Wednesday, October 31, 2007 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

by AP

Thanks to Stephen M. Weeks for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/10/31/803048.html&cookieattempt=1

By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer

signs

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.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The federal jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."

The defense said it planned to appeal, and one of the church's leaders, Shirley Phelps-Roper, said the members would continue to picket military funerals.

"Absolutely; don't you understand this was an act in futility?" Phelps-Roper said.

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."

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 soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality.

Their attorneys maintained in closing arguments 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.

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 _ Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis, 46 _ were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.

The group is confident the award will be overturned on appeal, Phelps said

"Oh, it will take about five minutes to get that thing reversed," he said.

Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse. Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while 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.

It was unclear whether the plaintiffs would be able to collect the damages awarded.

Before the jury began deliberating the size of punitive damages, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted that the size of the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

Defense lawyer Jonathan Katz said the church has about 75 members and is funded by tithing.

The defense attorney said that the assets of the church and the three defendants are less than a million dollars and that the compensatory award is about three times the defendants' net worth, mainly in homes, cars and retirement accounts.

One of Snyder's attorneys, Sean Summers, said he would tirelessly seek payment of the award.

"We will chase them forever if it takes that long," Summers said.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 98 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #83961 by eric.malitz on October 31, 2007 at 10:53 pm

isnt that whole church one extended family?
If those people came to a funeral I was at, I wouldnt hesitate to physically assault those women.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

2. Comment #83963 by macros_man on October 31, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Rather than physically assaulting them, maybe we could just take shifts where we could perpetually follow all of them around and verbally assault them 24 hours a day.

I think that is the only way to break these people, and make them see the error of their ways, without overtly breaking the law.

Other Comments by macros_man

3. Comment #83970 by Tim Marsh on October 31, 2007 at 11:51 pm

eric, I don't know you, obviously, but that was a horrible thing to say.

macros, not a great deal better.

For shame.

Other Comments by Tim Marsh

4. Comment #83972 by Jimill on October 31, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Hopefully this verdict will successfully damage their monetary resources. To the point where they just give up!

Other Comments by Jimill

5. Comment #83973 by JamesDB on November 1, 2007 at 12:01 am

This is a good move on the part of the American legal system, these loons need to have some kind of punishment dropped on them for being so nuts. They definitely deserve to be knocked down a bunch of pegs so they no longer go out and bother grieving families. It would be nice to see some kind of laws passed that threaten them with jail time if they continue going out and running their unpleasant mouths.

Other Comments by JamesDB

6. Comment #83975 by Robert Maynard on November 1, 2007 at 12:06 am

This is a good move on the part of the American legal system

Right, because freedom of expression is only important when it's protecting people we agree with! :D

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

7. Comment #83978 by thelivingbrian on November 1, 2007 at 12:15 am

Certainly this will be overturned. Their speech may not be nice, but it is constitutionally protected.

Other Comments by thelivingbrian

8. Comment #83983 by Hugo on November 1, 2007 at 12:40 am

I hope it sticks freedom of speech should end where it infringes badly upon other peoples rights and I would hope a society gives its people the right to bury their dead in peace!
you can be removed from a concert if you disrupt it, the same should apply to funerals.

Other Comments by Hugo

9. Comment #83995 by Jimill on November 1, 2007 at 1:15 am

thelivingbrian - "Certainly this will be overturned. Their speech may not be nice, but it is constitutionally protected."

By definition of the word, their actions are more along the lines of harassment than protest.

Harassment - to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

Protest - an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid.

Protests are supposed to be aimed towards the ones who have to power to so something about it and not the victims and their families. Hopefully the verdict stands, and their ill actions are recognized for what they truly are.

Other Comments by Jimill

10. Comment #84000 by Flagellant on November 1, 2007 at 1:18 am

I heard about this decision on BBC Radio 4: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072404.stm My initial reaction was gleeful; I can't but hope that this case may moderate the behaviour of hate-preachers, even if it is overturned on appeal.

