I don't think all of those Phelps yahoos put together has a net worth anywhere near $2.9M. Won't be the first time a church in the U. S. of A. went bankrupt.
BTW, I don't think wingnuts as a rule care much for Phelps. He's too batshit insane even for them.
Posted by swoosh at October 31, 2007 01:36 PMI've got to say, this decision troubles me a bit.
Are we now in favor of "free speech zones"?
Disregarding the content of Phelps' message is this really something you support Steve?
Posted by snark at October 31, 2007 01:52 PMAre we now in favor of "free speech zones"?
In this case I am.
A person can't find peace anywhere on earth, they deserve peace in death at the very least.
I certainly don't want a bunch of freaks coming to my funeral chanting, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."
But hell, I'm such an asshole, they might be the only ones that end up coming to my funeral.
Snark, are you serious? Can you tell me where in the Constitution it says wackos can disrupt a private ceremony, a religious one at that, with the intent to cause emotional harm to those participating?
Posted by Steve Soto at October 31, 2007 02:18 PMSteve,
Can you tell me where in the Constitution it says wackos can disrupt a private ceremony...
Did they enter the church? The cemetery grounds? My understanding is they were on public property. Again, so you ARE in favor of "free speech zones"? Does the COnstitution grant us a "Right To Not Be Offended"?
...a religious one at that...
Not really sure why THAT should matter at all. They were not trying to prevent the ceremony from taking place.
...with the intent to cause emotional harm to those participating?
Or was their intent to express their religious beliefs? And why should their expression of their religion be deemed any less valid than the religious expression the other party is engaged in?
I just don't see how this serves any other purpose than to erode free speech rights.
Posted by snark at October 31, 2007 02:32 PMWhy weren't the Phelps people charged with disturbing the peace?
Posted by snark at October 31, 2007 02:44 PMI'm with Steve, 7, and swoosh on this one, snark.
Even a non-godbot such as myself has respect for a funeral procession.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. By law if you are in a crowded theatre you can't yell at the top of your lungs: "EEEUW! I DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD HIS PENIS IN THE POPCORN BOX!!"
Posted by TIKI AL at October 31, 2007 02:44 PMAs much as I hate the Phelps clan, I'm uncomfortable with this precedent as well. And they'll fight this thing for sure, that's what the Phelps' do, they litigate.
But anyone remember the Bong Hits for Jesus? While the details aren't the same, everyone backed his right to hold up the sign. Is free speech only free if you agree with it? Do we like the ACLU only when it defends liberals or even when it defends the Falwells of the country? Either we believe in the first amendment or we don't, and that means free speech for everyone, even the most repulsive assholes in the world. Though I'd love those fuckers to get the shit beat out of them by the Hells Angels (was it?) who were going to these funerals to scare off the Phelps' it would still be illegal to beat the shit out of them. Sucks, but even assholes get to say vile shit in public.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 31, 2007 03:07 PMBut yes, I admit. This verdict does make me smile a little bit...
Posted by iamcoyote at October 31, 2007 03:17 PMNaw, there has to be a cut off point. The Phelps clan goes to far.
Must be a law for respect of common sense.
"Bong Hits for Jesus" was a joke in front of a school and it still got struck down by those RATS in SCOTUS.
Posted by Seven of Six at October 31, 2007 04:42 PM
I agree with snark on standing up for the Constitution. This ruling, and Steve's support of it, coupled with Kos finding it "eminently reasonable" for the media to set arbitrary thresholds to decide for the public which candidates can and cannot participate in a Democratic Party debate forum is truly troubling.
Posted by fafnir at October 31, 2007 05:25 PMMust be a law for respect of common sense.
Yeah, and most of the time, natural selection takes care of them with a deficit of it, but my question is, "who gets to decide what's common sense or not?" You? Them? The po-lice? The Phelps operation is a freaking trap. They want us to push for curtailing freedom of speech. Wouldn't that fit into their agenda more than ours?
