Westboro Baptist Church fined $11 million

[Balta1701]

We've heard enough of these guys that I figured this might as well be posted.

A federal jury in Baltimore awarded nearly $11 million in damages yesterday to the family of a Marine from Maryland whose funeral was disrupted by members of a Kansas-based fundamentalist church.

 

One of the defendants said the civil award was the first against the church, whose members have stirred anger across the nation by picketing at funerals for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, often carrying placards bearing virulent anti-gay slogans. The church maintains that God is punishing the United States, killing and maiming troops, because the country tolerates homosexuality.

 

Fred Phelps, pastor of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church, scoffed at the jury and the award.

 

"It was a bunch of silly heads passing judgment on God," he said. "I don't believe anyone in the courtroom knows what the First Amendment is. Religious views are expressly protected by the First Amendment. You can't prosecute a preacher in civil law or in criminal law for what he preaches."

 

Phelps said the church would appeal, and he predicted that a higher court would overturn the award "in five minutes."

 

In the lawsuit, the family of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder argued that it had suffered invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress.

 

"The fact of the matter is, a funeral's private," said one of their attorneys, Sean Summers. "There was no public concern when [church members] showed up with a 'God Hates You' sign."

 

...

Shirley Phelps-Roper said the verdict made her 50th birthday yesterday a happier one. She said the verdict would help the church, many of whose members are from the Phelps family, get its message out.

 

"We're making new signs: 'Thank God for $10.9 million.' Listen to that amount. It's so laughable," she said. "It was all I could do not to laugh. You guys think you can change God?"

[Texsox]

If funerals are not private, I do not know what would be. If common sense a decency does not stop them, then maybe fining them into oblivion will.

 

Have the Baptist allowed him to continue any official connections to the Baptist Church? I cannot believe they would. I even dislike his little band of hate called a Church.

[NorthSideSox72]

I hope there is a hell.

 

[Texsox]

I hope there is a hell.

 

I'd really like them to have a little chat with God first. Then bye bye*.

 

*unless they change their ways and are forgiven.

[sox4lifeinPA]

unfortunately, this sets back the separation of church and state argument a few years

[Texsox]

unfortunately, this sets back the separation of church and state argument a few years

 

I really do not think so. The State is not creating a Church. They are enforcing laws, and even Churches are required to follow the law. If you ran a store and they walked in and started screaming at your customers and chasing them out of your store, you can have them removed. The popular phrase is, your right to free speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater.

[NorthSideSox72]

unfortunately, this sets back the separation of church and state argument a few years

I don't see how this case has any connection there whatsoever. The suit was about the behavior of people, so they are the real targets anyway. And are you suggesting that all organizations that claim to be a "church" should have blanket immunity from civil litigation? Because that would take the separation of church and state to a level beyond anything I've seen.

 

[Texsox]

They are free to make their statements in other venues, take out newspaper ads, whatever. I think our society should make distinctions in where certain speech can take place.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I don't see how this case has any connection there whatsoever. The suit was about the behavior of people, so they are the real targets anyway. And are you suggesting that all organizations that claim to be a "church" should have blanket immunity from civil litigation? Because that would take the separation of church and state to a level beyond anything I've seen.

 

 

 

joke Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[johk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, joked, jok·ing.

–noun 1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.

2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.

3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.

4. something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class.

 

[Texsox]

PA, because there are real Church and State issues that Phelps brought up, and you would be the most likely, (of a group of not likely) to agree with that point of view, I responded seriously. Although, IIRC you have not agreed with the hate he spews. People who thinks he has the right to spew do not necessarily agree with what is being said, just his right to say it.

[NorthSideSox72]

joke Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[johk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, joked, jok·ing.

–noun 1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.

2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.

3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.

4. something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class.

Font color.

 

[Soxbadger]

Its going to be really hard for an appeal court to uphold this decision.

 

I dont know what happened, but 11mil in compensatory damages would be insane, so did they some how get punitive?

