Jury to right-wing hate church: Pay up

The vile Westboro Baptist Church, made up of right-wing Christian fundamentalists who protest the funerals of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, has been the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In March 2006, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder was being laid to rest when Fred Phelps and his family showed up with signs that read, among other things, “God Hates You,” “Thank God for IEDs,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

Snyder’s family sought damages, claiming defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Yesterday, a federal jury in Baltimore ordered the hate church to pay up — awarding the Snyders $10.9 million.

Al Snyder, father of the slain Marine, said he considered filing the lawsuit for a long time before going forward and that he hoped the judgment would make it harder for the church to continue such protests.

“It’s hard enough burying a 20-year-old son, much less having to deal with something like this,” he said, recalling that some of the other signs at the funeral included “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Thank God for IEDs.”

“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.

Snyder’s attorney told jurors to pick an amount “that says don’t do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again,” according to The Associated Press. The award includes $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages, a clerk in the judge’s chambers said.

Of course, Westboro Baptist Church and the Phelps family don’t have $10.9 million, suggesting the suit could force the cult into bankruptcy.

That is, if it comes to that. In the short term, there will be an appeal, which the Phelps’ are confident will go their way.

Church founder Fred Phelps said the church would appeal the decision, adding it would “take about five minutes to reverse that thing.”

“This will elevate me to something important,” Phelps told reporters. “This was an act of futility.”

Later, Phelps said the case was about “putting a preacher on trial for what he preaches.”

“All it was, was a protestation by the government of the United States against the word of God. They don’t want me preaching that God is punishing the country by killing their servicemen.”

In fact, the jury award hasn’t dissuaded the lunatics at all — they have three more funeral protests scheduled for this week.

As for whether yesterday’s verdict may withstand an appeal, there’s some question about whether the Phelps’ hate-speech is protected.

Ronald K. L. Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, said such restrictions pose certain dangers, however. “The dangerous principle here is runaway liability in a way that would put the First Amendment in serious jeopardy,” Mr. Collins said. “I dread to think what it would do to political protests in this country if it were allowed the win.”

Maybe, maybe not. I’d certainly welcome the opinions of the lawyers in the audience, but I know there are already time, place, and manner restrictions on protest speech. No one is saying these lunatics can’t share their disgusting message, they’re just limiting their ability to disrupt funeral services. If the Phelps wanted to host a protest in a public park, and were denied a permit, I’d argue that’s a free-speech restriction.

But shouting at a grieving family during a funeral sounds a bit like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

I agree with Collins, this is different from shouting fire because it was political speech. Let this stand and the next time we have an Iraq war ready to start (say with Iran) the precedent will be set for massive awards against anti-war protesters too. Just for starters. Phelps and his family are disgusting, but they should have the right to be vile in public in a free society.

  • “Phelps and his family are disgusting, but they should have the right to be vile in public in a free society.”

    the problem with this statement is that by interferring with a funeral service, they have crossed the line from public protest to private interference. there’s a big difference, in my mind.

  • Scumball lunatics have a right to shout their pinhead opinions, even if they upset people. As they weren’t charged with tresspassing, it seems they were within their First Amendment rights to mouth off. The best way to get rid of Phelps is to ignore the bastard.

    BTW: Having done so, you can yell fire in a crowded theater. What you can’t do is falsely yell fire in a crowed theater with the intent to cause a panic;>

  • This administration is very good at setting up and enforcing (basically unconstitutional) free speech zones out of sight and hearing of their events so that Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Cheney’s tender sensibilities never have to be bruised by contrary opinions. Why can’t the local authorities enforce them here?
    These people are beyond despicable but, much as it pains me to say it, they have the right to be vicious, cruel, and perverted. Perhaps they could do it in a somewhat distant free (cough cough choke) free speech zone, however.
    The approach of groups of what I remember as Hell’s Angels forming a barrier to block Phelps’ freaks from disturbing a grieving family seems the best solution.
    This is only further proof that there is no god; these hatemongers would have been struck dead long ago.

