they weren't sued doesn't mean that they couldn't have been. Big difference....

This kind of reminds me of when some celebrity (anyone remember the Dixie Chicks incident?) opens their mouth to voice an opinion and start crying when the backlash starts.

So yes, you can say whatever, whenever. But remember, they can "protest" back, whether it be them suing you, hiring former military members to keep you at bay, or not buying your records or whatever.

__________________
"No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me-

"Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown-

DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer-

xepherys

Okay, I'm pretty sure I read the entirety of the posts here, but if I bring something back up I apologize. My first question is...

WTF is wrong with you people?

I enlisted, quite of my own accord, in the US Army. I have a better paying civilian job, I have no problematic issues in my life that drove me to the military. I enlisted because I felt it was my duty.

If someone thinks I should die for enlisting, that's fine. If they want to wave a sign on main street saying "Xepherys supports fags because he fights overseas", that's fine. But there are distinct moral lines drawn into even our rights. Human rights are generally defined as those "inalienable" rights that all men and women should have, such that their right do not DIRECTLY infringe on the rights of others.

An extreme example... you can protest abortion. You can protest in front of abortion clinics. You cannot beat a woman walking into the clinic to get an abortion. You cannot burn the clinic down. You cannot poison the woman. You cannot involuntarily rip the fetus from her womb and grow it in an incubator. See where I'm going with this?

If they had this protest downtown? Great! Even on the day of the funeral? Sure, why not! At the fucking cemetery with the family there? The ONLY purpose for this is to try to cause additional grief to the family. There is no other possible explanation. So, we have a god-given, inalienable right to purposefully cause grief to other humans? I'm pretty sure there was no intent implied in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. In fact...

"Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness"...

It makes me happy to scream at children. Can I go to a school playground and stand at the fence yelling obscenities at kids. Screaming at them? Why not? If I do not physically touch them, what am I doing wrong? I mean, I have rights too, right?

The "Founding Fathers" can only be assumed to have penned those documents with the understanding they would be viewed with some of amount of common sense, and likely common decency. Fred Phelps and his cronies seem to have very little of either (likely none of the latter).

At any rate, I support flag burning, I support activist and parades and protesting. I support, as I stated, your freedoms, so long as they do not step on the toes of my freedoms. Perhaps it's a shame the the founders of our country hadn't forecasted something like this and added a specific "Right to Peaceful Mourning". Seriously people? I just can't fucking believe that anyone in their right mind thinks that FP and his gang should have this "right". If you'd kindly all give me your addresses, I'll watch the papers for family deaths and be sure to be there at their funerals causing your families some grief.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

StanT

Harassment isn't protected speech.

The 1st ammendment prevents the government from interfering with Phelp's protest. It does not prevent him from being sued from someone who believes he has been harassed.

The government acted properly in allowing the protest and a father sued believing he had been harassed. I'm not sure about the dollar amount of the judgement, but I really don't see any constitutional issue here.

Telluride

I can't find any mention of "hate speech" in the Bill of Rights. Please tell me where it is.

Phelps and his bunch seem to find this cause meaningful.

I find this court ruling apalling because of my concern for the individual right to protest that which one may find objectionable. And why I feel the ruling is a threat to the right to protest should be pretty obvious: How many people/organizations out there have millions of dollars they can afford to throw away due to bullshit lawsuits? If (or when) this lawsuit becomes a precedent for others, financial ruin will be used as a weapon to discourage protests.

The whole point of protesting is to create a public disturbance.

You don't have a right to privacy except when on private property. And if you turn on your TV, turn on your radio, open a magazine or go outside, you are doing so with the knowledge that you may see or hear things you find objectionable. We don't have a right to be shielded from things that may offend us.

And, in a free country, Phelps and his followers would have the right to do just that.

I still haven't seen how the "victim's" rights were violated.

I agree. But this only works if we have a rational definition of individual rights.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

xxxafterglow

I think of it as a violation of common decency.

I totally support the court's decision - Phelps' group spews hatespeech all over the place. They're getting sued in this one incident.

What about the family's right to grieve in peace? The government also instituted a law to ban protests at federal funerals.

Apparently some people need to be schooled in respect.

I hope this bankrupts his organization. They hate Jews, gays, blacks, minorities, Americans.. they suck.

__________________
Uh huh her.

ngdawg

Mandy lives in South Africa.


What 'cause'? To intentionally inflict pain through verbal abuse?

You need to go over the case again, then. What the WBC is doing is proclaiming some right to free speech. It's a defense, nothing more. Their 'cause', their reason for what they do is purely to harrass and disrupt the solemnity of military funerals.
No, it is not. The primary 'point' of protesting is to protest, be it governmental action or against another group. Those that cause a disturbance seek to do so.


This suit was not about being offended. It was about the emotional distress that resulted from the presence and abusive actions of these lowlifes.
The victim's right to properly mourn and bury his son were violated. I find it ironic and really stupid that the same group that would decry everything that the military defends, including the right of free speech, would turn around and use the same laws they turn their backs on to try and make a defense for themselves by claiming 'free speech'.
That's like using the 'right to bear arms' as a defense for shooting your neighbor in the ass for being unhappy.