| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 4:04:02 PM | We have had discussions before about WBC and in MHO they are a wacked out group that really has no business calling themselves Christian yet they do business under that banner.
A grieving father in Maryland sued the church for invasion of privacy because they protested his sons funeral. They found the group liable to the tune of 11 million dollars.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/funeral_protests;_ylt=AgeHj2bfmCtKNtw3aNcKI_QDW7oF
Do you agree with the verdict, or do you believe that they have the right to express their religious beliefs at anytime or any place they so choose?
For those of you who don't know of this group you can find them on the web under the heading of God hates fags. com | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 4:52:02 PM | I don't think the verdict is going to stand up to an appeal. While I find the group disgusting, I think they would be protected on 'freedom of speech' grounds. While it's crazy to protest this guy, there are no laws against being tasteless.
Some states have passed laws that regulate these type of protests (mainly creating a buffer between the actual funeral), they can not be outlawed completely. Even crazy nutcases have the right to protest. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 5:10:22 PM | OP, I am delighted with this verdict! I think it should probably put them out of business because any and all tithes and offerings that they receive will go to pay off the Judgment.
ilegion: You said you didn't think this would stand up on appeal because it is a First Amendment case. I believe that if it were truly about the Defendants' rights to the Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, it would have been thrown out already.
This is a case that is based on tort law rather than Constitutional Law. It is about the willful emotional distress they inflicted on the family of the deceased soldier at his funeral. They invaded their privacy by picketing the funeral, and they intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on the mourners with their disgusting signs glorifying the deaths of our soldiers. That is what the judgment is about--the civil wrongs the Defendants inflicted on the Snyder family. In our society, civil wrongs are torts, and all actions for civil wrongs are based on tort law as this case is. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 6:17:52 PM | Finally! A court willing to stand up to the Phelps clan!
May this be the first of many such judgements. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 7:06:32 PM |
It is about the willful emotional distress they inflicted on the family of the deceased soldier at his funeral. They invaded their privacy by picketing the funeral, and they intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress on the mourners with their disgusting signs glorifying the deaths of our soldiers. That is what the judgment is about--the civil wrongs the Defendants inflicted on the Snyder family.
Their protest is not directed at the Synder family personally, but the policies that they believe brought about the death of his son. Did they invade the funeral, or protest out on the public street in front of the funeral home? Intentionally inflicted severe emotion distress? I have seen nothing where they attacked this guy personally, just their belief that dead soldiers are just god's will being done. Granted it is a very personal issue with the father since it was his son, but people take all kinds of things personally. I like hunting, so does that mean I can sue all hunting protesters for emotional distress? Did they go after this family personally, or just make the same statements they do at many funerals about god's will being done?
I am not trying to defend this church or their motives, but the question was about the verdict. I still think it will be overturned on appeal. This church is broke anyway, so the verdict really will not have much effect anyway even if it is upheld. They can seize all their property and assets and still all it takes for these guys to protest someone else's funeral is a tank of gasoline and some cardboard signs. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 7:21:23 PM | They are a sick group of people. I like the verdict and they should be held accountable.
And I am not in favor of the America war of aggression, as far as homosexuals as long as they are mutually consenting adults if God has a problem with them I feel confident God can fight his own battles if its such a big deal to him.
What really does jerk my chain though is that they are allowed to call themselves Christian. If I call an oak tree an evergreen it may be my free speach but it dosn't make it true. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 7:33:00 PM | ilegion: You say the protest was not directed at the Synder family personally but at the policies they believe brought about the death of their son.
If that were true, I believe that the suit would not have made it to trial. It takes quite a bit for a lawsuit to actually make it to trial. There are a lot of pre-trial motions and pre-trial conferences that take place. I can't imagine that defense counsel didn't do everything possible to get this suit thrown out on Constitutional grounds, grounds that the plaintiff couldn't show any damages, etc. I believe the fact that it went to trial after discovery and depositions indicated that the plaintiff had a strong case.
