Posted on 10/26/2007 3:28:44 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
BALTIMORE, Oct. 25 — Before the March 2006 funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, a marine who was killed in Iraq, protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church, a tiny fundamentalist splinter group, picketed the service with signs that read “God Hates You” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”
Albert Snyder, Corporal Snyder’s father, sued the church in United States District Court here, claiming invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- - -
Mr. Snyder, who said Westboro members turned his son’s funeral in Westminster, Md., into a “media circus,” is seeking unspecified damages in the jury trial, which is expected to end next week. In opening statements, his lawyer said church members had shown no regret for the protest, which he said had left Mr. Snyder with depression and health complications from diabetes.
- - -
Ronald K. L. Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, said such restrictions pose certain dangers, however. “The dangerous principle here is runaway liability in a way that would put the First Amendment in serious jeopardy,” Mr. Collins said. “I dread to think what it would do to political protests in this country if it were allowed the win.”
Judge Richard D. Bennett, who is hearing the case, told the nine jurors that there are limits on free speech protection, listing categories that include vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and instructed jurors to 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,” according to The A.P.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Having said that, I hope this family finds success in the courts. What this UNPATRIOTIC church does is evil and hurtful at a most painful time a military family must face.
Several congressmen have come out against this church. Laws of distance have been instituted but still they come.
Of course there are those that ride in on their motorcycles in support of the fallen service member and their action's are most appreciated.
Actually I am a bit surprised that there have not been more violent reactions to Phelps and company.
There have always been limits on First Amendment rights.
That fool woman that the Democrats let into the committee hearing who shoved her blood-covered hands into Condoleeza Rice's face and put her arms around her head is a good example of protest gone too far. That borders on assault.
Here, it sounds like the judge is using the old tort of "outrage" - kind of a community standards thing, really. What's more, funerals have always been given special protection, and here in GA there are plenty of old cases, dating back into the 19th century, where folks who disrupted a funeral were socked with damages.
I have some concerns about free speech here (liberal judges setting the precedent of regulating religious speech) but, that said, this is not religious speech and I would dearly love to see these people beaten like rented mules and gutted financially.
We are stationed in Kansas and I have actually given thought to taking a ride to the home of this church and do my own protesting.
Perhaps a group of us can protest this unpatriotic church and their philosophy
The Judge seem's to be doing his duty and telling the jury the law, it will be interesting to see how it turns out and who will be appealing?
Would a civil suit be more effective? Go for a jury trial and you are assured success. Then take everything these vomit bags have and burn it.
Oh and lets not forget their connection to Gore.
ok the last thing you want to do is give this guy more publicity. psychotics like phelps crave attention and without it they have nothing
If this works, watch for this line of thought to be used against abortion protesters.
Agreed. The guy is on course to get lead in his brain by a distraught family member.
Fundamentalists?!?!! That's about the last thing Phelps and his gang are. They are more like some kind of wacko greed cult.
Exactly. Every time people supposedly in favor of a Free Republic would empower the state to punish someone they don’t like, they are diminishing the amount of freedom in the Republic. I’d rather see the conduct used as a legally-sufficient defense against a tar and feathering of the protestors. That being said, if special protection for funerals has really be around for a long time, maybe it’s no big deal.
Some people just need killin’.
Agreed. I don’t think the state needs to get involved. Let some private citizens beat the ever loving #$@# out of those sickos.
I’m in favor of anything that causes the Phelps power-cult any pain or grief but I am not comfortable with the precedent here.
If old Fred suffers a horrible, degrading, and therefore well-deserved death tomorrow, I would certainly be inclined to cheer and so would many others here.
It may be unseemly, but it would happen.
Would the surviving devils in his evil clan then have the right to sue us?
I think not.
We are not allowed to shackle people in disgrace in the town square anymore but I would love it if someone would create a permanent web page with their photos and biographies. Set the page up like a blog and we could all condemn each and every one of them.
It's only a matter of time before one of them gets a serious beating (or more).
Prime example of why tarring and feathering should never have gone out of style. When did we become such a nation of wimps? Why no one, especially related to these families, has not waited until a nice dark evening to take a baseball bat to their knees is beyond me.
At one point, men had fist fights about politics, because they believed that passionately about them. In some ways, I miss that honesty.
Paging John Edwards.
The limites to 1st Amendment used to be set by local communities with a commonly developed concept of right and wrong.
What Collins and his ilk are actually advocating is anarchy. The left has been working on that for some time. The natural reaction of a society plagued by anarchy is to accept the harness of a totalitarian police state.
If this works then any one who protests in a vile way will be held to account for their actions. I see nothing wrong with that. Your free speech ends where mine begin, and these trolls have trampled all over the 1st Amendment in their actions.
HEAR HEAR
It's a loser. Think Hustler v. Falwell. Falwell sued on the exact same claims--invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Supreme Court held that Hustler's comments were protected by the First Amendment.
I have never understand why communities have not pass local ordinance protecting families from such intrusions.
