-- Members of a fundamentalist Kansas church ordered to pay nearly $11 million in damages to a grieving father smiled as they walked out of the courtroom, vowing that the verdict would not deter them from protesting at military funerals. Posted on 11/01/2007 10:41:58 AM PDT by radar101
-- Members of a fundamentalist Kansas church ordered to pay nearly $11 million in damages to a grieving father smiled as they walked out of the courtroom, vowing that the verdict would not deter them from protesting at military funerals.
Members promised to picket future funerals with placards bearing such slogans as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."
"Absolutely, don't you understand this was an act in futility?" said Shirley Phelps-Roper, whose father founded the Westboro Baptist Church.
The group believes that U.S. deaths in the Iraq war are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. They say they are entitled to protest at funerals under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
Albert Snyder sued the Topeka, Kan., church after a protest last year at the funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. He claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.
A jury agreed. On Wednesday, the church and three of its leaders - Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis - were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress. Jurors awarded Snyder $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
And they will collect what, how?
They aren’t getting anything but satisfaction.
Perhaps that is enough.
LOONIES.......
I’m torn. These people are dispicable, and protesting funerals is disgusting.
But if you can sue for “emotional damage” when someone is exercising their free speech rights, how long will it be before every time a conservative speaks, liberals sue them for “emotional distress”?
The ‘church’ owns a lot of property.
Liens on the property would help to satisfy part of the judgment.
Yup, starting with the “Church” property itself. Then sell it or donate it to an actual worthy cause.
You know - ANY protest or protesters could be found guilty of this...
Now, as I see it, they only have to threaten to do that to discourage any attorney from trying to collect anything.
But I really don’t know what this “church” owns so perhaps they would actually have to file to protect their assets.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes out of this verdict.
And they've had plenty of time to insure ownership of that propery is insulated. Put all the property in a holding company, make sure the shares are well distributed to trusted third parties and voila.....you're sue proof. One of the principals of this Church is an attorney. It's not to hard to insulate yourself from collection if you know what you are doing.
The next step, I suppose, is to do the same number on these a**hats as the Southern Poverty Law Center did on the KKK — RICO, restraining orders, personal asset seizures, treble damages, contempt of court sentences — all that wonderful stuff that keeps totally vile pieces of offal wrapped in human skin too busy or incarcerated to do their thing.
“And they will collect what, how?”
The Rev. Phelps has quite a tidy sum put a way from all the lawsuit judgements the church has won, suing various municipalities, business entities and individuals for their “rights”. Plus, the domain he owns brings in donations and advertising revenue. The large, secure compound where they all live must be worth something as well. If I had won this judgment, that’s the first thing I’d go after - scatter them like offal.
Approximatively 100 years ago a book was published to counteract the moving away by some churches from the basic tenets of Christianity. The book reiterated much if not all that had been established and reduced to Creeds over church history. Its title had the term “fundamentals” in it which could mean basic tenets, foundational principles, biblical doctrine, etc. Nevertheless, in no way can one be considered “Fundamental” and conduct themselves the way these people do, it is an abomination!
And this is from one that that holds firmly to the basic tenets of Christianity.
We are talking about something that will live in this man’s mind and soul forever....the fact that people were screaming horrible, HORRIBLE things at HIS SON’S FUNERAL. Maybe I understand better how Mr. Snyder will play back that day in his mind OVER and OVER just to make sure he is not living in some nightmare. And what he will have is their group, with their HATE, making the worst day of his life a INDEED A NIGHTMARE for the rest of his days.
Frankly, 11 million dollars isn’t enough in my mind. There will never be enough money on Earth to make that kind of pain go away.
Generally if a liberal says something you don’t like you move on a little irked. But this goes far beyond being irked because someone does not share your views. This is HATE. And the Westboro Baptist Church is inflicting their hate crimes on people hoping to hurt and sting.
Hate Crimes ?-
Jesse Jackson
Al sharpton
Louis farakhan-
Lead protests all the time against innocent people.
AND EXTORT MONEY from the innocent’s. -freedom of speech-
they call it - but everyone is too scared to sue.
Phelps is a #1 A__ hole but he probably will win this case.