Intentional inflictional of emotional distress does not have to be inflicted by actually touching the body. It can be inflicted by words--whether written on signs or shouted from a distance. They did not have to attack Mr. Snyder personally. The fact that his son had just died and they descrated his son's funeral was sufficient to inflict severe emotional distress. The actions of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church "shock the conscience" of most people. To have to arrive at the funeral home and see signs rejoicing that soldiers are dead is unnecessarily traumatic. For the Westboro Baptist Church to do this and to get away with it time after time is shameful. I am glad that someone finally sued them.
As far as these people going to other funerals, they may do that. However, if they are held personally liable for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, they may stop this vile practice before they lose everything they have. Mr. Snyder sued the organization. In the future, lawsuits may be filed against the individual adults who participate in these protests. Granted, most of them are probably broke, but a Judgment is good for many years and wages can be garnished. Also certain intentional torts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 8:15:49 PM | well doesn't this just bring up a bunch of questions.
Like - when are the rights of freedom of religious exercise and free speech no longer valid???????
For example: Is it ok, for a Christian doctor to advertise that s/he does abortions, only to get unwitting patients to the office for Christian counceling or fetus shock theropy? Full knowing that s/he would never do an abortion?
And what about Christians who refuse to give gays, lesbians and transgender all the same employment benefits as provided to the rest of society under the Civil Rights Act.
And those Christians who would use their "freedoms" clause to deny equal treatment under that same law to others.
So exactly were is the line that says "in this case,your freedom is restricted"? Where is that line? | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 10/31/2007 9:42:22 PM | They have the right to express their religious beliefs anywhere at any time.
BUT
People also haver the they right to bury their dead in peace. Protesting a funeral does not qualify as 'just expressing' ones religious beliefs. It is intrusive, disruptive, and violates the rights of the bereaved.
Good on the court for finding in the guy's favour. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:20:02 AM | | I heard the pastor of that "church" on CNN this morning. He is a very sick individual. It totally amazes me that he has 100 people that follow his doctine of hate. Sad. | |
|
| |
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 2:23:35 PM | I cannot believe after reading about this "church", hate to use the word in connection with that bunch, were not charged with a breaking the peace.
Someone mentioned when the right of free speach stops? In a funeral home, for a 20 year old kid who gave his life serving his country is bloody where!
Imagine the loss the family felt, then to have these inconsidarate jack asses , disturb a funeral with their mission of spreading hate. It is quite remarkable, that they got out of the funeral , with out suffering huge bodily injury. Not to show respect for a family suffering from such a loss, at a time like that, is disgusting.
I disagree with only the church being sued. Each and every one who participated also deserve to have judgements placed on them as individuals . 10 million a peice would be fare, to be paid for the rest of their miserable lives . Of course, starting after a 10 year jail sentence for hate crimes.
They got off way too easy for such a heinious crime. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 2:37:26 PM | ilegion
Their protest is not directed at the Synder family personally, but the policies that they believe brought about the death of his son. Did they invade the funeral, or protest out on the public street in front of the funeral home? Intentionally inflicted severe emotion distress? I have seen nothing where they attacked this guy personally, just their belief that dead soldiers are just god's will being done.
I have had the misfortune to have witnessed these people up close. And if they can get the phone number, they do call the family members to shout their filth right to the people grieving. I know one young wife with 2 small children that was dealing with the loss of her husband and these *Christians* invaded her home by telephone to let her know what they thought.
Artz
With a congregation of only 100 how does this church make money?
Ironically they make their money by suing township governments that don’t protect them from attack when they do their protesting. I think it’s only fitting they should suffer the same fate. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 2:46:19 PM | what a bunch of sick SOBs. i am a peacful man But i do see that if I ever came accross these sicko my ist might be tempted to sue them for hurting my fist with their nose. i have ever right to move my hand folded into a fist. If their nose violats my rights to freely move my arms and fist , I should sue.  | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:49:39 PM | They have obviously forgotten the Golden rule... I wonder how these sick bunch of losers would feel if their funeral was protested.
In fact... That gives me an idea... | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 6:47:47 PM | It's an emotionally charged issue, so I realise that tossing my hat into the ring ill probably make some people react to what they think I'm saying, what I'm saying, or what I'm not saying. But I really don't' care.
