Military funeral protestors must pay father $11M

[Logan13]

Military funeral protestors must pay father $11M
Gateway pundit.com

The Westboro Cult members must pay the father of the fallen Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder $2.9 million in damages for picketing at the Marine's funeral.
Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder was killed in March 2006 in Iraq.
Westboro cult members protested at his funeral.
The father of the fallen Marine wept in court describing the pain the Kansas clan caused his family.
Now they will pay him.
Baltimore — The father of a fallen Marine has been awarded $2.9 million by a jury that found leaders of a fundamentalist church had invaded the family's privacy when they picketed the Marine's funeral.

The protesters from Topeka-based Westboro Baptist church at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder carried signs with messages like "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers." They say the deaths are punishment for the country's tolerance of homosexuality.

In an opening statement Tuesday, Shirley Phelps-Roper compared members church members to biblical prophets who sought to save doomed nations that had strayed from God.

Phelps-Rogers is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, which was being sued by Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., over a protest at the funeral of his son in Maryland.

Snyder's doctor says he has health problems and trouble sleeping.

His son, Matthew Snyder of Westminster, was killed fighting with the Marines in Iraq.

After the Westboro Baptist Church protested at his son's funeral, Snyder filed an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against the church. He was also seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The church says it's exercising its free speech rights.
STACLU is following the tragedy.
Michelle Malkin has a roundup on today's decision.

UPDATE: The AP reported:

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress to the Marine's father, Albert Snyder of York, Pa.

[Tock]

This verdict won't stand. The Christians who did the protesting, IMHO, have the right to protest where they like, and say what they like. I feel bad for the relatives of the fallen soldier, and I regard the crazy Christians as loathsome slime, but it's very bad polict to punish protestors based on the content of their message. If these Christians can be punished for what they said, then other protestors can be punished for their unpopular views.

Ya, this verdict won't stand up on appeal.

[RA]

Just dont try and lump these crazies in with normal Christians. The lady was on Fox and shes several sandwiches short of a picnic.

This verdict won't stand. The Christians who did the protesting, IMHO, have the right to protest where they like, and say what they like. I feel bad for the relatives of the fallen soldier, and I regard the crazy Christians as loathsome slime, but it's very bad polict to punish protestors based on the content of their message. If these Christians can be punished for what they said, then other protestors can be punished for their unpopular views.

Ya, this verdict won't stand up on appeal.

[Logan13]

This verdict won't stand. The Christians who did the protesting, IMHO, have the right to protest where they like, and say what they like. I feel bad for the relatives of the fallen soldier, and I regard the crazy Christians as loathsome slime, but it's very bad polict to punish protestors based on the content of their message. If these Christians can be punished for what they said, then other protestors can be punished for their unpopular views.

Ya, this verdict won't stand up on appeal.

This is not free speech, it is hate speech. Do you realize that these nuts attended these funerals with signs that said:
"US soldiers are being killed in Iraq because the US accepts homosexuals"?

[LawMan018]

This is not free speech, it is hate speech. Do you realize that these nuts attended these funerals with signs that said:
"US soldiers are being killed in Iraq because the US accepts homosexuals"?

If they are not able to do that, then we have lost an amendment... it may be hateful speech, but they still have the freedom to say it. I personally wish death upon these people because they are horrible people and twisting the Christian faith into something that is hateful. I mean honestly, would Jesus (regardless what religion you are, this topic concerns Christians) really be picketing at peoples funerals? No, he'd do more productive things...

[JDawg1536]

I think the most important question is, why hasnt anyone beat the shit out of these people yet?

[j4ever41]

Bump jdawg.

[Tock]

Just dont try and lump these crazies in with normal Christians. The lady was on Fox and shes several sandwiches short of a picnic.

Who am I to decide who's a True Christian and who is not?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who feels that they are Christian, is.

[Tock]

This is not free speech, it is hate speech. Do you realize that these nuts attended these funerals with signs that said:
"US soldiers are being killed in Iraq because the US accepts homosexuals"?