So, if you stand at an abortion clinic, and yell to mothers that they are murdering their innocent children, doesn’t that inflict emotional distress on them? Doesn’t it seem like a sympathetic jury would find for a plaintiff, especially if the abortionists find a mother who has children and is aborting because she just found out the baby is severely deformed and won’t survive?
In other words, they will pick someone who is very sympathetic, explain how they were mentally tortured by the pro-life protesters, and will win the lawsuit just like happened here.
Or, going back to the Terri Shiavo case. Terri’s husband pretty much “had” to visit her, and to do so in the end he would have to put up with people yelling terrible things about him. What if HE sued for “emotional distress”?
Spell 523.
"(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—
(6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity;"
I don’t believe they went INTO the funeral, they were on a public street. If they were on private property, then I’ve got no problem going after them both criminally and civilly.
And if you start making exceptions for public protests of private events, you will be censoring, and the censors will be fighting an ever-increasing battle to protect “private” functions.
Abortion protestors already have to fight this stuff a lot, as the government keeps trying to make it illegal to be anywhere near the actual facilities, even on public property.
I will go back to my original sentiment though.....A FUNERAL is not a public forum to discuss your views. Have you ever buried your son, daughter, wife, or husband?
Consise analysis.
Were any of these protests, with Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. about someone who was about to be laid to rest? Did any of these protests take place when someone was about placed in their grave in their last seconds on Earth?
Probably not.
I am not talking about a political protest. This is not a political issue.
I meant to say “concise analysis”, by the way.
I’d argue that their use of megaphones is in a sense defacto entry into the private funeral. Furthermore, I consider their style of protest/assembly to be peaceful.
Doh!
I meant to say “I do NOT consider their style of protest/assembly to be peaceful. It’s anything but imo.”
One can only hope this survives on appeal and Westboro’s perverse antics will become a curiosity of the past.
OJ hasn’t been able to dodge Fred Goldman through bankruptcy.
The Megaphones could assist in convincing that it was an invasion of privacy.
And in fact, I think there is some evidence they mean to inflict harm on the people IN the funeral.
Like I started, it was a hard case for me.
We have to ask ourselves if this even protected speech? We'll say it is. But what of the context? It's done at and during private funerals, not on a court house's steps, not along a presidential motorcade or political convention but at a PRIVATE FUNERAL. Even political conventions have fenced off "free speech" zones for protesters who are kept outside the events themselves. Can you tell me a grieving family laying their loved one to his final resting place are any less deserving?
It violates the family's rights and must be causing added anguish. In fact, it's designed to do just that. IMO, they're liable for that harm which is what this case was about. In San Diego, as I recall, they were allowed to protest but ordered to do so at a distance and time such that the family's rights were protected. They had wanted to do the same thing as they did in this case and a judge imposed reasonable limits.
I'm outraged it's taken this long for a jury to stand up for common decency and tell Westboro and the Phelp's cult there *are* limits.
I don’t KNOW if he should be awarded anything, because I fear that it opens the doors to use the power of government to stifle religious and political speech, through the back-door of civil lawsuits enforced by the government courts and police force.
It’s not a hard case unless you’re sympathetic to their views. There’s a clear, bright line here of decency and this “church” has repeatedly obliterated it.
If you judge a case based on sympathy with the views expressed, you are not judging constitutionally. The Constitution and the law is not based on how sympathetic a message is.
We’ve been through these arguments for years with abortion protests. We have people getting arrested on the public streets for wearing T-shirts that “offend” people with their message that gays should not get married.
Sure, we can throw these people under the bus, we hate their message. But the same tactics will be used to suppress a message we don’t hate.
In this case, if it was clear from the ruling that the objection was to specific acts they took WHILE protesting, like the bullhorn, or if they shouted personal insults at the family, or invaded the church property, it would be easy to accept.
But if this was just finding 12 jurors who were so disgusted by the message that they decided “it should be illegal” and did what they could to make it illegal by levying a 10 million dollar fine, that’s a problem,and it’s unfortunate that the message is so hateful that one can’t discuss the ramifications without being indirectly accused of supporting this hateful group.
You’ll wanna see this.
Are you planning on protesting any funerals any time soon?
Or verbally assaulting someone that has lost a loved one because you think it is your right to do so in the name of free speech?
