Joined: 19 Jan 2006 {Posts: 223 } Location: Southern California
Posted: Thu 01 Nov 2007 02:36 Post subject: Phelps FINALLY Gets Hit With a Clue-Fish!
And a very expensive clue-fish to boot! Ahhhh.... schadenfreude
Quote:
Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest
BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP) -- A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
A member of Westboro Baptist Church protests outside a veteran's hospital in Maywood, Illinois, in April 2006.
Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.
Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."
A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries.
But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.
The church and three of its leaders -- the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 -- were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.
Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.
The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that the deaths of soldiers are due to the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Their attorneys argued in closing statements Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
The judge said the church's financial statements, sealed earlier, could be released to the plaintiffs.
Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse.
Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers."
Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."
Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.
I saw this. I totaly diasagree with Phelps et al, but free speech is free speech - even hate speech. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Now, I do not have a problem with the federal gov't barring protests close to formal military funerals, as long as they provide an alternative protest site. The Constituiton allows for dissent.
What's next? The Thought Police?
I am not threated one bit by any words another says.
Last edited by Melani23 on Fri 02 Nov 2007 19:07; edited 1 time in total
I saw this. I totaly diasagree with Phelps et al, but free speech is free speech - even hate speech. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Now, I do not have a problem with the federal gov't barring protests close to formal military funerals, as long as they prove an alternative protest site. The Constituiton allows for dissent.
What's next? The Thought Police?
I am not threated one bit by any words another says.
Well, there are some people in Congress who'd like to throw people in jail for a very long time for hanging nooses from trees. This situation is emblematic of a general assault on free speech and a particular lack of respect for it when such speech "spreads hate."
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Sat 03 Nov 2007 04:52 Post subject:
Melani wrote: ''I saw this. I totaly diasagree with Phelps et al, but free speech is free speech - even hate speech. This sets a dangerous precedent.''
Then you think Phelps and his ilk have more of a right to their poison at the expense of the soldiers family, even though you disagree with their method? I'm curious as to what kind of precedent you think this may set.
''I do not have a problem with the federal gov't barring protests close to formal military funerals, as long as they prove an alternative protest site. The Constituiton allows for dissent.''
If the government barred close protest why would it be obligated to provide another site? As for the Constitution allowing for dissent you have to remember that some people who read it don't think it gives another the right to trample on their emotional well-being while the other is masquerading as free speech/dissent. This is probably one of the reasons you have Constitutional lawyers today; we all have a vision on how the country should be run, even with the Constitution in place. (Thomas Jefferson referred to it as a ''parchment of paper''. This is supposed to mean the very idea that something can be written down and somehow get men to stick to it.)
Now I surely accept this idea of dissent and free speech, but to a degree. Is it okay for some KKKers patrolling in front of your house yelling epithets at your family, even though words don't hurt you, as you say? And neither do they, me. But this isn't the issue. When do the words stop being free speech and become severely annoying and disruptive to family members at the goings on at your house. All they would be doing is exercising their potent type of free speech. I guess one could say to family members this is all part of this great society we have, even having to put up with malcontents, but we can't have it any other way for fear of losing some rights if we take away their virulent speech kind.
In my opinion, I'm willing to say most people probably wouldn't even care if someone banned KKK-type free speech and Phelps' misguided and appalling lack of concern about others emotional condition in a funerary procession simply to promote their severely misguided idea of what they presume God thinks.
That said, I don't subscribe to the ''What next'' syndrome, that is, if you stop their free speech then what's next, you can't criticize government members and others?
My vision doesn't include this kind of disruptive behavior. And my vision tolerates ''clean'' dissent; the kind that war protestors usually do; people who disagree with their states' and national government policies and so on.
