Jury awards father $11M in funeral case

[KevinP73]

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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/funeral_protests;_ylt=AuCbEgEGdo9x0BqYck1B8PSs0NUE

[Gogar]

Good. If you dunno why, search "westboro" or "Fred Phelps" on YouTube.

[mikester]

a$$hats the lot of them...

[NICKG]

perfect example of how organized religion corrupts people

[Rick Lee]

How have these nutbags not gotten their a$ses beaten to a pulp at one of these funerals? They even advertise in advance that they're gonna protest and where. I'd bring a bat if I knew I'd be anywhere near them. Think a jury anywhere (but in northern CA) would convict me?

[Mule]

+100

[robs944]

I was glad to see the news about this last night, I live in the same town where he lived. It was sickening to see those a-holes out there when his funeral took place.

[Rot 911]

Originally Posted by NICKG

perfect example of how organized religion corrupts people

Perfect example of a completely stupid response.

[cstreit]

Originally Posted by Kurt V

Perfect example of a completely stupid response.

Gonna agree with Kurt on this one... Many nutjobs collect in the storm-drain, some go out and watch for UFO's in the desert, others build cabins in the woods... These loonies picked a "church" to hide behind, but why blame the entire religion for them?

The legal prescedent (sp?) here scares me a little, but I'm happy to see that this particular group got it handed to them. If they showed up an my kids funeral, i doubt I'd be as composed as most of the people they did this to.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

How have these nutbags not gotten their a$ses beaten to a pulp at one of these funerals?...

I agree...I'm normally not one who would advocate violence, but some folks simply need a good old fashioned "butt kicking". I've notice they never pull that crap in NC

[Nostril Cheese]

Fred Phelps really is a nutjob. At least they went after the one way you really hurt these f**kers. Take away the money. Imagine how much better it would be if tax exempt was removed?

[mikester]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

How have these nutbags not gotten their a$ses beaten to a pulp at one of these funerals? They even advertise in advance that they're gonna protest and where. I'd bring a bat if I knew I'd be anywhere near them. Think a jury anywhere (but in northern CA) would convict me?

Probably because the people they are protesting against are the folks who DIE to protect their right to protest.

And yes, I believe they have the right to their free speech and the right to protest but I also believe that not only are you free to do so, not only do you have the right to free speech but you have the right to deal with any consequences of what you say.

These folks had something to say, they said it and now they must deal with the social ramifications of it; In this case it is a law suit. They took something from the mourners that can't be given back - laying their son to rest is not something you can do more than once.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by mikester

Probably because the people they are protesting against are the folks who DIE to protect their right to protest.

I doubt the familes attending the funerals of their loved ones feel this way. I'd not be able to control myself if I ever saw this. I thought I was gonna get a in a fight at the gym last night when the guy next to me smelled like a bum's hamper. I almost unleashed on him just because of his stench. Seeing the nutbags protest heros' funerals would send me over the edge. I'd keep the guns at home, but wouldn't be able keep from hurting one or more of them.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by mikester

Probably because the people they are protesting against are the folks who DIE to protect their right to protest.

And yes, I believe they have the right to their free speech and the right to protest but I also believe that not only are you free to do so, not only do you have the right to free speech but you have the right to deal with any consequences of what you say.

These folks had something to say, they said it and now they must deal with the social ramifications of it; In this case it is a law suit. They took something from the mourners that can't be given back - laying their son to rest is not something you can do more than once.

Can't disagree with anything you say Mike, but if they pulled that sort of crap at a funeral here in NC, I can virtually guarantee that the "family, military personel, et al" wouldn't have to do a thing. IMO, there would be plenty of "disinterested parties" at the funeral who would glady serve up the "consequences" before their BS even got started. You're absolutely correct that NOTHING can be done now to undo the pain they have inflicted upon the mourning families. You can't "unring a bell"...sometimes a bell should be "broken" before it can ring...

[KFC911]

I'm with ya on this one Rick...

[kang]

Originally Posted by mikester

Probably because the people they are protesting against are the folks who DIE to protect their right to protest.