And I say let them get all the publicity this huge award should afford, because the more people see these assholes, the more they can be tied to the Pat Robertsons of the world, and the politico-evangelical machine that's been souring our discourse for way too long. In a way, this ruling is a good thing, it's a good, very public, illustration of the yard the godbots will take if they're given that li'l ol' inch on this shit. I would hope a later SCOTUS would eventually rule this case unconstitutional, though. 'Cos, deep down, what kind a slippery slope are we really looking at here?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 31, 2007 05:28 PMI will wager it gets overturned on appeal.
It's just bad law.
Posted by snark at October 31, 2007 07:32 PMIts a shame that there's no way for the bad guys to loose in this country without destroying all of the things that are supposed to make this country "great."
Another day, another Pyrrhic victory.
Posted by Jolly Sapper at October 31, 2007 07:54 PMI disagree with the assertion that they are simply expressing their religious beliefs. I've seen them in person, and they are about one thing only...Hate.
They WANT to disrupt. They WANT to provoke. They WANT you to react to them with violence, so they can turn around and sue you.
I absolutely believe that their intent is to hurt, to disrupt...and on those grounds, it is my opinion that free speech is not even an issue here.
Posted by Tennerock at October 31, 2007 08:13 PMAnd who will stand up for the rights of a grieving family to have a private and quiet funeral? Oh, I forgot. They don't have that right.
Posted by Judith at November 1, 2007 03:16 AMAnd who will stand up for the rights of a grieving family to have a private and quiet funeral?
Gee Judith, it seems that a jury and Steve both did that.
Oh, I forgot. They don't have that right.
I was trying to look at the issue outside of the message. What this decision says is if someone doesn't want to hear what someone else has to say they can stiffle that persons freedom to say it with a financial threat. Would you be as supportive of the court fining Code Pink for picketing outside of the house of Donald Rumsfeld? How about suing them if they decided to camp outside Nancy Pelosi's townhouse as has been suggested by commenters here before? Does Nancy Pelosi have they same right to quiet?
I just think you start to tread into dangerous territory when you start recognizing emotional damage from speech that occurs in a public place. As far as I can tell the Phelps people didn't violate any laws. Yet they are being tolod that their speech is not protected.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 04:39 AMThe comments are interesting and illuminating. I understand and sympathize w/ the family. But as repugnant as the Phelps folks are, I feel that their speech is protected by the Constitution. I'm not sure that there is any remedy for the "hurt" that they caused.
The next time it might be you who are sued over a Letter to the Editor that someone didn't approve of.
Posted by Chief at November 1, 2007 05:05 AMThey have the right to assembly and the right to speak their political/personal views. What purpose do they have protesting at a funeral? Are they trying to get the soldier's family to change something? They want to protest American culture. Why not protest in Times square, or on the Vegas strip, or on Hollywood & Vine? Protest at the Pentagon or at the gates of military installations. By protesting at the funeral, they are doing nothing but adding to the grief of the survivors...like it is their fault America tolerates gays. What did their son do to deserve the protest? So would Snark have supported calling the returning Vietnam soldiers "baby-killers"? How about John Kerry's claim of war crimes committed in Vietnam? Free speech for all, regardless of who it harms?
Posted by the professor at November 1, 2007 06:09 AMWhat did their son do to deserve the protest?
He died. And their argument is that God is killing Americans because of our cultures acceptance of homosexuality. So if they're looking for a message orientated local for their gatherings there isn't much of a better place than around the funeral for a fallen soldier.
So would Snark have supported calling the returning Vietnam soldiers "baby-killers"?
No, I would not 'support' calling returning Vietnam soldiers baby killers. I don't 'support' what Phelps and his crowd are doing. But I respect their right to say what they want, where they want and when they want. Would you have someone prosecuted or subject to civil penalties for making the statement "US soldiers are baby killers"? I wouldn't.
How about John Kerry's claim of war crimes committed in Vietnam?
Do you have some doubt that 'war crimes' were committed in Vietnam?
Free speech for all, regardless of who it harms?