However, a more considered response is to think about the limits of free speech. I'm sure the US has discussed the concept of free speech ad nauseam but, if there is an implicit Constitutional permission for the Phelps family to behave as they did, isn't there something wrong?

The funerals were not completely private functions. It seems iniquitous that one could be successfully prosecuted for heckling the hate-filled Phelps family in church ('private') but that they could picket and shout at someone's funeral ('public'), with impunity. The piece suggests that some states have enacted laws to prevent demonstrations of this sort but that Maryland hasn't. Shouldn't Maryland have draft legislation ready for when the decision is overturned?

Mind you, I would love to see a case in which people like the Phelps family were challenged to prove the accuracy of statements like 'God hates fags' and that 'the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality'.

Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

11. Comment #84002 by mattpenfold on November 1, 2007 at 1:42 am

"Certainly this will be overturned. Their speech may not be nice, but it is constitutionally protected."

Of course, it would not do to forget that the American people are their to serve the their constitution rather than the constitution being there to serve them.

Any constitution that allows the likes of Phelps to picket funerals like he has is seriously flawed. Common sense seems to be something those who think Phelps should be allowed to picket funerals are lacking. His deeds are odious, and whilst he should have the right to hold them, and even articulate them if anyone wants to listen, he should not have the right to do so in places were he will cause the distress he so clearly has done.

Other Comments by mattpenfold

12. Comment #84004 by Bertybob on November 1, 2007 at 1:43 am

With "rights" also come "responsibilities".

I have "free speech" in the UK, but that does not extend to being able to incite racial hatred or violence.

We also have a common law offence of "breach of the peace". If my conduct is likely to give rise to unrest or potential violence, then I can be arrested and prosecuted.

It is a fine line to walk, but I would hope that if this happened in the UK, the Police may have arrested the protestors and brought prosecutions for "breach of the peace".

Other Comments by Bertybob

13. Comment #84007 by Tim Marsh on November 1, 2007 at 2:03 am

Bertybob, I don't understand. The Phelps' are non-violent, and neither advocate nor request violence. The only violence that seems likely to emerge from their protests are from those offended by what they say, which needless to say, doesn't really count.

They certainly advocate intolerance towards homosexuals, but they also give very much a "it's too late now, you're doomed" impression, rather than suggesting "violent rejection of homosexuals would be a good idea because it would save you all". I'm not too clear on this, but it is my understanding the inciting of "hatred" is covered by free speech, but hatred that incites violence is not.

Other Comments by Tim Marsh

14. Comment #84008 by Robert Maynard on November 1, 2007 at 2:03 am

Hugo:

you can be removed from a concert if you disrupt it, the same should apply to funerals.

Right, except they were protesting in a public space, outside the cemetery. So ..we're supposed to remove them from the public space? What's your next move, Mussolini? :P

mattpenfold:

[presumably sarcastically] the American people are there to serve the constitution rather than the constitution being there to serve them.

Right, because the Phelps's speech doesn't deserve the protection of the constitution. It's not like they're Americans too or anything.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

15. Comment #84010 by epeeist on November 1, 2007 at 2:10 am

Comment #84008 by Robert Maynard

Right, except they were protesting in a public space, outside the cemetery. So ..we're supposed to remove them from the public space? What's your next move, Mussolini? :P

This is a fairly tricky one to get right. To some extent I think this court case might be the closest.

By all means allow the freedom of speech but "the freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose", if this causes measurable distress then you pay for the distress you caused.

Other Comments by epeeist

16. Comment #84015 by Tim Marsh on November 1, 2007 at 2:36 am

But epeeist, surely you're not suggesting that an amount of distress has been measured (somehow) that is worth something in the area of 11 million dollars? That had the Phelps' not protested this funeral, the improvement in the father in question's current life or mental state would be worth US$11,000,000?

Either way, when speaking on matters of communication and expression, the consequentialist notion of "you did damage, pay for it" starts to weaken when the 'damages' are not, in fact, easily 'measured', and the resulting 'damages' are not so reliably contingent on the 'attack' in question as in the case of physical assault.
A good rule of thumb I have always employed is, it is unethical to knowingly hurt the feelings of others when there is nothing to be accomplished by doing so, but making it legally punishable to hurt someone's feelings is to move a little too close to a kind of 'emotional fascism'.