This is physical presence at and disruption of a funeral. As I said, funerals are specially protected and have been for over 100 years. Nobody was getting buried in the Flynt case (and there was some thinking along the lines of 'whoever reads Hustler doesn't take it seriously.')
A lot of them HAVE passed such local ordinances, AFTER Phelps and his crime family hit them. You just never know where they’re going to strike next.
Not the same at all. This is like trespass.
Then another example of the way that local custom is no longer respected, so that we MUST have statutes to make people do the right thing.
Correct. Falwell had intentionally made himself a public figure and was unable to prove actual malice (as opposed to mere tastlessness).
It wasn't just libel; that's the point. Falwell sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy, the same claims that are being asserted here. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment applies to those claims. From the opinion: "Respondent would have us find that a State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury, even when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. This we decline to do."
Even though there isn't a public figure involved here, they are engaging in protest over a matter of public debate, which is given equal first amendmnet protection. There are going to be First Amendment issues, and given that the Supreme Court held in Falwell that the First Amendment applies to these claims, there is going to be a serious uphill battle for these folks.
I am so disgusted by these people. Probably the cops show up only to keep familly members from charging these low-lifes.
Georgia still adheres (more or less) to the "impact rule" - in other words, words on a piece of paper are not as invasive as physically intruding on a sacred event like a funeral. With the physical tort of disrupting a funeral to carry the claim, this is a completely different case.
Yes, there was a time, hateful idiots like this guy and his group just “disappeared”.
That’s not neccessarilly a bad thing either...
I'm not an attorney but it would seem that the fact that a funeral for a fallen soldier was disrupted changes the dynamic. Cpl. Snyder wasn't a famous person, as Jerry Falwell was. This was a disrupted funeral, not a magazine piece or a cartoon. If you cannot be buried in peace as your family grieves, what is sacred?
This is definitely an infringement of the family's privacy and an assault on their right to mourn their dead son - at his burial - in peace and dignity. I hardly see disrupting a soldiers funeral with anti-Iraq-war or gays-in-the-military protests as anything akin to an exercise of free speech. It's the context of the exercise of free speech - disrupting a funeral - that makes this situation different from simply publishing an article or holding up a sign in an auditorium to protest a speaaker you don't happen to agree with.
If there are strict laws against disrupting funerals, why is this insane group of idiots - calling themselves a 'church' - being allowed within shouting distance of a soldier's funeral? Where are the cops...or friends of the family? Why do good guys on motorcycles have to come from out-of-town to blunt this outrage? This alleged 'church' should be sued and stripped of the wherewithal to travel to dead soldier's funerals in order to disrupt them.
Somebody is going to get hurt, soon. This is an outrage.
The brave father of the young Marine hero is hanging Phelps with his own rope.
but would you cheer and have vulgar signs depicting him as a fag at his funeral? i would be happy if he died because he wouldn't be out there putting other greiving families through more hell but i wouldn't picket his funeral.
common decency is apparently not part of this church's teachings.
they haven't picketed the funeral with the maniacal relative yet, they'll eventually get there.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover everything. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
The first amendment has been interpretted to include freedom of expression. However, under hate crimes legislation you cannot burn a cross to intimidate blacks. Similarly, you cannot intentially inflict emotional damage by targeting a victim.
I agree somewhat; however, the body of law that surrounds this issue (most often libel law) has held that the First Amendment will protect speech that relates to a matter of public importance, as well as speech that is in regard to a famous person.
I agree that this case represents a pretty sympathetic plaintiff (although, frankly, Falwell was sort of sympathetic too, given that the ad accused him of losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse), but it also seems like a really strong First Amendment claim, too.
Georgia law loses to the First Amendment. Take another look at Falwell. I think you'll be surprised at some of the language in the case.
Hey, a funeral is as much protected speech as anything else. Phelps' group needs to be prevented from disrupting that freedom of expression. This would in no way inhibit Phelps ability to redress any greivances with the government. Freedom of speech does not allow you the automatic right to disrupt the freedom of speech of others.
One thing about initiating a lawsuit--they may find themselves under oath having to answer some questiosn.
Here’s hoping they take every dime from the Phelps family.
Georgia law is still perking along very nicely, thank you.
It was assault, and if the woman touched Secretary Rice, it was battery as well.
assault 1) v. the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger. The assaulter must be reasonably capable of carrying through the attack. In some states if the assault is with a deadly weapon (such as sniping with a rifle), the intended victim does not need to know of the peril. Other state laws distinguish between different degrees (first or second) of assault depending on whether there is actual hitting, injury or just a threat. "Aggravated assault" is an attack connected with the commission of another crime, such as beating a clerk during a robbery. 2) n. the act of committing an assault, as in "there was an assault down on Third Avenue." Assault is both a criminal wrong, for which one may be charged and tried, and civil wrong for which the target may sue for damages due to the assault, including for mental distress.
battery n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm, or in a "rude and insolent manner" even if the injury is slight. Negligent or careless unintentional contact is not battery no matter how great the harm. Battery is a crime and also the basis for a lawsuit as a civil wrong if there is damage. It is often coupled with "assault" (which does not require actual touching) in "assault and battery."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.