I didn't make that argument. There are legitimate limits on free speech. Are you not aware of them? I happen to disagree with the ruling in this case. The purpose of this ruling is to stop Phelps from speaking because someone doesn't like what he's saying. It will be overturned.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 06:31 AMWell, I for one, like this outcome. I find it dispicable to protest in this area. Please don't align these "Baptist" with other mainstream Baptist. They aren't anywhere near mainstream. Leave these families alone to greive without this type of protest. They deserve respect for their loss. And these "Baptist" have no biblical authority for their positions.
Posted by peter at November 1, 2007 09:53 AMwell I guess you "First Amendment liberals" should feel better now that pants-pissing peter is on your side, eh
Phelps and company are pure scum, but iamcoyote is totally correct: "Sucks, but even assholes get to say vile shit in public."
Posted by Gay Veteran at November 1, 2007 11:18 AMAs much as I hate the Phelps clan, I'm uncomfortable with this precedent as well. And they'll fight this thing for sure, that's what the Phelps' do, they litigate.
Not picking on this person, but this isn't precedent. In common law, 'precedent' is a case (cases) that establish a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
This ruling follows well established case law in many states and has been, for many states, the law of the land for DECADES. In short, just because you're not aware of the precedents from which this decision flowed doesn't mean this case established a new precedent.
In fact, this case actually followed precedent. I don't know the earliest cases in Maryland that established this precedent, but in nearby Massachusetts, the precedent was set thirty-one years ago.
The short answer Phelps, et. al., deliberately picked this family and used their son's funeral ceremony to get across their message of hate and, by their actions, deliberately and callously caused emotional suffering. And, the judge and jury following the established precendents in our legal system, laid the wood down on their asnine behavior.
Posted by Moses at November 1, 2007 03:45 PMI just think you start to tread into dangerous territory when you start recognizing emotional damage from speech that occurs in a public place. As far as I can tell the Phelps people didn't violate any laws. Yet they are being tolod that their speech is not protected.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 04:39 AM
Since you seem to be a repeat offender in not getting it when it comes to "free speech," I'll clue you in on how it actually works here in America:
1. Free speech is not an absolute right.
2. Free speech can have reasonable limits.
3. If you use your free speech to deliberately hurt someone (libel, slander, intentional emotional distress), they can sue you arse off.
And, once again, this case isn't effing precedent. The precedents for this conduct came about DECADES ago.
Posted by Moses at November 1, 2007 03:52 PMI disagree that the intent was to inflict intentional emotional distress on the plaintiff in the case. And if the finding was that this met the threshold for intentional emotional distress I disagree.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 04:38 PMSince you seem to be a repeat offender in not getting it when it comes to "free speech," I'll clue you in on how it actually works here in America:
1. Free speech is not an absolute right.2. Free speech can have reasonable limits
If you go back and read my comments I think you'll see that I am well aware that there are limits on speech.
I just happen. To disagree with this particular decision. I think it has more to do with the jury not liking the message than with any emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff. Please forgive my layman's use of the word precedent if you can.
Posted by snark at November 1, 2007 05:54 PMThe following is a quote by the father of the dead soldier at whose funeral the Phelps people were picketing.
The story is here.
As far as their picketing goes, they want to do it in front of a courthouse, they want to do it in a public park, I could care less. But I couldn't let them get away with doing this to our military," Al Snyder said.
Can't let them get away with doing this to our military.
This is why I think this case was more about not liking the Phelps point of view than about the emotional distress of the grieving father.
It's supression of unpopular speech.
Having recently buried a family member, I ask, doesn't the father have a right to bury his son in peace? No one is saying that the minister cannot express his ideas, no matter how hateful, and there are plenty of forums where he can do this. A library is a public place but we don't let people yell inside.
Quite frankly it is bad enough to lose a son, I know that if this were to occur outside my family's church or cemetary, it would be devastating for me.
As for decency, I think most of us would agree that a family should be left alone to bury a child in dignity. We may all disagree on politics and social issues, but I'll bet that people of all races, creeds and political parties find this type of protest abhorrent.
Posted by Kate at November 3, 2007 09:46 PM