  • While a part of my thinking agrees with the jury-awards—slamming the Phelps herd into bancruptcy would, among other things, sorely limit their abilities to travel about and stage “preach-ins” (even a demented uber-fundie like Phelps would have to agree that food is more important than gasoline, or plane tickets)—I am still left wondering if the better weapon against the Westboro rantings might be to begin staging massive counter-demonstrations.

    Not in the cemeteries, either—but right outside the Phelps “compound.”

    It has been said that the family place of worship is in the basement of Phelps’ house. If this is the case, then let’s contemplate a simple experiment in geophysics.

    How many people would it take, standing outside the fenced-in property upon which the Phelp compound is located, and marching in place to make the ground move?

    Phelps’ “word of god” expresses the opinion that a few hundred men marched around the city of Jericho, and that the constant pulse of the march weakened the walls to the point of collapse.

    Would, say, several thousand pairs of stomping feet outside the Phelps compound—no less an expression protected by the mantle of the First Amendment than the disruption of a fallen warrior’s burial—tend to interrupt the hate that hides beneath the guise of “prayer?”

    Let the experiment of Free Speech begin….

  • If they are on public property they are free to say what they want. Unless, they were protesting the war or Bush, then they’d be hearded up. Welcome to america.

  • I do not know if the cemetary was public or private property, which may also make a difference. But there will be lots of interesting Constitutional angles here. You have constitutional speech rights versus privacy rights. there is also a component of free speech which includes the right to not be forced to hear – the ability to turn down the speech, if you will. That has been important in the analysis in things like prayer at graduation cases. In a public park, if I don’t like the message I am exepected to leave; we favor the speech. But can a family really be asked to “leave” their son’s funeral? The “right to be left alone” in some cases has been held to protect a family in its house from protesters shouting on the sidewalk out front; is a funeral the same? Is a “soldier,” generically, enough of a “public figure” in a time of controversial war that he and his family have much less right to privacy in the face of speech or publicity about the war? And if this verdict stands, what about the suits over anti-choice groups sending photos of aborted fetuses by mail to women who have recently had abortions? And if this verdict doesn’t stand, what does that do to the common law tort nearly every jurisdiction has of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, whose elements seem pretty clearly met here?

    I have mixed feelings about the outcome; sometimes extreme facts like these make bad laws. It would have been so much easier if, just to prove s/he exists, God would have simply struck all of the Westboro nuts dead at the scene (although had a friend of the grieving family done the same with a shotgun, I have trouble believing any jury of their peers would have convicted.) It will, however, make for a very interesting case on appeal.

  • I’m not a lawyer, just a free-speech extremist. I can’t remember ever being on the side of restricting speech.

    But – if free speech is absolute, then there can be no cause of action for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” or “invasion of privacy” resulting from exercise of speech. Both of those torts clearly occurred in this case. So if I’m on the jury, I will be voting to award these high damages to the plaintiffs.

    The principle of free speech also does not include the speaker to slander someone, but I don’t believe that a deceased person (in this case the deceased soldier) or his representative can sue for slander.

    Shouting “fire” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) creates an immediate threat to public safety. It is, and should be, a crime.

    An important distinction to make in the case of the Phelps and their vile church is that the plaintiffs are private citizens who have been wronged by the Phelps and other church members. The plaintiffs have no political axe to grind. Most important, the government was not a party to the suit.

  • From The Baltimore Sun this morning, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.westboro01nov01,0,5435099.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout and which may shed some light on how this was framed:

    The courtroom fight came down to whether Westboro had a legal right to demonstrate at Snyder’s funeral or whether the protesters crossed the line because their message impugned the grieving family’s reputation and unlawfully invaded the Snyders’ privacy.

    For Snyder’s claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church’s actions at the funeral – and later, in an Internet posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site – were “highly offensive to a reasonable person,” according to the jury instructions.

    Albert Snyder also contended that the church’s actions were an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under the law, to find in favor of Snyder, the five women and four men of the jury needed to find that the church’s conduct was “intentional or reckless

    Jury instructions also required that the conduct be “extreme and outrageous,” leading to severe emotional distress.

    “You must balance the defendants’ expression of religious belief with another citizen’s right to privacy,” U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett instructed jurors Tuesday.

