father of slain soldier...

[rasczak]

must pay for court costs of Westboro Baptist Church.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/westboro.baptist.snyder/index.html?hpt=T2

"It is a good harbinger of the fact that the Supreme Court will remind this nation that you don't have mob rule. The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That's supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have," she said.

ironic that she would say this, when one of the very men who died protecting this country is the subject of her protest. how fair is this? doesn't it go too far protesting at a private funeral? would we be given the same liberty should anyone protest at the funeral of one of the congregation?

these people are nuts.

 

[nonlnear]

The worst part is that paying their costs is actually a direct contribution to their cancerous organization because they largely represent themselves.

It's a regrettable effect, but it's the right ruling. Now if they trespassed, I would be thrilled to see them sent packing, but Westboro is very careful about these things...

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Thumbs up for the decision.

What Westboro does/did is reprehensible, but not illegal.

This should be an open and shut case for the Supreme Court.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think it was the right decision, but if it weren't for mob rule (i.e., public property), then the Westboro Baptist Church would have nowhere to go.

Mob rule/public property works far more in Westboro Baptist Church's favor than it does in the favor of others.

 

[Daedalus685]

Right call... but I'd take the jail time associated with punching them in the face if they tried it at a funeral of a family member or friend of mine.. Mind you, at least the "thank god for dead soldiers" sign, would likely be illegal in Canada (hate speech)..

 

[nobodyknows]

Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

I would think that an award for the above underlined would more then enough to pay for Westboro's legal costs. If I were a judge, that's the way I would rule.

 

[rasczak]

Ok. I understand the ruling is correct. What a terrible organization.

 

[Lemon law]

Its some what a sad testament to our legal system that the amount to defend the Westboro gang of idiot troublemakers could morph up to $16,000, making the original trial issues almost irrelevant.

While I still agree that the Westboro church has right to free speech, I somewhat wonder if our current supreme court may indeed find some side reason to rule against the Westboro church, thus transferring liability back to the Westboro church. Any Supreme court with Scalia,Thomas, Alito, and Roberts on it is not exactly going to be predictable or to be relied upon to support legal conventional wisdom.

 

[MotF Bane]

Was that actually a private funeral, as in held on privately owned grounds?

Other than that, it's a correct ruling.

 

[Thump553]

nobodyknows: That award was thrown out on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

As usual regarding legal issues, that was a horrendously written article that did more to obscure the issues involved than report them. Based upon my legal training, it is my GUESS what really happened is-strictly pursuant to court rules the father, as losing party on the appeal, was ordered to pay certain specified costs of the appeal. There must have been a huge record in this case for some reason.

I don't think the $16,000 includes attorney fees, the article doesn't mention them and that would be a low figure for this case.


I'm very surprised the Fourth Circuit didn't hold on ruling on the motion contesting these costs until the (accepted) US Supreme Court appeal is over with.

 

[nobodyknows]

nobodyknows: That award was thrown out on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

As usual regarding legal issues, that was a horrendously written article that did more to obscure the issues involved than report them. Based upon my legal training, it is my GUESS what really happened is-strictly pursuant to court rules the father, as losing party on the appeal, was ordered to pay certain specified costs of the appeal. There must have been a huge record in this case for some reason.

I don't think the $16,000 includes attorney fees, the article doesn't mention them and that would be a low figure for this case.


I'm very surprised the Fourth Circuit didn't hold on ruling on the motion contesting these costs until the (accepted) US Supreme Court appeal is over with.

I realize that but don't understand why they threw all of it out?

I think Westboro has the right to protest, but disagree with them protesting at the actual funeral service. They obviously do it for the increased publicity, but at the cost of the severe emotional distress of the dead soldiers family. What did they do to deserve such treatment??

IMO this goes beyond "bad judegment" and Westboro has no right to do that. If I were a judge I would do my best to put a stop to it. I think Albert Snyder is on the right track by suing them. I wish him the best.

 

[Deudalus]

Thumbs up for the decision.

What Westboro does/did is reprehensible, but not illegal.

This should be an open and shut case for the Supreme Court.

Is free speech limitless?

 

[woolfe9999]

I realize that but don't understand why they threw all of it out?

I think Westboro has the right to protest, but disagree with them protesting at the actual funeral service. They obviously do it for the increased publicity, but at the cost of the severe emotional distress of the dead soldiers family. What did they do to deserve such treatment??

IMO this goes beyond "bad judegment" and Westboro has no right to do that. If I were a judge I would do my best to put a stop to it. I think Albert Snyder is on the right track by suing them. I wish him the best.