Yes, I know what their signs say. I've seen them protest at memorials for AIDS victims; I've seen their filthy signs at my friend's funerals.

They are full of hate, stupidity, etc etc etc. But the only thing worse than them publicly displaying their Christian-inspired stupidity would be the US Government censoring them because of what they had to say, because if the gov't can censor them, then the gov't can censor anyone.

It may surprise you, but I've never been a big fan of anti-hate crime laws. It surprises me to think that you would support them . . .

[Logan13]

Yes, I know what their signs say. I've seen them protest at memorials for AIDS victims; I've seen their filthy signs at my friend's funerals.

They are full of hate, stupidity, etc etc etc. But the only thing worse than them publicly displaying their Christian-inspired stupidity would be the US Government censoring them because of what they had to say, because if the gov't can censor them, then the gov't can censor anyone.

It may surprise you, but I've never been a big fan of anti-hate crime laws. It surprises me to think that you would support them . . .

Free speech does not come without responsibility. The first amendment is not "I can say anything that I want to anyone with impunity". A few of you seem overly concerned with those making the hate speech. What about the family of this marine, do they not have any rights?

[spywizard]

This is not free speech, it is hate speech. Do you realize that these nuts attended these funerals with signs that said:
"US soldiers are being killed in Iraq because the US accepts homosexuals"?

hate speech is free speech..
or am i wrong??

lewis farrakhan fills the airways with so much hate speech.... oh wait, is he in jail??

and there are many many other examples..

[Logan13]

hate speech is free speech..
or am i wrong??

lewis farrakhan fills the airways with so much hate speech.... oh wait, is he in jail??

and there are many many other examples..

Again, what about the rights of the family? Ever hear of slander. There are no limitations to free speech, anyone can say whatever they please. This does not mean that anyone can say anything to anyone without some consequences.
AP
"A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries."

"The exercising of your rights does not extend to the harm of another, or the violation of the rights of another, the exercise of your rights have been rightly modified, or abridged in that case." Thomas Jefferson 1782

[spywizard]

Again, what about the rights of the family? Ever hear of slander. There are no limitations to free speech, anyone can say whatever they please. This does not mean that anyone can say anything to anyone without some consequences.

yes it does..


Slander

Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community

that did not happen..

I'm not saying what they did wasn't wrong, for i feel that it was.. but they have the right to say it..

Limiting speech, even hate speech is wrong, and yes there are repercussions, but they should not be Gov enforced..

[Logan13]

yes it does..


Slander

Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community

that did not happen..

I'm not saying what they did wasn't wrong, for i feel that it was.. but they have the right to say it..

Limiting speech, even hate speech is wrong, and yes there are repercussions, but they should not be Gov enforced..

They were not told that they could not exercise free speech, and no one removed them from the site of protest. They exercised their right, and now they have been held accountable for the damage that came from it. The grounds for the suit were invasion of privacy and causing emotional distress. Can any sane person say that their actions did not result in either of these?

[Amorphic]

fundamentalist religious groups of all kinds need to be done away with, simple as that.

[spywizard]

They were not told that they could not exercise free speech, and no one removed them from the site of protest. They exercised their right, and now they have been held accountable for the damage that came from it. The grounds for the suit were invasion of privacy and causing emotional distress. Can any sane person say that their actions did not result in either of these?

actually, the word is "reasonable person" and what will happen is the church will have a insurance policy or not to cover the actions of the employ in the church..

Either way, it's about lawyers making money..

All the hate speech against the president.. should those people be sued for slander??

[Lexed]

I wouldnt mind kicking some ass there and going to jail for it.

[Coop77]

This verdict won't stand. The Christians who did the protesting, IMHO, have the right to protest where they like, and say what they like. I feel bad for the relatives of the fallen soldier, and I regard the crazy Christians as loathsome slime, but it's very bad polict to punish protestors based on the content of their message. If these Christians can be punished for what they said, then other protestors can be punished for their unpopular views.