Any plans to walk into a cemetery with bullhorns and curse anyone there because you are at odds with the government?
What Phelps and his crew are doing is almost as bad as what the Klu Klux Klan used to do when they terrorized innocent families in the night.
Only they aren’t afraid of doing it in the daylight.
You need to read the constitution again and be reminded that no one has a constitutional right to not be offended. The church members were within the local laws and were more than 1000 ft from the ceremony. The conduct was morally wrong, but legal. The jury was sending a message but the higher courts will throw this one out.
How much has goldman been enriched?
Why did OJ move to Florida and homestead his property?
If I register to have a political rally in a public park, and arrange for the speakers, do you have a "right to be heard" at it? No, you have a right to organize your own assembly, and program your own speakers at it - yourself, or others. And if I show up with a bullhorn to make my point in opposition to you, I am in the wrong and a disturber of the peace.The funeral of a soldier is not an event which you have a natural right to protest. There are plenty of other venues to demonstrate your contempt for your fellow man. Lay off the funerals.
SCARY.
And I’m a little sick to my stomach too.
These men and women have the right to the very freedom accordant with the foundations of this country and the decency afforded a burial free from strife.
Fred Phelps has no trump card.
I’ve actually seen these people in action. It was quite some time ago, and it wasn’t a funeral. It is nauseating. There’s nothing righteous about it. It’s hate, pure sick, twisted hate.
Yep, this is a good one. I understand all the fear about precedences and all that. Actually, I think Fred is terribly sick, and society should have put him away long ago for terrible abuses to his family, but that’s another matter.
I wonder what I’d have done had this bunch showed up at Karl’s funeral. Knowing me, I’d probably have gone over to them and acted even crazier than them. I doubt that they would tolerate that as well as everyone else has tolerated their behavior.
I guess the bottom line is that, in days gone by, they would not have survived this long doing what they do. They have absolutely no tolerance or respect for others. They are lucky to be alive, and they should be considerate of the society that allows that. $11 Million is not much of a price to pay...
Yeah, buddy, I’ll be bumpin’ that. Ever’ bit of it.
I was going to post something similar, but hit the backspace key then, and now. You said it well.
Yes, my 11-year-old son is alive and well, and relatively close to me, as he is up in his bed sleeping.
Freedom requires tolerance of divergent views, if you define “tolerance” as “not wanting government to interfere with or dictate”.
My belief in the constitution and limited government is not in a theoretical sense filtered by how a feel about specific actions. If the constitution were to be applied based on how we feel, it would be a very weak protection indeed from the evils of government.
This lawsuit wasn’t about the right to protest. They obviously had the proper permit to protest, or they would have been dispersed.
This lawsuit was based on the effect of the apparently legal protest on people who could hear the protest.
So, in your case, if you register for a rally, and you hold your rally, and I live in a house across the street, and am confined to my bed, and I can hear your lawful protest, and it turns out you are protesting something I really support, and it upsets me, I should be able to sue you for damages?
By your rational, your son can be bullied at school in the hallway, in the bathroom, on the way home without recompense, because after all, the bully has a right to say what he wants -probably telling your son his dad is a fag. God forbid something happen to you and the little bully tells your son you’ve gone to hell and deserved to die. We shant dare require the teacher or principal impinge on the bully’s rights. After all, the evils of interference by the teacher are a much worse evil. Good luck to your son as you teach him to tolerate, he learns he doesn’t have any rights, and he learns that his feelings don’t have any merit.
He got OJ’s house in California, cars, Rolexes and Heisman trophy, plus all of the royalties on his book so far. Homesteading or bankruptcy won’t protect real estate like the church building.
That is actually good news. I detest OJ and the court system that freed him.
I do not know how the father ever kept his sanity.
As far as the church property, I don’t know the laws in that state.
Remember, the filing reverses any civil court ruling, and places the assets at the disposition of the federal court.
Somehow, I doubt that they are going that route.
They still have other legal strings to play out.
But it is very good that the plantiffs prevailed in this round. - Thank you for your post - bill
Great photo! Kudos to every one of them and kudos to you.
Pay no attention to Charles Wayne.
Some day when he spouts that tripe off in real life, he will wonder why he is laying on the ground.
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.