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 {Posts: 223 } Location: Southern California
Posted: Sat 03 Nov 2007 16:00 Post subject:
^^^^^I'm with you on this one, Andrew. Although the KKK and Phelps' group spread nothing but vitriolic banter...I'm quite sure that if they were to present all of their chunderwspew in, say, a public park or a street corner (away from their intended target's house), then I guess that they are within their first ammendment right. Let 'em yell. I don't have to be around. (even though what they're saying is totally disgusting).
However what Phelps and his minions are presently doing (an "in your face" funeral protest in the presence of the grieving family) as well as the "potent type of free speech" as described below by Andrew (I've added the italics for emphasis):
Quote:
Now I surely accept this idea of dissent and free speech, but to a degree. Is it okay for some KKKers patrolling in front of your house yelling epithets at your family, even though words don't hurt you, as you say? And neither do they, me. But this isn't the issue. When do the words stop being free speech and become severely annoying and disruptive to family members at the goings on at your house. All they would be doing is exercising their potent type of free speech.
constitute harassment ..and people do get sued for harassment. In the workplace, that could be considered a "hostile work environment". Sure, I could excercise my free speech right by constantly aggravating and antagonizing a co-worker on a daily basis due to say, his ethnic background. No, the feds won't come in and arrest me or throw me in jail for exercising my First Ammendment right to free speech; as I am well within my right. However I most likely would have a "meeting" with human resources and possibly get fired from my d@mn job. As I had said in another thread a long time ago...the right to free speech doesn't necessarily mean the right to responsibility-free speech
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Sun 04 Nov 2007 04:55 Post subject:
Ducorps wrote:
''I'm quite sure that if they were to present all of their chunderwspew in, say, a public park or a street corner (away from their intended target's house), then I guess that they are within their first ammendment right. Let 'em yell. I don't have to be around. (even though what they're saying is totally disgusting).''
YES! And they can lay on the ground and yelp and have fits all day long in a public park or on a street corner. Just don't bring this stuff in my constitutionally protected immediate area. This last sentence can bring all kinds of rebuttalls as to what exactly is this immediate area. And therein lies the rub, just as I said in my comments above: don't I have this right of secureness for myself.
Ducorps wrote:
''I'm quite sure that if they were to present all of their chunderwspew in, say, a public park or a street corner (away from their intended target's house), then I guess that they are within their first ammendment right. Let 'em yell. I don't have to be around. (even though what they're saying is totally disgusting).''
YES! And they can lay on the ground and yelp and have fits all day long in a public park or on a street corner. Just don't bring this stuff in my constitutionally protected immediate area. This last sentence can bring all kinds of rebuttalls as to what exactly is this immediate area. And therein lies the rub, just as I said in my comments above: don't I have this right of secureness for myself.
Amen to that. This is wrong and I don't care: I wouldn't convict a parent who strangled Phelps or one of these lunatics who dared to picket their child's funeral with their bare hands. Free speech has its limits. No one is carting Phelps off to a concentration camp for expressing these views. He can have all of the speeches, websites and protests that he desires. But to harass and ABUSE families who have not only lost a loved one, but at their funeral is grounds for having your humanity pass revoked.
Would they be allowed to dance on their graves too? Could they pull up the flowers placed on graves as "free speech?" Can I use my free speech to verbally abuse and harass others who also have the right to live a life free from harassment and abuse?
You can support the 1st amendment in full without trampling over the rights of others. Barring Phelps from picketing funerals is not an infringement of his 1st amendment rights. Shall he also be allowed to spit on the bodies? Perhaps spray paint the coffins with "God hates fags" because "words don't hurt?"
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1762 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 05 Nov 2007 13:46 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
You can support the 1st amendment in full without trampling over the rights of others. Barring Phelps from picketing funerals is not an infringement of his 1st amendment rights. Shall he also be allowed to spit on the bodies? Perhaps spray paint the coffins with "God hates fags" because "words don't hurt?"
I agree completely. 1st Amendment rights pertain only to free speech aimed at the government, not private parties. This is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. As such, pornography is NOT a first amendment right, no matter what the courts have ruled.