Ya, this verdict won't stand up on appeal.

If they are not able to do that, then we have lost an amendment... it may be hateful speech, but they still have the freedom to say it. I personally wish death upon these people because they are horrible people and twisting the Christian faith into something that is hateful. I mean honestly, would Jesus (regardless what religion you are, this topic concerns Christians) really be picketing at peoples funerals? No, he'd do more productive things...

They're not being sued for what they're saying, they're being sued for how they're saying it. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to march through a library with a megaphone, or stand in the middle of traffic with a sign, or disrupt someone's funeral.

[AandF6969]

Were they actually IN the funeral? Or were they on public grounds away from the venue?

[Fat Guy]

Remember boys and girls there is no yelling “FIRE” in a movie theater.

[Logan13]

actually, the word is "reasonable person" and what will happen is the church will have a insurance policy or not to cover the actions of the employ in the church..

Either way, it's about lawyers making money..

All the hate speech against the president.. should those people be sued for slander??

opinions do not equate to slander. But we all have the right of privacy as well.

[Logan13]

[QUOTE=spywizard;3693758]actually, the word is "reasonable person"
[QUOTE]
I was not using legal-ease, just making a statement.

[Tock]

Again, what about the rights of the family? Ever hear of slander. There are no limitations to free speech, anyone can say whatever they please. This does not mean that anyone can say anything to anyone without some consequences.

When this Christian idiot protested at gay funerals or at gay memorials
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv7xea0vNl8
nobody ever said, "What about the rights of the bereaved gay people?"
Nope, nobody cared until this Christian idiot started to rag on heterosexuals and military corpses.

It was my view back then, as it is now, he's got the right to protest on public property. Nobody has to like it, but he's got the right. And, speaking as somebody who grabs a picket sign and protests unpopular things from time to time, I can see the importance of preserving the Constitutional freedom to protest unpopular things on public property.

I can't imagine that you, of all people, would want to trade that Constitutional freedom in exchange for peace and quiet at military funerals.

[Tock]

They're not being sued for what they're saying, they're being sued for how they're saying it. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to march through a library with a megaphone, or stand in the middle of traffic with a sign, or disrupt someone's funeral.

Local noise ordinances should regulate megaphones, and local traffic regulations should regulate protesters who obstruct traffic. Local law enforcement should enforce whatever the local rules might be.
As far as disrupting public assemblies, be they management meetings, funerals, church meetings, city council or state legislative meetings, no public assembly has the right to be free from citizens exercising their first Amendment Constitutional rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, if obnoxious Christians want to exercise their rights to gloat or criticise other folks on public land, that's their right. They'll make people angry, or very sad, but that's the price ya gotta pay to live in a country where the gov't doesn't regulate your freedoms.
Of course, they'll make themselves look astonishingly stupid, but that's their problem.

[Logan13]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Webster defines "peaceful"........
1:a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a:freedom from civil disturbance b: a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>
2: freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3: harmony in personal relations
4 a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments b: a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5—used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
— at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity

I do not think that those at the funeral would have called this a peaceful assembly, unless you would like to redefine the word peaceful..........

[abstrack]

This verdict won't stand. The Christians who did the protesting, IMHO, have the right to protest where they like, and say what they like. I feel bad for the relatives of the fallen soldier, and I regard the crazy Christians as loathsome slime, but it's very bad polict to punish protestors based on the content of their message. If these Christians can be punished for what they said, then other protestors can be punished for their unpopular views.

Ya, this verdict won't stand up on appeal.

Who in their right mind see people protesting at a FUNERAL as being in their right.

I hope the church they represent goes under trying to pay off the debt. Their a bunch of savages

[Tock]

Webster defines "peaceful"........
1:a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a:freedom from civil disturbance b: a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>
2: freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3: harmony in personal relations
4 a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments b: a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5—used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
— at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity

I do not think that those at the funeral would have called this a peaceful assembly, unless you would like to redefine the word peaceful..........