    There were Westboro protesters downtown here yesterday, near the Federal District Courthouse – my office is a few blocks away, so I was fortunate not to have to see them.

    As I mentioned last night, Matt Snyder lived in the next county over from mine, and we lost 2 other young men – both of whom went to school with my daughters – in the months preceding Matt’s death; it was really hard on the community.

  • While I agree that this is protected speech, I,like Georgette, wonder why war protesters get herded into “free speech zones” but Phelps and his pals get the run of wherever they happen to be.

  • Georgette: Yes, the very idea of a “free speech zone” is crazy. It strongly implies that free speech is allowed there, but only there. We shouldn’t be surprised to find “free speech zones” (always created by government officials) located inconveniently in out-of-the-way places.

  • … boy oh boy, that’s a hard one. I hate religions and still I hate soldiers as much …. our ‘hero’ solja, the children killer, an uneducated asshole by definition, who has been told to go kill innocent babies 8k miles away and the moron goes and does it in the name of his fucking gawd … hummm, I have a hard time deciding which I hate most .. could I not get it both ways and have the church destroyed/ruined and the parents of the asshole get the symbolic penny for the lawsuit .. or at most not more than a dollar.

    Anyone who thinks it is patriotic and a duty to kill babies is as sick as the fucking ayatollahs we supposedly have to eliminate because our gawd wants it … assholes one and all!! … same goes for their gawds …..

  • Sometimes speech is not speech, sometimes it is harassment.

    You can’t mount a protest outside somebody’s home at 4AM.

    That said, I do feel like this is a borderline case of free speech. I hate those Westboro creeps so much, though, that I’m inclined to possibly over-correct and allow them their protests.

  • “I’d certainly welcome the opinions of the lawyers in the audience, but I know there are already time, place, and manner restrictions on protest speech. No one is saying these lunatics can’t share their disgusting message, they’re just limiting their ability to disrupt funeral services.”

    But the problem here is that there doesn’t appear to have been such a restriction in place, and in any event, the liability is being imposed not because Westboro violated some municipal regulation concerning the venue of protests, but under various common-law theories that seem very much content-based. In other words, Phelps is being punished because the jury didn’t like what he said, not the manner in which he said it. If there was some time, place, or manner ordinance in place– and there is no indication that there was– then the funeral organizers could have sought an injunction against the protest, or the city could have brought a violation proceeding against Westboro and imposed a fine. But that’s not what happened here. As much as I dislike Westboro, I’m inclined to agree with Phelps that this will quite likely be overturned on appeal.

    Having said that, Maryland is in the Fourth Circuit, arguably the most conservative federal court of appeals. If any court in the country would be inclined to uphold a civil verdict against military protesters, it would be that one.

  • When did they institute a baby killing mandate for soldiers. I missed the memo I guess. Maybe there is a super-secret baby-killing boot camp that no one knows about except for Ralandc. I’ll bet they have a secret handshake for the initiated and check to make sure everyone has killed their requisite baby for the day and everything!

    Which is another way of saying that you are an unthinking lout Rolandc, and it makes me sad to think that there are people with your bigoted views that are ostensibly “on my side” or at least purport to be so.

  • What if we frame this in a different way? If you make crude/ sexual/profane comments around your office, you are quite likely to be charged with harassment, right? — and in those cases, I don’t seem to recall any debate about Free Speech coming into play (e.g. nobody seems to have an absolute right to make crude jokes). Harassment is harassment.

    And so it is with these cretins. They aren’t engaging in free speech. They are engaged in active harassment of the soldiers’ families. There aren’t any First Amendment issues here– only Second Amendment ones, which is probably the best way to take care of the family…

  • Steve said:
    I am still left wondering if the better weapon against the Westboro rantings might be to begin staging massive counter-demonstrations.

    Phelps is an attention whore and he would love nothing more than a bunch of “god-hating fags” surrounding his compound as the TV cameras looked on. He and his clan would spend hours baiting the demonstrators, both sides screaming until they go hoarse. Then he would record the TV news and post it on his website.