The Phelps bunch are real sick.
The 1st Amendment:
Quote:
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press; Rights of Assembly and Petition (ratified December 15, 1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Then you think Phelps and his ilk have more of a right to their poison at the expense of the soldiers family, even though you disagree with their method? I'm curious as to what kind of precedent you think this may set
What about differences of opinion? Although there are limits on free expression, (FIRE!) this is changing with Courts cases and public opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Was Don Imus’s word hate speech or a bad joke? Does saying ‘I hate Jews’, if one is an Arab? Can only a Jew say this a get a pass? What about saying, “I am not attracted to Jews”? Is that hate or personal opinion? What about saying Asians are superior to all races? Why is it that Isaiah Washington (Black men) can call Black women’s B%$#$# and H&^ and its okay (in their minds) because he/they are Black? Where and who draws the line? I personally do not want Congress to draw this line each and every time.
Or is free speech only speech WE want to hear?
…For months, the media avoided asking about progress in Iraq. Despite repeated reports from the field that Iraqis had turned against al Qaeda, the news seldom made it into newspapers, and almost never on front pages. Last week, the military reported that civilian deaths in Iraq had hit their lowest point since 2003. U.S. and Iraqi deaths and casualties similarly had declined. So what led the paper the next morning? Stories about Blackwater. The statistics that put the war in perspective were relegated to the back pages of the Washington Post and in some publications, to oblivion.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/03/tony-snow-slams-media-freedom-speech-award-address
Precedents? Yes, there are many precedents of law.
-In Germany, it is illegal and criminal to deny the Holocaust.
-Pro lifers are constantly called anti-abortionist in the media and Verizon recently got in trouble with the public when they tried to censor a by-subscriber pro-life text message.
-At America Universities non-liberal voices are silenced. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=83CB1DD4-4180-499B-A546-F6BF82589B84
-The NOI and the New Black Panther Party can protest, but not the Klan? I consider them all the same hate group.
-ARLINGTON -- A Florida man who protested Muslim Family Day at Six Flags over Texas last month is prohibited from threatening or harming event participants, a district judge ruled late Wednesday. Kaufman visited Six Flags on Oct. 14 to lead a protest against Muslim Family Day, an event celebrating the end of Ramadan, a period of Islamic holy days marked by fasting and prayer. He only protested, not threatened them. http://www.star-telegram.com/arlington_news/story/287561.html
-Anti-Islamic speech. Google has removed the video of my talk 9Robert Spencer) at Dartmouth, with this explanation. Google/YouTube frequents deletes videos that debate Islam. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2007_10.php
- Terror PCism.
While the war with Islam is eminently winnable, it is very difficult to be optimistic at this stage when one sees political correctness rampant and the Western leftists supporting Islam (as they supported the National Socialists and Lenin/Stalin in the last century), to the point our leadership (where is Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan when we need them?) is either too frightened or too ignorant to name our enemy.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=AF613BFA-8E34-4A07-8DB4-20D89DE3D84B
Some have even coined a new word – Homophobic. Personally, I consider being called Homophobic hate speech. So, if I too am against abortion, for whatever reason, others can now legitimately call me ‘Abortionphobic’? Even though this procedure was only made legal after I was born?
Quote:
Now I surely accept this idea of dissent and free speech, but to a degree. Is it okay for some KKKers patrolling in front of your house yelling epithets at your family, even though words don't hurt you, as you say? And neither do they, me. But this isn't the issue. When do the words stop being free speech and become severely annoying and disruptive to family members at the goings on at your house. All they would be doing is exercising their potent type of free speech. I guess one could say to family members this is all part of this great society we have, even having to put up with malcontents, but we can't have it any other way for fear of losing some rights if we take away their virulent speech kind.
LOL! Although this was done to a BET Executive at her private home, address posted on the Internet, a few weeks back by Blacks protesting BET content. So, you’re saying homes are off-limits and this should be illegal? Or do only certain ‘protected groups’ have these rights?