The Constitution does not guarantee that people's feelings won't be hurt.
Nobody cared if my feelings were hurt when those Christian idiots picketed at my gay friend's funeral. I don't see why a soldier has a Constitutional rights to a picket-free funeral, and my gay friend who died of AIDS does not.

IMHO, so long as protesters comply with local noise and sign ordinances, and do not obstruct traffic or cause a riot, then they get to protest where they want and who they want. I have no appetite for the government telling anyone what they can and cannot protest.

[Teabagger]

I hate to , but I have to agree with those who believe the 1st Amend. is pretty much absolute. As I believe it was Voltaire that said, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

A famous journalist said, just because you have the right to do it, does not mean it is the right thing to do....

So...heres my take. Civility is gone in our society, and it has been killed by the ACLU and the touchy feely baby boomers. Look, 100 years ago if someone said something only mildly offensive, lets say to your wife, you knocked the shit out him right there and that was pretty much the end of it. But not today...you would be arrested, charged, convicted and then sued by some scum bag lawyer in a civil court....all because you popped some dirtbag in the mouth for saying he'd like to pump your ole lady.

People are not held accountable for their speech today....unless you're a white guy and use the all terrible "N" word, a word used daily by one segment of our society. Then of course there is no "free speech"....

And Tock....I have commented before that this group is evil and disgusting, this is not a gay thing....so don't get on the victim wagon just yet

[Logan13]

The Constitution does not guarantee that people's feelings won't be hurt.
Nobody cared if my feelings were hurt when those Christian idiots picketed at my gay friend's funeral. I don't see why a soldier has a Constitutional rights to a picket-free funeral, and my gay friend who died of AIDS does not.

IMHO, so long as protesters comply with local noise and sign ordinances, and do not obstruct traffic or cause a riot, then they get to protest where they want and who they want. I have no appetite for the government telling anyone what they can and cannot protest.

So you are using a different definition for peacably.....

[Tock]

So you are using a different definition for peacably.....

Evidently so.

IMHO, as applied to Constitutional law, it means absence of public rioting. It does not mean absence of anything that may make you unhappy.

Do you beleive the US Constitution guarantees you the right to be free from other people's speech that makes you unhappy?

[Tock]

Who in their right mind see people protesting at a FUNERAL as being in their right.

Me.

I'm sure I'm not the only one. Nobody in their right mind want the government to make a list of things that Americans can no longer protest.

[Logan13]

Evidently so.

Do you beleive the US Constitution guarantees you the right to be free from other people's speech that makes you unhappy?

Yes, there are laws against harassment.

[thegodfather]

You have no expectation of privacy at a funeral grounds. Anyplace that is visible from some sort of public grounds, means that you have no expectation of privacy. That is why celebrities who get their pictures snapped on PRIVATE beaches, however which are still viewable from public areas, cannot sue as they have no expectation of privacy being OUTSIDE.

You dont agree with their message, NEITHER DO I. However, why would you ever want to set a legal prescedant that would one day be able to destroy your right to say something negative about something other people might find unpopular?

Are you serious, they said something and now they have to pay the price and be held accountable for it? Last time I checked, thats not how we did things in this country, I didnt get a court judgement against me for $100 everytime I called someone an asshole, jerkoff, ****head, dipshit, etc when driving through traffic. If that is the society that you want to live in, go head bro, but thats not the place I want to live. This kind of court prescedant has a cascade effect, I hope no one here is to naive to realize that.

[gixxerboy1]

I think its very wrong but legal

[BgMc31]

I hate to , but I have to agree with those who believe the 1st Amend. is pretty much absolute. As I believe it was Voltaire that said, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

A famous journalist said, just because you have the right to do it, does not mean it is the right thing to do....

So...heres my take. Civility is gone in our society, and it has been killed by the ACLU and the touchy feely baby boomers. Look, 100 years ago if someone said something only mildly offensive, lets say to your wife, you knocked the shit out him right there and that was pretty much the end of it. But not today...you would be arrested, charged, convicted and then sued by some scum bag lawyer in a civil court....all because you popped some dirtbag in the mouth for saying he'd like to pump your ole lady.