    We’ve had him in town a couple of times. He does not seek or get any local support, what he wants is the attention and thanks to counter demonstrators and local news crews, he gets it.

  • All of you who say this falls under free speech… if it was your loved one going into the ground amid the shouts of vile hatred that pour out of the mouths of these people.. they aren’t Christians then I think you might see things slightly differently… and I will be so happy to be there when this “pastor” who is preaching “God’s” word stands before Him and He turns his back on him and says I know you not. This isn’t freedom of speech, it isn’t spreading God’s word and the fools who buy into this rhetoric will be just as damned as he is.

  • “This will elevate me to something important,” Phelps told reporters.

    Hey bozo, if you were a true Christian you’d know that you are supposed to be humble and serve others. Were he walking earth today, Jesus would be railing against you (for the statement above and, well, everything else).

    Interesting points about the first amendment. While I don’t want free speech taken away, I think harassment and defamation of character would be in play here.

    When one of our local soldiers died last year, the Phelps gang said they were coming. The service was held at the event arena at the county fair – the large parking lot and about 1/4 mile of pathway sat between the building and the public road. Our local DA put out a restraining order on the Phelps, saying they could only protest on the side of the road. That way they couldn’t disrupt the service at least. And a motorcycle group said they would intervene. Anyway the Phelps decided it wasn’t worth coming. Thank goodness.

  • I would think that God has a good case for defamation.

    Couple of quick points: the focus here was on “intent” and that makes a difference. For example, otherwise free speech can become “fighting words” when set in a certain context. There are no hard and fast rules and thus comes the fear of the dreaded slippery slope. If a jury finds that the otherwise protected political speech was intended to provoke violence it can lose its protection. Thus, although calling soldiers baby killers can be protected speech in most contexts, it is not protected in all contexts.

    Second, it is the role of a jury to make actually intensive contextual decisions and to ascertain matters of intent.

    Thus, when so framed, it is quite possible for the jury verdict to be afforded a level of deferrence that sustains the verdict, though perhaps not the amount.

  • This has been a pretty big deal here in KC — these festering sores on the ass of humanity have been doing this since before the Iraq war, and they’re home base ain’t that far away (just down the highway in Topeka).

    Also, I find the quote from the dad in this case interesting:

    “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.

    That’s why I’m actually glad these clowns are in the news — it shows a side to the rightwing hate machine that is often hidden.

    The simple fact is, if the Phelps gang were picketing anyone OTHER than military personnel*, the likes of Coulter and O’Reilly would be singing their praises. But since they are doing this to the military, the right can’t quite bring themselves to defend the hate–they would love to if the situation were different.

    As far as the legal issues of free speech, since the government wasn’t involved and has yet to try and really restrict these folks, seems to me that there is no Constitutional issue here. This was a civil case, not a criminal one.

    And even if the government (fed, state or local) tried to put them in some sort of pre-approved zone, well … seems that’s been settled several times already. The government does have the right to determine where the speech occurs and to put some limits that allow a person to exercise his or her 1st Amendment rights, but within a controlled environment, and only if it can be argued that the public is best served by doing so (i.e. profanity limits on broadcast television).

    Or at least I think that’s the deal. I just play a lawyer on the Internet, so YMMV.

    (*NOTE: “Soldiers” is capitalized and only applies to members of the U.S. Army. Just an FYI for everyone.)

  • From the Balt Sun article, it appears Snyder wasn’t aware of the protesters until he saw them on TV so the idea of harrassment or interfering with the serivce falls apart.

    What worries me is this: Right now some far right group (possibly backed by people with very deep pockets) is looking at this case and wondering how they can use it to shut up all the people they don’t like. What if a soldier says Code Pink’s protests cause him irreperable mental harm? Now CP has to defend in court. What if there’s a gay pride parade and some parent claims that seeing it has traumatized his child? Now the groups that organized the event have to defend in court. If you have a pet lawyer you could sue an organization out of existence just by running up their legal bills.

    Shit, the rich bastards are making life hard enough, do you really want to give them another way to stifle dissent?