#1: They are a sick bunch of legalists who defame the name of Christ when they spew their filth and hatred. I can't stand them and their intolerance. they are an embarrassment to anything "Christian".
#2: The Constitutional guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Expression seem to only apply when the government seeks to silence. In this case it seems that using Tort Law did an end run around those Constitutional guarantees. That's not a Good Thing. Or maybe they did exercise those rights and the jury found that in the exercise of those rights they did harm, making the issue of Freedom of Speech irrelevant (they can speak all they want, but not without penalty if a jury finds them at fault). A bit of a Slippery Slope in terms of eroding rights.
#3: You cannot claim to support the Right to Free Speech if you make it conditional on whether you like what someone says or not. It is a right regardless of the content of the speech. In other words, how much you are willing to uphold the rights of the most intolerable and unpleasant speech is probably a better indicator of your commitment to these rights than how you do the same for people you like and agree with.
#4: The jury's verdict was an emotional one as far as I can see and they will probably win on appeal. The award is far in excess of any real damage done and was probably given as a means of punishing them for saying "Bad Things". That's not a good way for a jury to make a decision and will probably ease any appeal. However the cost of defending and appealing the action will serve as sufficient monetary punishment to make a wise person think again before repeating the action.
#5: The action will probably serve to gather more support for them and I'm sure they'll find other haters willing to help them in their "hour of need". It will definitely serve to make martyrs of them and give them a sense of justification that they are indeed doing the Right Thing. Thus it may have the opposite effect than intended -- if the intention was to make them come to their senses.
And once again...
They are a sick bunch of legalists who defame the name of Christ when they spew their filth and hatred. I can't stand them and their intolerance. They are an embarrassment to anything "Christian". | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:24:05 PM | Okay folks... really... "And Can It Be" is right. We are given a constitutional right to freedom of speech (especially in regards to political speech). However, we are held liable for certain things:
False advertising
Intentionally spreading damaging lies about someone (slander)
Etc all
This isn't a "slippery slope" this is holding people accountable for their speech. It's been around since the birth of the country. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:25:58 PM | My thought exactly, optimist. I oppose what they said and the manner in which they said it , but they have a right to express their view. The verdict seems to send a message that you can protest as long as you don't upset anyone. Rubbish! I'm sure it will be overturned on appeal.
It doesn't seem that the church had this particular family was singled out for some reason. It seems that the group wanted a very public venue to spread their message. And for them, the funeral of a fallen soldier was just that venue. So they got publicity and that was really what they wanted in the first place. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:36:12 PM | I do not see how freedom of spech can be an issue at a funeral. A funeral is not a public forum , and the family has reasonable expectations to hold one in order to honour their love one.
Every thing about a funeral, is an invited event. Someone cannot , for example, just show up and insist on speaking at one. A funeral, is a privately payed for and privately organized event. In other words, you are only there as a guest of that family.
A bar for example, can enforce certain codes of conduct, and expell anyone not meeting those codes. Surley a funeral, privately funded by the family, deceased, or by benefits from their employer, has the same rights to have reasonable expectations of acceptable conduct.
To say no real harm was done is in correct, sorry. The grief of losing a son so young, is very stressfull, to have this occur during a ceremony to help heal the family, is very disturbing.
I really cannot imagine that occuring, with out violence breaking out. Have no idea how members of that family had the dicipline to not force them out of there. Afraid my ability to turn the other cheek would not be sufficent to overcome that.
No, a funeral is not a public forum and a lot of damage was done by those zelots. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 7:46:41 PM | | The funeral itself and the church where it was held is not a public forum, but the streets where the protesters were standing is public property and if they were really causing that much of a disturbance wouldn't the police have broken them up? Again, I don't agree with what they did, but their rights to express their views must be upheld. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 9:40:21 PM |
do not see how freedom of spech can be an issue at a funeral. A funeral is not a public forum , and the family has reasonable expectations to hold one in order to honour their love one.