People are not held accountable for their speech today....unless you're a white guy and use the all terrible "N" word, a word used daily by one segment of our society. Then of course there is no "free speech"....

And Tock....I have commented before that this group is evil and disgusting, this is not a gay thing....so don't get on the victim wagon just yet

Keep it real dude, it's not only used daily by one segment of our society, its just that the 'other' segment of our society lies about using it daily and only uses it behind close doors.

[Logan13]

You have no expectation of privacy at a funeral grounds. Anyplace that is visible from some sort of public grounds, means that you have no expectation of privacy. That is why celebrities who get their pictures snapped on PRIVATE beaches, however which are still viewable from public areas, cannot sue as they have no expectation of privacy being OUTSIDE.

You dont agree with their message, NEITHER DO I. However, why would you ever want to set a legal prescedant that would one day be able to destroy your right to say something negative about something other people might find unpopular?

Are you serious, they said something and now they have to pay the price and be held accountable for it? Last time I checked, thats not how we did things in this country, I didnt get a court judgement against me for $100 everytime I called someone an asshole, jerkoff, ****head, dipshit, etc when driving through traffic. If that is the society that you want to live in, go head bro, but thats not the place I want to live. This kind of court prescedant has a cascade effect, I hope no one here is to naive to realize that.

People need to be held accountable for what they say. All groups should be able to expect acountability.....Imus comes to mind. You own your words, you can not escape them. There are, after-all, harassment laws that need to be followed as well. Harassing someone in the process of exercising your right to free speech is unacceptable. The crazies out there had better learn this.

[Logan13]

I think its very wrong but legal

They are not saying that it was illegal. The state did not bring forth this litigation. This "church" was sued by the family for harassment, etc..... Can any sane person seriously say that what this "church" did to this family does not equate to harassment?

[Tock]

Can any sane person seriously say that what this "church" did to this family does not equate to harassment?

Sure.

The action was against soldiers in general, not that one in particular.

What they did was tacky, mean, crude, and stupid in the extreme. But the same could have been said about anti-Vietnam War protestors, gay rights protestors, anti-abortion protestors, etc etc etc.

Now, if they had focused their verbal abuse against one particular soldier, and said something like, "Pvt. John Doe is immoral because of his war actions," then that would probably constitute slander (unless he actually did commit some immoral actions), and they could be found liable in court.

You might consider taking a Law 101 class sometime . . .

[Logan13]

Sure.

The action was against soldiers in general, not that one in particular.

What they did was tacky, mean, crude, and stupid in the extreme. But the same could have been said about anti-Vietnam War protestors, gay rights protestors, anti-abortion protestors, etc etc etc.

Now, if they had focused their verbal abuse against one particular soldier, and said something like, "Pvt. John Doe is immoral because of his war actions," then that would probably constitute slander (unless he actually did commit some immoral actions), and they could be found liable in court.

You might consider taking a Law 101 class sometime . . .

By protesting at this one soldiers' funeral, they were focusing on a particular one. We are not talking about "what is against the law" here. It is not against the law to exercise your freedom of speech. This speech was used to harass the family at the funeral of their son. If someone followed you and your friends around town making "anti-gay" statements, would you not feel that you were being harassed? I'll bet money that you would..........
The first amendment does not give anyone the right to harass another.
As for your law 101 comment, what does slander have to do with anything in this situation. Inventing a scenario in an effort to appear "smart" is silly.

[Tock]

By protesting at this one soldiers' funeral, they were focusing on a particular one. We are not talking about "what is against the law" here. It is not against the law to exercise your freedom of speech. This speech was used to harass the family at the funeral of their son. If someone followed you and your friends around town making "anti-gay" statements, would you not feel that you were being harassed?

When they protested at one gay person's funeral, they were ragging on gay people in general, and not that one person in particular. Nothing indicates to me that it's anything but the same thing with that soldier.