My emotions go in the same direction as yours. However, the First Amendment does afford some protection against claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That theory generally requires an independent tortious act. If the conduct consists entirely of speech, that probably means it would have to qualify as defamation. Unfortunately, "thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags" don't qualify as defamation.

Either way, these pieces of shit will eventually get theres, because they are delusional sociopaths and can't help themselves.

- wolf

 

[Thump553]

nobodyknowsthis part of the CNN article addresses the legal issues in the case:
----------------
Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."
----------------

I've thought a little more about the $16,000 figure. There may have been an appeal bond required to keep the family from immediately collecting their judgment against the church while the case was up on appeal to the Fourth Circuit. With this large judgment and the probable shaky financial underpinnings of the "church" that bond was probably very costly.

 

[Patranus]

nm

 

[nobodyknows]

nobodyknowsthis part of the CNN article addresses the legal issues in the case:
----------------
Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."
----------------

I've thought a little more about the $16,000 figure. There may have been an appeal bond required to keep the family from immediately collecting their judgment against the church while the case was up on appeal to the Fourth Circuit. With this large judgment and the probable shaky financial underpinnings of the "church" that bond was probably very costly.

How can a judge and/or jury not think that having a protest going on in the street is not disrupting the church service????

We are talking abpout a person's funeral and the memories his family will have of it for the rest of their lives? Sorry, but they there just isn't any excuse for what the Westboro "Church" people were doing. None.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sounds like Toyota needs to start making hearses with faulty brakes and "runaway accelerators." Problem solved.

 

[JTsyo]

I don't understand their logic on disrupting funerals. What does that gain them other than causing grief for the family and friends. Why aren't they picketing their local congressmen that voted to send troops in the first place.

 

[CycloWizard]

I don't understand their logic on disrupting funerals. What does that gain them other than causing grief for the family and friends. Why aren't they picketing their local congressmen that voted to send troops in the first place.

It gets them publicity for their cause, while inflicting punishment on those at the funeral. That's a win-win in their sick, twisted world.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Is free speech limitless?

It should be as much as possible.

 

[nobodyknows]

I don't understand their logic on disrupting funerals. What does that gain them other than causing grief for the family and friends. Why aren't they picketing their local congressmen that voted to send troops in the first place.

It gets them "free" publicity. If not for their dispicable actions we would not even have heard of them.

 

[woolfe9999]

I heard on the radio this morning that Bill O'Reilly is providing some support (financial?) to the military family in their legal stuggle with the godhatesfags crowd. I usually disagree with O'Reilly, but I think this is to be commended. If both sides of the political fence can't get on board in opposition to this filth, then our divide is hopelessly wide.

- wolf

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly think the mega millions in damages the soldier's Dad won in court was excessive, but still, when the Westboro church slanders and libels the dead soldier's good name by associating him with homosexuality, without an iota of evidence to back it, it certainly exceeds the bounds of other existing laws.

The right to free speech is not unlimited, when free speech is divorced from all reality, and is used for only the intent of hurt to others, any court must impose limits.

To some extent, we must advocate some amount of non violent mob rule, also part of American free speech and democratic tradition. The liberal application of some tar and feathers upon Westboro church members, plus a free ride out of town on a rail, can have some educational benefits for those wanting to go a long way out of their way to tell lies and hurt others.

Thereafter the municipality in question can take up a collection to replace their damaged
clothing, and then honor satisfied on both sides, the courts can butt out.

 

[Fern]

Thumbs up for the decision.

What Westboro does/did is reprehensible, but not illegal.

This should be an open and shut case for the Supreme Court.

I think not. (If it was the SCOTUS wouldn't have taken the case.)

Free speech isn't unlimited.

IMO, their activites are definately, and purposefully, design to inflict emotional distress etc.

I don't like their 'speech' but I support their right to it. It's just that I think the way they go about it is clearly wrong and infringes on the rights of others. In fact, I think it's malicious.

Also, I've heard lawyers say that only in cases of frivilous lawsuits should the 'loser' be required to pay the 'winners' costs. If so, since the father won in the previous court I can't see how the lawsuit was frivilous.

Lastly, I hope the SCOTUS is very careful here. I'd hate to see Westboro's activites upheld, or free speech get limited.

Fern

 

[piasabird]

So why dont a bunch of ex-military put on their uniforms and go to these creeps church on Sunday? I would target the church, the town and set up protestors clogging up all the traffick in the community for the next year or so till the community asked these creeps to leave. By this times there must be plenty of mad people willing to work on such a project. Freedom of speech is a two-way street.