Other Comments by Tim Marsh

17. Comment #84016 by Robert Maynard on November 1, 2007 at 2:38 am

More like 'crybaby fascism', am I right?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

18. Comment #84018 by epeeist on November 1, 2007 at 2:52 am

Comment #84015 by Tim Marsh

But epeeist, surely you're not suggesting that an amount of distress has been measured (somehow) that is worth something in the area of 11 million dollars?

Personally I wouldn't, but there again I don't live in a country that is (quite) as litigious as the States.

And I also agree with you about measurement of distress and the difference between physical and emotional abuse (but not the word fascism) and the slippery slope this could go down.

All the same, I do think this family have suffered rather more than the woman who sued McDonald's for not telling her that the coffee she bought was hot.

Other Comments by epeeist

19. Comment #84021 by Quetzalcoatl on November 1, 2007 at 2:59 am

If the protesters were close enough that the mourners could hear them during the ceremony, then I would definitely want the Phelps and their unpleasant ilk to pay damages. They may have the right to protest, but the family and friends have the right not to have their attempt to say goodbye ruined by such morons.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

20. Comment #84023 by Robert Maynard on November 1, 2007 at 3:03 am

Is it really a good idea to side with ceremonial burial over freedom of speech, Quetz? I mean, if I had to choose...
And again, what measurement scheme are we taking to these 'damages', which arrives at $11000000?

I think Jimill's made the best argument so far - that WBC's activities are more geared towards harassment than protest, and are therefore not protected.
Particularly in that they have no apparent interest in working to change American policies, in the sense that the Dominionists do, for example.

Still, I think that deterring the expression of certain opinions with gigantic fines is not a wise approach to washing those opinions (or those expressions) out of a society.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

21. Comment #84025 by mattpenfold on November 1, 2007 at 3:12 am

"Bertybob, I don't understand. The Phelps' are non-violent, and neither advocate nor request violence. The only violence that seems likely to emerge from their protests are from those offended by what they say, which needless to say, doesn't really count."

They are engage in an activity they know, or should be expected to know, will possibly incite others to be violent towards them. No doubt that is part of their rationale.

No one here has said Phelps should not be able to hold and articulate the views he holds but some, such as me, are saying he should not be free to do at a time and place when his doing so will cause the distress it clearly does. There is a right for people to expect others to behave with a certain degree of decorum in a public place and those who are unable to do so should not expect their behaviour to go unchallenged.

I understand this can be a fine distinction but much of Western Europe seems to have managed it. The right to free speech does NOT trump all other rights, and one of the rights it should not trump is the right to bury a loved one with dignity. If Phelps wants to protest let him protest outside a military base at the time the funeral is taking place. His right to free speech would still be protected, and the family would bury their loved in peace.

Other Comments by mattpenfold

22. Comment #84027 by Quetzalcoatl on November 1, 2007 at 3:17 am

True, and I don't particularly agree with the damages figure- it seems to be an American thing to make massive punitive damages claims.

As for the burial thing- this is purely my judgement, but it would depend on how close the Phelps were. If they were standing at the graveside screaming and shouting, nobody would argue against throwing them out. But if you're trying to say goodbye to someone you love, and you keep hearing people (even in the distance) screaming "your son's a fag!" "he's burning in Hell" or whatever, then this can cause considerable emotional distress. And I do think they should have to pay for that. But it's a tricky area.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

23. Comment #84028 by Duff on November 1, 2007 at 3:17 am

I'm certainly not advocating violence, but it is amazing to me that these people are not so beat up they can't get around anymore. They have been at this for years now and I'm astounded a grieving family member or friend hasn't visited upon them the "wrath of god" they so obviously believe in.

I'm afraid this is going to be overturned, but couldn't it be argued that they, like most true believers, are mentally incompetent and should be locked up to protect them from physical harm?