And yes, I believe they have the right to their free speech and the right to protest but I also believe that not only are you free to do so, not only do you have the right to free speech but you have the right to deal with any consequences of what you say.

These folks had something to say, they said it and now they must deal with the social ramifications of it; In this case it is a law suit. They took something from the mourners that can't be given back - laying their son to rest is not something you can do more than once.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for free speech, but not all speech is protected.

There are several examples of speech that is not protected: clear and present danger (yelling fire in a crowded theatre), libel, perjury, etc. There are a number of other examples. In particular, what is called hate speech is often not protected speech. An example would be a KKK rally denigrating an entire race. However, what is considered hate speech is often subjective. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

In most of our opinions, what this church did would be considered hate speech. That is certainly my opinion.

Hate speech is against the law. You aren’t really “free to do so” like you mention. You do not have a “right to protest” if the protest is hate speech. If you conduct hate speech, you have broken the law. Just like breaking any other law, you must deal with the consequences.

I believe this church is appealing based on freedom of speech, but I believe (and hope) the verdict will be upheld. They have broken the law (and they did it in the name of their god), and they must pay the consequences.

[rammstein]

ok- free speech. Fine.

But lets look at it this way- if I started following someone to work everyday yelling "you poop your pants!!! You cry yourself to sleep!!! You like men!!!", at some point I would probably get a restraining order against me for harassment.

If these guys make a point of showing up at funerals, stirring up trouble, over and over again, isn't that harassment? Can't they go down for that?

[Rick Lee]

I don't believe hate speech is against the law. It's against a lot of college campuses' conduct codes and I'm sure you'd get a disorderly cite for calling a black cop the N-word (and maybe a bad case of nightstick rash). But name-calling is not illegal. Aside from the campaign finance laws, I'm not aware of any kind of speech being banned in the US, unless it just hasn't yet been challenged in court. Of course, I think it should be illegal for politicians to lie. But that would violate their First Amend. rights.

[frogger]

Great result for the family, and I hope the church and its members don't wiggle out of this on appeal. Protesting at funerals is some kind of mental disease.

[SlowToady]

Nope, sorry, Hate Speech is explicitly protected under the First Amendment. I'll try and dig up the SCOTUS case which says so.

From http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html

Q: Aren't some kinds of communication not protected under the First Amendment, like "fighting words?"

A: The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.

Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate campus speech codes try to stretch the doctrine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain.

http://www.jstor.org/view/0002919x/ap030195/03a00190/3?frame=noframe&userID=c74cbfa6@uky.edu/01cce4405d00501b4e980&dpi=3&config=jstor
Is a good read.

msulr.law.msu.edu/back_issues/2006/2/Sedler.pdf
Another good read.

Hate speech *is* protected under the First Amendment. There are few exceptions as to what *isn't* covered, but the most relevant would be speech that is directly intended to cause direct bodily harm, commonly known as the "fighting words" clause. I doubt this situation would meet the "narrow criteria" of the SCOTUS.

I'm rather busy right now, so I haven't read through the SCOTUS cases and posted the relevant case numbers, but a quick google search for "supreme court protection hate speech" yields a large amount of results, and can point you in the right direction.

So, while I do think their conduct to be in poor taste, I'm not quite so sure that it would violate any Free Speech laws, and thus must err on the side of caution.

Originally Posted by kang

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for free speech, but not all speech is protected.

There are several examples of speech that is not protected: clear and present danger (yelling fire in a crowded theatre), libel, perjury, etc. There are a number of other examples. In particular, what is called hate speech is often not protected speech. An example would be a KKK rally denigrating an entire race. However, what is considered hate speech is often subjective. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

In most of our opinions, what this church did would be considered hate speech. That is certainly my opinion.

Hate speech is against the law. You aren’t really “free to do so” like you mention. You do not have a “right to protest” if the protest is hate speech. If you conduct hate speech, you have broken the law. Just like breaking any other law, you must deal with the consequences.

I believe this church is appealing based on freedom of speech, but I believe (and hope) the verdict will be upheld. They have broken the law (and they did it in the name of their god), and they must pay the consequences.