  • … boy oh boy, that’s a hard one. I hate religions and still I hate soldiers as much …. our ‘hero’ solja, the children killer, an uneducated asshole by definition, who has been told to go kill innocent babies 8k miles away and the moron goes and does it in the name of his fucking gawd … hummm, I have a hard time deciding which I hate most .. could I not get it both ways and have the church destroyed/ruined and the parents of the asshole get the symbolic penny for the lawsuit .. or at most not more than a dollar.

    Anyone who thinks it is patriotic and a duty to kill babies is as sick as the fucking ayatollahs we supposedly have to eliminate because our gawd wants it … assholes one and all!! … same goes for their gawds …..

    I get the sense you’ve never done anything meaningful and worthwhile in your life, Rolandc.

    When you’re not trolling the Internet to piss off current/former military, the religious, meat-eaters, farmers, fishermen, auto makers, Big Oil, business owners and other human beings, you’re probably contradicting yourself every five minutes based on the snippets of information your dull mind feebly gathers from various websites, TV and the banned book section of some out of the way hole in the wall specializing in “the bizarre and unique,” where bongs come in all shapes and sizes and being a pain in the ass is done without cause.

    Of course, I’m just assuming and stereotyping like you did.

    Because if push came to shove, and our freedoms required the American people to stand up–and take arms–against those who seek to destroy everything we hold dear about our country, you’ll be making for the border. In the meantime, it’s the very people you profess to hate who will make things right.

    As a former Marine, I don’t expect those who didn’t serve to bow down and kiss my feet, or to lend some prestige to my being. I don’t feel those who didn’t serve should refrain from criticizing the US military, military service, defense spending, Endless Iraq War, and so on. I do, however, expect a little respect as a fellow human being and fellow American. We who served and continue to serve and will serve are not baby killers, rapists, torturers, dullards, rednecks, womanizers, alcoholics and the like. Just as any one of those deviants can come from and live in any walk of life–and stand in line with you at the grocery store–the military, unfortunately, can have a few bad apples that make the rest of the military look bad.

  • This is somewhat off point (apologies), but has there been any violence at these protests? Funerals are emotionally charged events, even more so under these circumstances, and I could certainly see a family member loosing it. This has nothing to do with this court decision; I’m just curious.

  • Any politically active church MUST have its tax exemption eliminated and start paying taxes and stop being subsidized by taxpayers. Why has this not happened? It’s the law! The U.S. is NOT a godless nation. The separation of church and state in America means the state cannot sponsor, mandate, or support any religion. America was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and the laws of the nation and states are based on the Ten Commandments. The government in America is the citizens; it’s not a separate entity from the people. The government must remain secular, as all religions are a dogma. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl

  • I don’t care what message they are trying to express, be it vehemently protesting the color of apples or parading support for the warm sun or (in this case) screaming thanks to god for horrible acts of violence, they should display respect for the deceased and their grieving family and friends. These morons are simply abusing our rights and putting us all at risk for potential restrictions on our rights. They are like spoiled children who say “I can do what ever I want and you can’t do anything about it – so there”. In order to preserve it, freedom of speech must be exercised with responsibility, care, and respect. I’ve heard a couple of thoughtless people say that these morons are “heroes” or “champions” of free speech, but I think they give the freedom a bad name and only antagonize the argument for preserving the right to free speech by giving people a reason to argue against the need for the freedom in the first place. It’s people like this who bring to the forefront, discussions of restricting our rights and fuel those who would like to see our rights taken away. They’ve left and continue to leave an ugly stain on our right to free speech. It’s time to stop looking at our rights from a perspective of legal loopholes, technicalities and manipulations and stop acting like spoiled-rotten selfish children who don’t have the common sense to treat their rights with responsibility and accountability. Grow up.

  • Measuring the width or breath of freedom of speech based on who it’s directed at and how distasteful the message is leads us off the slipperiest of slopes. The “quality” of the freedom is best tested by the conviction with which it is upheld when the speech enrages us the most. Perhaps the most sacred American rights are the unwritten right to be an idiot and the companion right to declare your idiocy at the top of your voice. Mr. Phelps and his colleagues have availed themselves of these rights to their most extreme point. I wish we didn’t need people like them helping us test the quality of our freedom, and I wish they’d do it some other way in some less offensive venue, but let’s face it…people like Phelps STRENGTHEN the Bill of Rights we all cherish, even if we hate how they do it.