Other Comments by Duff

24. Comment #84029 by irate_atheist on November 1, 2007 at 3:18 am

It's a pity they can't be prosecuted under the remit of the California Clean Air Act.

Hey ho.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

25. Comment #84033 by AdrianB on November 1, 2007 at 3:24 am

As many have already said this is a tricky one.

The Phelps are lawyers, and I believe much of their money has come from winning court cases, probably after somebody has threatened them or tried to restrict their free speech. They are undoubtably nasty ****s, so they have many enemies, but the law protects them.

For this reason it would be nice to see the system they rely on to spout their wicked nonsense actually be their downfall in the end, but I am sure this will be overturned.

In fact as I write this, the more I hope it is overturned. Partly because the idea of free speech demands it, but mainly because the Phelps probably do as much for the cause of atheism as Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by AdrianB

26. Comment #84057 by k1mgy on November 1, 2007 at 4:56 am

A funeral is not a public event. It is performed on private property. Owners of the property have every right to restrict access and to restrict speech. "Freedom of Speech" is for the public square. If we were to have the stomach to visit the Westboro Baptist Church and protest during their ignorant and hateful meetings, they would have every right to throw us out and, if we refuse to leave, have us charged as trespassers.

"Following their religious beliefs" has a place in the public square (unfortunately) and within the confines of their homes and churches. They lose their rights when they impede or crash a private event. I would doubt any jury would find the defendants liable if the First Amendment were in question here. The decision would not stick in review, otherwise.

A civil lawsuit arises when the criminal justice system fails to deliver (OJ Simpson case, as example). Civil trials are significantly less stringent as to rules of evidence and burden of proof. Perhaps WBC were well advised and did not stray over the line into criminal conduct necessitating civil relief.

Their idiocy is ignorant and painful and to their victims obviously repugnant. Unfortunately they can spew this and all the other religious nonsense, evoke pain, and probably get away with it under protection of the same government and laws they hate.

Other Comments by k1mgy

27. Comment #84059 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 5:00 am

Is it a freedom of speech issue if someone pickets outside your house (public area technically) with loud speakers and disgusting signs screaming that you are a scumbag who will go to hell?

I think this is definitely harassment and probably violates other laws such as stalking and creating a public nuisance.

Other Comments by Bonzai

28. Comment #84062 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 5:09 am

BTW, freedom of expression ends when the expression targets specific individuals who are not "public figures" in any reasonable sense (or even public figures if it crosses a certain line)

Libel, for example, is not protected by the first amendment.

Other Comments by Bonzai

29. Comment #84063 by Theocrapcy on November 1, 2007 at 5:13 am

Phelps is a closet homosexual.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

30. Comment #84065 by windweaver on November 1, 2007 at 5:19 am

Much as I detest Phelps and his ilk I have to side with Voltaire on this issue:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Other Comments by windweaver

31. Comment #84066 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 5:22 am

Windweaver,

No,criminal harassment is not covered under free speech.

Other Comments by Bonzai

32. Comment #84067 by NJS on November 1, 2007 at 5:24 am

They should use the same defence I would have recommended to Abu Hamza - they are just preaching/living by their book.

Other Comments by NJS

33. Comment #84070 by windweaver on November 1, 2007 at 5:36 am

Bonzai, virtually everything the Phelps say can be defended scripturally in the bible(depending on interpretation in some cases). The fact that it's sick, demented nonsense is neither here nor there. What they are doing is not the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.They are not acting criminally IMHO.

Other Comments by windweaver

34. Comment #84072 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 5:45 am

Windweaver,

It is not for their sick belief or even speech that they are punished, it is because their action is harassment targeting the specific plaintiff.

If they are punished for the content of their speech they would have been imprisoned or fined (the fine goes to the state). But they are made to pay restitution to the family, this is significant for understanding what they are punished for.

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #84073 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 5:45 am

28. Comment #84062 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 5:09 am
BTW, freedom of expression ends when the expression targets specific individuals who are not "public figures" in any reasonable sense (or even public figures if it crosses a certain line)

Libel, for example, is not protected by the first amendment.