It's my understanding that the "speech" occurred _outside_ the funeral. Unless you mean to shut down a city when a funeral is occurring? A specified number of city blocks perhaps?
The Constitution makes no condition that says when or where Freedom of Speech may or may not occur, and the consensus has been that there is no restriction, especially if the Speech is political or dissenting. The USSC has allowed very few restrictions to Speech. It might be interesting to see if this ever gets to the USSC whether they will make funerals "off limits' to dissenting speech. I doubt they will.
To say no real harm was done is in correct
If you're referring to what I said, you misquote me. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/1/2007 10:19:34 PM | Perhaps I have the story wrong, was sure I read in the paper that they enetered the services in the toronto Sun. Will have to double check.
How ever it does not negate my opinion, as part of the service involves the removal of the casket while the family escorts it to the hearst. There is no need to ever cause un due stress to the family members by being out side protesting.
It is a hate crime, pure and simple to me, not sure if you have them in the States ?
That boy, gave his life for a higher calling, deserved dignity and his family deserved a day to honour him. These creeps, took the dignity from his service and denied the family the right to honour him. They infringed on the right of the family, to bury their son with dignity , and to grieve their loss. Even if the freaks stayed out side. ( will not dignify them by refering to them as protesters)
They owe big time, do not deserve the freedoms guaranteed them by people like that Marine, and really deserve to be horse whipped for their callousness. Freedom of speech? They can write an editorial, protest city hall, do a freaking naked sit down while covered in honey at a botanical garden.
They do not have the right to disrupt a funeral. | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:35:06 AM | These guys act like a bunch of luns. What they did was horrible and they really need to apologize for that. That cult is very dangerous and they need to be watched carefully because them and other "sects" like them bring problems to the Church.
| |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/2/2007 5:58:00 AM | Hey look at all the publicity they got, lets send some money, if not for hate, for freedom of speach Yea Man. They brought it to the front page, its on CNN, It is "ILLEGAL" to take a picture of an American Killed In Action.
The Americn flag over a casket of an American citizen killed while serving America interests over seas is still illegal right??
No picture of American dead ????
Presidential decree ????
By The Pres HE SAID NO PICTURES
THIS IS LAW
NO pictures by the pres. This is America HE said F them. They are just pawns in the devils playground
Arrgh,, you folks that im writting for upset me so much | |
|
| Westboro Baptist Church Sued
Posted: 11/2/2007 7:40:36 AM | Romanticoptimist: I don't see this as a free speech issue because the defendants do not target their message at the general public. They target a specific class of people--the families of deceased soldiers or deceased gay persons. By targetting a specific audience, I believe that they are invading the privacy of the funeral even if they are 1,000 feet away. I don't know how it could not be emotionally distressing to know that a group of protesters are thanking God that your loved one died.
In the tort of defamation, some things are so obviously defamatory that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove that he was defamed. Just the fact that certain accusations were publically made against him is sufficient to prove "slander per se." That means that it is accepted that such outrageous accusation harm the reputation of anyone without the need for further proof.
I know there is not such a showing of "intent to inflict emotional distress per se," but if anything were to meet the test of not having to be proven to inflict emotional distress, having a group of protesters rejoicing at the death of your loved one would certainly meet the test in my opinion. Maybe one day this will be a "per se" infliction of emotional distress that will not need to be proven because it so shocks the conscience that a reasonable person cannot imagine that it would do anything but inflict great emotional distress and suffering.
The Westboro Baptist Church is not targetting the general public with their protests. They are not going out on a Friday afternoon and standing by a busy street with their signs. They are waiting until there is a death and then swooping down on the bereaved family like a pack of vultures. Just because they stay 1,000 feet away does not nullify the fact that these are CHOSEN VICTIMS rather than members of the general public.
If the Westboro Baptist Church were to protest every Friday on different streets so that passing motorists could see their odious signs, I would say it is a free speech issue. The fact that they target specific people takes it out of the realm of free speech and into the realm of tort law. I believe that the judgment will be upheld on appeal even if it is reduced. | |
|
Home
login 