  • “Free speech”, as it is used in the First Amendment, means that the government cannot limit one’s speech, either by making it criminal or by stifling it.

    This simply is not a “free speech” case. The government did nothing to “punish” Phelps for his speech; the plaintiffs did.

    We should keep in mind that having the right to free speech doesn’t include the right to be free of the consequences of your speech. No law prevents me from me from calling my boss and “a-hole”, but I don’t have a “right” to my job when I find myself on unemployment the next day.

  • Focality– Thank you for your very thoughtful response to RolandC. As a former Soldier myself, I too find it frustrating to have people denigrate people who serve. Frankly, I would kick out any bastards like that from my country, since they don’t deserve the rights which they enjoy, but I can’t think of any self-respecting country who would take in people like that.There is plenty of room to criticize the politics, without demonizing the people who are brave enough to serve.

  • RIP. Rest in Peace. How’s anyone to rest in peace when the vermin like Phelps sends you off with the words of hate? I agree with MarkD, @21, that it’s the fact that they’re protesting at *military* funerals that gets attention, which is a pity. I think protesting at *all* funerals is crass in the extreme. Even the worst people might have someone who loves them and those grieving should be left in peace, same as those underground.

  • “the laws of the nation and states are based on the Ten Commandments.”

    Let’s examine this claim.

    “Worship no other Gods” — we are one of the only countries ever to protect our right to worship any or no Gods.

    “Make no graven images” — we’re free to sculpt whatever we wish.

    “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain” — we have the right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendment.

    “Keep the Sabbath day holy” — there are no laws prohibiting people from working any day of the week.

    “Honor your parents” — there are no laws mandating the “honoring” of any person or deity.

    “Don’t commit adultery” — there are no federal laws prohibiting infidelity.

    “Don’t covet” — there are no laws against this behavior, which actually helps drive our economy.

    Not only aren’t there any laws reflecting these commandments, some commandments are patently un-American. This leaves: “don’t kill, steal or perjure.” Of course we have laws prohibiting these crimes. However, considering that these have been laws of every society, including those well before Moses, I’m skeptical of the claim of their biblical origin. By the way, there is no mention of God in the Constitution, and God wasn’t added to the pledge or to our money until 1954 and 1955, respectively.

    The founders considered invoking God in the Constitution. The fact that they chose not to should speak volumes.

  • The Phelps crazies were found guilty of DEFAMATION, among other things. Saying bad things about people is NOT protected by the First Amendment. Slander and libel are still crimes, punishable by any court of law. And furthermore, these folks were not making a political protest, they were deliberately setting out to hurt the family of the fallen soldier. This isn’t free speech, it’s violating the rights of others to make noise about God Hating Fags. The last time God spoke to me He said it’s a sin to to dump garbage on strangers, not matter the excuse. I personally hope the Phelps clan spend time in prison, once they’re bankrupt (financially – the moral part was gone long ago).

  • Mark D and K Ashford, your argument that there is no First Amendment issue because the government did not restrict the speech (i.e. this was a private plaintiff bringing a tort cliam, not a city ordinance banning the protest) sounds logical, but actually doesn’t work legally. There is a long line of cases in a variety of contexts that the judicial branch giving affect to a de facto restriction through civil litigation is “government action” just as if the legislative branch had issued positive law. The keystone case involved local courts upholding racially restrictive real estate covenants, which were a matter of private contracts, not government action. When the local courts enforced them, the issue of whether there was a violation of the 14th amendment went up the ladder to the US Supreme Court where, thankfully, the judicial approval of private discrimination was overturned. More recently the issue has come up often in federal preemption cases on issues like cigarette and pesticide labelling.

  • Tempest said: “God wasn’t added … to our money until … 1955 …”

    Just an FYI — ‘In God We Trust’ was first used on the 1864 2-cent piece.