 

With out the exact facts, it is really hard to comment, but I am some what perplexed by the decision. In public you have almost no right to privacy, so as long as these people were protesting in public, there is really nothing legally they may have done wrong. Sure it is sick behavior, but Im not sure what theory of law you could really say they broke.

 

If your in public, how can your privacy be invaded?

 

If the funeral service was in their home, and the protesters snuck in, then sure they have a great case. But if you are out in the open, its really hard.

 

Its clear they were not on private property, because once your on private land you no longer can use the first amendment as a shield, because first amendment only prevents govt action, not private action. Therefore it had to be public land otherwise they would have just been thrown out and arrested when they did it.

 

My guess is over turned at the appellate level.

 

 

[Texsox]

If your in public, how can your privacy be invaded?

 

If you rent a hall, picnic, area, etc. can you exclude people from coming in? That seems to be the salient point.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Font color.

 

 

I thought the " " made that clear.

[sox4lifeinPA]

PA, because there are real Church and State issues that Phelps brought up, and you would be the most likely, (of a group of not likely) to agree with that point of view, I responded seriously. Although, IIRC you have not agreed with the hate he spews. People who thinks he has the right to spew do not necessarily agree with what is being said, just his right to say it.

 

 

I most certainly disagree with Westboro as I most certainly disagree with many churches, but that's neither here nor there.

 

I think if people practiced in application exactly what Jesus taught, there'd be no reason to have a separation: people would give of their time, gifts, and money freely and we wouldn't have (to the degree we do) some of the issues we suffer from. Unfortunately, there are people like Westboro who pollute the ways of Christ and therefore, I believe in a necessary boundary between church and state because of that.

 

That being said, I'm just surprised no one has rented huge loud speakers playing an assortment of "no doubt "and "green day" and parked them out front of their church every time they meet to annoy the hell out of them (I'd last about 30 minutes).

 

just a thought.

[Jenksismyhero]

Its going to be really hard for an appeal court to uphold this decision.

 

I dont know what happened, but 11mil in compensatory damages would be insane, so did they some how get punitive?

 

With out the exact facts, it is really hard to comment, but I am some what perplexed by the decision. In public you have almost no right to privacy, so as long as these people were protesting in public, there is really nothing legally they may have done wrong. Sure it is sick behavior, but Im not sure what theory of law you could really say they broke.

 

If your in public, how can your privacy be invaded?

 

If the funeral service was in their home, and the protesters snuck in, then sure they have a great case. But if you are out in the open, its really hard.

 

Its clear they were not on private property, because once your on private land you no longer can use the first amendment as a shield, because first amendment only prevents govt action, not private action. Therefore it had to be public land otherwise they would have just been thrown out and arrested when they did it.

 

My guess is over turned at the appellate level.

 

 

I haven't read any opinion either - maybe a state law was in play?

[Soxbadger]

Well I read "jury verdict"

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-896.ZO.html

 

And that was all that could come to my mind.

[southsider2k5]

Its going to be really hard for an appeal court to uphold this decision.

 

I dont know what happened, but 11mil in compensatory damages would be insane, so did they some how get punitive?

 

With out the exact facts, it is really hard to comment, but I am some what perplexed by the decision. In public you have almost no right to privacy, so as long as these people were protesting in public, there is really nothing legally they may have done wrong. Sure it is sick behavior, but Im not sure what theory of law you could really say they broke.

 

If your in public, how can your privacy be invaded?

 

If the funeral service was in their home, and the protesters snuck in, then sure they have a great case. But if you are out in the open, its really hard.

 

Its clear they were not on private property, because once your on private land you no longer can use the first amendment as a shield, because first amendment only prevents govt action, not private action. Therefore it had to be public land otherwise they would have just been thrown out and arrested when they did it.

 

My guess is over turned at the appellate level.