P.S. they woud be cited for Tresspass not 'hate'.
Quote:
In my opinion, I'm willing to say most people probably wouldn't even care if someone banned KKK-type free speech and Phelps' misguided and appalling lack of concern about others emotional condition in a funerary procession simply to promote their severely misguided idea of what they presume God thinks.
I remember someone posting (Dean?) on climate change and how certain scientists wanted Numberg Style (Nazi) trials for dissenters in the Scientific community……
Quote:
That said, I don't subscribe to the ''What next'' syndrome, that is, if you stop their free speech then what's next, you can't criticize government members and others? My vision doesn't include this kind of disruptive behavior. And my vision tolerates ''clean'' dissent; the kind that war protestors usually do; people who disagree with their states' and national government policies and so on.
Not everyone is rational, that's why we have laws. What about protesting businesses, sporting events, adult entertainment, hospitals, leaders, celebrities, groups, etc. These have all been protested against and none are part of ‘gov’t’.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Tue 06 Nov 2007 06:18 Post subject:
Melani wrote:
''Or is free speech only speech WE want to hear?''
Yes. Just as I said in my post when I wrote this: ''And my vision tolerates ''clean'' dissent; the kind that war protestors usually do; people who disagree with their states' and national government policies''and so on.
Melani said:
''Not everyone is rational, that's why we have laws.''
Ditto for this one because shame on us if we didn't. I was referencing this somewhat when I started my earlier comments.
The ''problem'' is in the type of society we live in here in America unrestricted free speech has the potential to cause dissension in the ranks. Since there are some in this country who oppose virulent types of free speech then the dissension itself can manifest itself in hateful ways also.
This is the very reason I'm saying what I am. My issue isn't with hanging nooses in a tree in Jena. (That said, the noose can summon forth emotions in a lot of people, even those who are far removed from its murderous intent in the not so distant past.) People understand that there are pranksters, even if is in a sinister way. Those same people will look the other way and say ''that's terrible.'' They won't, however, be so forgiving with the ''in your face'' kind of crowd. What I'm saying is just how far does it (free speech)have to go to ''keep the peace.'' At the risk of redundancy, do we trample on others who can call on the same benefits under the Constitution, simply in the guise of keeping the peace, that is, reckless free speech, and thus, let it run wild, all because of an unreasoning fear of losing... what, exactly. I simply don't see too many people whispering in the corner about losing something some use simply as a means to vent their frustration in a hate-spewing manner.
If the city of Akron (my city) can invoke a noise ordnance, that is, if the music can be heard at so many decibels at 100 feet away then the citizen has a right to call the police. Well now why should they deprive the stereo boomer his ''right'' to blast? But, just as I'm saying, and you admitted to, we have laws. And in this unrelated case (maybe), someone has to be deprived of something. This is how the game is played out when you deal with this sometimes poisonous force called human nature.
So, I don' t believe we will be in any danger of losing anything in terms of free speech because, just as I said earlier, in my opinion, the majority of law-abiding citizens would love to see the malcontents go someplace else to spew their jibberish, whatever ethnic stripe they may be. And they also know what's at stake. This is why I believe I can say with comfort that you will never see a ''freedom of speech'' demonstration on the order of a war protest. People understand there is so much more at stake in that than some thief in the night speech-snatcher danger.
As everyone knows quite well our society encourages 'strange' behavior. We tolerate some of this behavior simply because this is what we do, all in the name of fairness—taking a lot of the bad to keep the good, all because of some fear of losing a little bit of this, a little bit of that.
''What about protesting businesses, sporting events, adult entertainment, hospitals, leaders, celebrities, groups, etc. These have all been protested against and none are part of ‘gov’t’.''
See my bold type ''and so on''. I wasn't limiting myself to government protest.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
This situation is emblematic of a general assault on free speech and a particular lack of respect for it when such speech "spreads hate."
