[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
User Submitted Article Title: Chan and 82marine89 don't understand freedom of speech, Buckeroo does By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 31, 6:23 PM ET
BALTIMORE - A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.
Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."
Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."
A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.
The church and three of its leaders — the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 — were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.
Even the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted.
Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.
The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality.
Their attorneys maintained in closing arguments Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse. Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers." Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."
Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.
Poster comment:
THAT ought to slow down the Rev. Fred Phelps!
Perhaps these folks can own the church of Phelps.
Posted 11/01/2007 01:11:31 am CDT by nolu_chan
[ Reply ]
Category: News Keywords:
To: nolu_chan
What ever happened to the individual freedoms and liberties and rights we were once granted? Doesn't this article stand as a testament about tyranny and the destruction of the US Constitution?
1 Posted 2007-11-01 01:15:40 by buckeroo
(Oh ye take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland b'for ye.)
[ Reply | To 0 ]
To: buckeroo
"What ever happened to the individual freedoms and liberties and rights we were once granted?"
As despicable as the Rev. Fred Phelps is, I have to agree with you. I will be surprised if that verdict and award are not overturned on appeal.
While the First Amendment does not protect one from the consequences of speech that is defamatory, nor speech which causes an imminent and foreseeable threat (e.g., the proverbial yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), there is no similar limitation on speech that others find merely offensive. You have no Constitutional right not to be offended.
2 Posted 2007-11-01 03:22:56 by Boot Hill
[ Reply | To 1 ]
To: Boot Hill, Buckaroo
As unsympathetic as the Phelps group is, I would be amazed if the jury verdict were overturned. Perhaps the award may be reduced.
The right to free speech is not absolute. The Phelps group engaged in communication which was vulgar, shocking, and highly offensive to a reasonable person. They are extreme and outrageous and found to be not entitled to First Amendment protection.
SCOTUS held in Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942):
Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.
==========
http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_7277523?source=most_viewed
The case [Snyder v. Phelps] tests the limits of the First Amendment right to free speech.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett instructed jurors at the start of testimony Tuesday that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements. Bennett said the jurors must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous, and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection."
==========
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/366/36.html
U.S. Supreme Court
KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR, 366 U.S. 36 (1961)
366 U.S. 36
At the outset we reject the view that freedom of speech and association (N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 ), as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, are "absolutes," not only in the undoubted sense that where the constitutional protection exists it must prevail, but also in the sense that the scope of that protection must be gathered solely from a literal reading of the First Amendment. Throughout its history this Court has consistently recognized at least two ways in which constitutionally protected freedom of speech is narrower than an unlimited license to talk. On the one hand, certain forms of speech, or speech in certain contexts, has been considered outside the scope of constitutional protection. See, e. g., Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 ; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 ; Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 ; Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 ; Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 ; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 .
==========
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/315/568.html
U.S. Supreme Court
CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
315 U.S. 568 (1942)
Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. [2] There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. [3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [4] It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. [5] 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.
[ Footnote 2 ] Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 , 39 S.Ct. 247; Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 , 47 S.Ct. 641, 647 ( Brandeis, J., concurring); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 , 51 S.Ct. 532, 73 A.L.R. 1484; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 , 51 S. Ct. 625; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 , 57 S.Ct. 732; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 128 A. L.R. 1352.
[ Footnote 3 ] The protection of the First Amendment, mirrored in the Fourteenth, is not limited to the Blackstonian idea that freedom of the press means only freedom from restraint prior to publication. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 714 , 715 S., 51 S.Ct. 625, 630.
[ Footnote 4 ] Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1941), 149.
[ Footnote 5 ] Chafee, op. cit., 150.
==========
3 Posted 2007-11-01 05:02:13 by nolu_chan
[ Reply | To 2 ] To: nolu_chan
My eyes glaze over when I see legalese. Is there some mention about trespassing on a private event? Surely property rights must come into play here somewhere?
Phelps is an asshole. I have no sympathy for him and his ilk. If you're going to test the limits of the Bill of Rights, don't be stupid about it.
4 Posted 2007-11-01 11:27:34 by PnbC
( From Two-Party System... ...to Two-Family System.)
[ Reply | To 3 ] To: PnbC
Is there some mention about trespassing on a private event? Surely property rights must come into play here
There is no trespassing involved. I believe they were a significant distance away, approximately 1,000 feet, on public property.
The jury found the defendants liable for: - violating the Snyder family's expectation of privacy at the funeral - intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
The jury awarded: $2.9 million in compensatory damages. $8 million in punitive damages.
To sustain the claim of invasion of privacy, the jury needed to find that the church's actions at the funeral, and in on Internet about Matthew Snyder, were "highly offensive to a reasonable person."
To sustain the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the jury needed to find that the church's conduct was "intentional or reckless" and that the conduct was "extreme and outrageous," leading to severe emotional distress.
5 Posted 2007-11-01 12:21:41 by nolu_chan
[ Reply | To 4 ] To: nolu_chan
I think if there wasn't a lawsuit, it would have come to fisticuffs.
Isn't this sort of thing kind of like the famous "spitting on the veterans" story regarding the returnees from Vietnam --- except that this is actually real? I always figured if the spitting-on-the-troops accusations were true, then the spitters would have eaten a knuckle sandwich. I think if the prospect of a lawsuit had not been there, that the crowd would have been enraged that they would have gone after Phelps' group physically.
but then, these are "polite times"
6 Posted 2007-11-02 11:36:07 by PnbC
( From Two-Party System... ...to Two-Family System.)
[ Reply | To 5 ] To: PnbC
The Phelps group gives advance announcements of their intent to appear. Because of the threat of a violent response, usually the police are present. They actually use signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
If cops were not always there to protect the Phelps group, vets or their relatives would likely be up for homicide by now.
This guy just got creative bringing charges. A jury would be just looking for some charge to hang its hat on with this group. It will be near impossible for the Phelps group to find any sympathy on appeal.
7 Posted 2007-11-02 21:27:56 by nolu_chan
[ Reply | To 6 ] To: nolu_chan
If cops were not always there to protect the Phelps group, vets or their relatives would likely be up for homicide by now.
I can see you clearly believe and exalt the coveted police-state to not only ensure a subdued FIRST_AMENDMENT but also shake down a few bucks, through the color of law.
Are you actually professing there is no way to declare a public method of non-violent expression concerning the disapproval of government irresponsible actions but upon the fine line of law?
8 Posted 2007-11-03 01:19:30 by buckeroo
(Oh ye take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland b'for ye.)
[ Reply | To 7 ] To: buckeroo
What ever happened to the individual freedoms and liberties and rights we were once granted? Doesn't this article stand as a testament about tyranny and the destruction of the US Constitution?
What about the rights of of the family of this dead Marine? Do they lose all of their rights just so Phelps can exercise his?
9 Posted 2007-11-03 09:06:36 by 82Marine89
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|