 

That is kind of what I was thinking off of the top of my head. As much of scumbags as they jerks are, I don't see exactly what law they broke. You could really take judgement and expand it into areas that you don't want to go into, and pretty much destroy freedom of speech. What is to stop them from banning protesters in public areas such as Daley Center, because of the emotional distress and expectation of privacy someone has at work? As a person who values the constitution, I see this ruling as a violation of free speech, no matter how much I don't like the speech.

[Texsox]

I would hope that we could come up with some legal way to protect private events that are held in semi-public venues. You can stop someone from trespassing at your wedding, even if it is in a public hall you are renting. You can stop someone from yelling fire in a theater. I can't believe the law would allow someone to set up amplifiers outside a business and drive away customers. During a funeral, the mourners are customers of the funeral home. There has to be some protection for the business.

[Soxbadger]

I can't believe the law would allow someone to set up amplifiers outside a business and drive away customers. During a funeral, the mourners are customers of the funeral home. There has to be some protection for the business.

 

You could not set up speakers, they could stop you for noise violations etc. Govt has the right to control, time, place, and manner of the protest so long as it is content neutral.

 

I dont know the facts, but my guess is that they stand outside the cemetery and yell. Not really sure once again how you can stop that.

 

For example, at Clark and Sheridan there is a cemetery, Graceland or whatever. From the street, you could yell at people inside. Thats not against the law, its being a jerk. Now cemeteries could build walls, etc that could prevent this, but then again thats not free.

 

My guess is that they tried intentional infliction of emotional distress and lost, because that is more inline with what happened. Ive yet to see how they had a privacy right when they were availing themselves to the public.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

From what I understand, the WBC made disparaging comments about this family's deceased which could be deemed as both harrassment and slander/libel on their website.

 

Protesting a funeral from a spot on public property is IMO a completely reprehensible, but legitimate, exercise of free speech and assembly. This lawsuit is pure BS.

[sox4lifeinPA]

hire bodyguards with blanks in their guns and start shooting at the protestors.

[southsider2k5]

From what I understand, the WBC made disparaging comments about this family's deceased which could be deemed as both harrassment and slander/libel on their website.

 

Protesting a funeral from a spot on public property is IMO a completely reprehensible, but legitimate, exercise of free speech and assembly. This lawsuit is pure BS.

 

Slander/libel, I could understand, but I didn't get that from the articles that I have read about this.

 

I agree with your last paragraph 100%. The speech we should protect the most is the speech we like the least.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Slander/libel, I could understand, but I didn't get that from the articles that I have read about this.

 

I agree with your last paragraph 100%. The speech we should protect the most is the speech we like the least.

 

 

cool.

 

The Beatles suck.

[Jenksismyhero]

My guess is that they tried intentional infliction of emotional distress and lost, because that is more inline with what happened. Ive yet to see how they had a privacy right when they were availing themselves to the public.

 

From the two articles I read this was count II and they won on both counts.

 

And I'm not so sure on the privacy issue. I think its arguable they violated the privacy rights of the family. The Court has decided before that there exists a "right" to be "left alone" in certain situations. In Hill v. Colorado for example, the Court validated a state law that forced abortion protestors to stay at least 8 feet away from the entrance of an abortion clinic because of the rights of the clinics patients from being harassed. I remember another case too about protestors at a hospital where the Court essentially said there's a sound policy reason for keeping those people away from patients because of their need for peace and quiet to recover. They've essentially set up a balancing test between the rights to be left alone and the importance of letting the speech continue.

 

EDIT: I would argue that a cemetery is like that of a clinic or hospital - what happens "inside" is private.

 

I gotta believe that Maryland, like most other states, has enacted some sort of law against this - so long as its narrowly tailored and compelling (can't do it at or near a cemetery during a funeral would seem to be narrow enough) I think any court would uphold it.

 

The amount on the other hand will probably be dropped - a lot. I read an article somewhere that said the church's assets are well under a million. I want to know how they afford their legal fees - from a small lexis search this church has had a lot of cases the past decade or so.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Jenksismybitch