  • 32. On November 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pm, MZ Stone said:
    The Phelps crazies were found guilty of DEFAMATION, among other things. Saying bad things about people is NOT protected by the First Amendment. Slander and libel are still crimes, punishable by any court of law.
    *****
    Nice try, but you be alive to file those papers. The soldier is dead and cannot sue. A family does not have a right to silence somebody because his message hurt their feelings. And the family has asked government to intervene on its behalf — from lawmakers to courts to sheriffs, if need be — to silence Phelps’ speech. You don’t find it chilling that you call somebody’s dead relative a name, and then they sue you for more than everything you have?

    This case will make for some strange bedfellows. And it provides some irony, too. The family is using the fundamental right of privacy, the central finding in Roe v. Wade, to make a case against Phelps’ right of free speech. It’ll be fun to watch the Religous Right squirm as it tries to reconcile support of a military family’s “right of privacy,” while actually trying to undercut that right in all that it does against reproductive and gay rights.

    In fact, Phelps has the same message — this god-hating fag-loving country gives rights to people that they don’t have! And now with this case he also has legal cover. At his next funeral, he can say that the god-hating, fag-loving military families are trying to take away his rights. And there will be nothing that can be done since that is basically the truth.

  • These particular “christians” are nothing more than theological thugs and anarchist – they are evil incarnate. The only difference between them and Islamic Fascists is the type of bomb they’re throwing. The intent is the same, to murder freedom of thought and more importantly freedom from religion. All they want is attention for their sick form of bigotry and hate. And why shouldn’t they be criminally prosecuted for “hate” crimes against humanity??? Here are a couple of quotes that say it precisely: “People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.” Søren Aabye Kierkegaard and “…When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1908.

    When it really comes down to it all these theological anarchists want is attention and media time for their sick and hideous beliefs. There is no biblical basis for their hateful ways – Christ and the bible say over and over throughout the scriptures to hate the sin not the sinner. Christ life was an example of UNCONDITIONAL tolerance, love and compassion for all of mankind, friend and foe. What of these aspects of Christianity do they not get?

    Two major forms of non-atheism exist in the world: theism and deism. Neither of these basis for true spiritual belief suggest, infer or dictate hateful, uncompassionate interaction between humans. The two greatest gifts from God are “Free Will” and “Eternal Life.” These clowns would remove your free will at the point of a gun and set themselves up as the judges of who will have eternal life. Enough Say???

  • I am a born-again Christian. I would ask you members of this “church” one question. What WOULD Jesus do?

    It’s interesting to note that Jesus saved his harshest words for the leaders of the reglious system of His day. I’m making a giant assumption, I guess, to think that you had actually bothered to read your Bibles.

    Turn on your brains and think. Jesus never held protests with picket sign, marching around saying hateful things to those who were in mourning.

    In fact, if you read your Bibles further, you will discover that Jesus actually HEALED the daughter of a Roman soldier. A soldier of the very government which oppressed his nation.

    It’s time to stop wasting time; the days are short. Wake up and DO what Jesus DID. Reach out to the sinner, minister to the poor, the lonely, the hurting, the hopeless.

  • I myself am not gay but this pisses me off. However I have a solution. generally if I’m at a funeral chances are I’m there because of a loved one so as a symbol of my love Ill be sure to exercise my constitutional right to arms and bring 2 shotguns hung in the back window of my car. I figure with just the rite amount of anger, shotgun shells and stupidity I can put an end to all this in one afternoon by pointing this out to the grieving parents or spouse.

  • Amy – are you not offended that Phelps group claims to speak for born-again Christians?
    And you can be offended and still “offer them your other cheek.”

  • The ruling will not affect Phelps. He will embrace it as proof of his “persecution” for standing up for his beliefs, for his idea of what God does or does not “like”. The majority of those posting here KNOW that Fred Phelps is a sick, sad man with no clue of what a loving God really is.

  • It would be nice (and possibly entertaining) if some anonymous guys wearing ski masks and bearing baseball bats would show up at one of these “protests” and rearrange the Phelps Cult’s skeletal geometry.

  • Comments are closed.