Apparently not. About 12 months ago, I spoke to officials in the county they are based in to complain about their web sites, and to posit that their indoctrination of their children constituted child abuse.

The chap I spoke to was fully familiar with them, and completely resigned that there was nothing they could do. Apparently half of the family are lawyers and quite practised at defending themselves from such suits.

I have to say, I think this somewhat stretches Voltaire. This is so nearly hate speech ...

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

36. Comment #84074 by debaser71 on November 1, 2007 at 5:46 am

I am amazed that folk here think to have your feelings hurt is worth $11 dollars.

My town hall has "God Bless America" banners all over the place. The town hall has retroactively tarnished the memory of my wedding (which took place at town hall). I'd like a big $11 award too.

Anyway, I hope the decision is appealed and over turned. I very much enjoy free speech and I don't want to start sliding down a slippery slope because people cry hurt feelings and offense. Where's all the folk who go goo-goo over Christopher Hitches video on free speech? Just because it's a funeral, all that goes out the window? Think about it.

Other Comments by debaser71

37. Comment #84078 by beebhack on November 1, 2007 at 5:49 am

I imagine these guys cause serious hurt to the grieving. But don't they provide a really interesting insight into a certain kind of religious mind? The British doco-maker Louis Theroux did a film on them a while ago and, it transpired, they really, really believe they're being pious and devout; in other words, by their own lights, they're completely justified. As justified as a young man who straps on a fertilizer bomb and gets onto the Piccadilly Line. So, in a perverse way, I'm content for the WBC to continue to do their thing -- advancing the cause of sanity by accident.

Other Comments by beebhack

38. Comment #84079 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 5:52 am

Brian,

I don't know how their law works.Perhaps depicting some dead boy burning in hell is not "libel" technically. But laws against libel do exist, which proves that not all speech are protected by the first amendment. Now how to actually get a conviction would depend on the technical details.

The U.S. doesn't have laws against hate speech if I recall correctly (so the KKK is technically legal).

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #84083 by Nighttripper on November 1, 2007 at 6:15 am

Disturbing a funeral with hateful allegations pointed at the deceased and their family/friends is just psychological abuse. period. Especially since the people they are harrasing are not even related to, or have any power to change, the things these protesters are agitating against. They should be standing at the white house or their local mayors office. There is absolutely no reason why they should disturb such an emotional event as the burial of ones loved one.

Would american laws have accepted fundementalist muslims protesting at the 9/11 commemoration? Holding up signs saying "Thank Allah for the victims of 9/11"? Would laws have accepted neo-nazi's protesting at an Auswitch commemoration?

Yes, freedom of speech should be protected at all times, but willingly causing such psychological harm upon people who (as anyone should be able to know) are so emotionaly vulnerable has nothing to do with "protesting". After all, what power does the grieving family have to change the tolerance of gay people in the US? Their protests is pointed at the wrong people and as such, does not solve the protesters problems but DOES force a possibly traumatic experience onto the family and friends of the deceased.

Needless to say that 11 million is a ridiculous amount of money, but hey, every courtcase in the US seems to always end in the millions when it comes to paying damages, so why not this one too...?

Other Comments by Nighttripper

40. Comment #84091 by Nighttripper on November 1, 2007 at 6:29 am

BTW
I find it strange, how some people here seem to think of psychological abuse as "not real abuse" as opposed to physical abuse. If indoctrinating children with their parents religion is child molestation then this certainly can be seen as abuse too...

Other Comments by Nighttripper

41. Comment #84098 by dvespertilio on November 1, 2007 at 6:50 am

How about 5,000 peaceful atheists showing up at Phelps' church some bright, Sunday morning? We could just say that we were curious, and wanted to see if they could "enlighten" us on their unusual positions. And I bet we could get some good press coverage out of it, too. Of course, we would have to be absolutely "respectful" and totally nonviolent. Think about it.

Other Comments by dvespertilio

42. Comment #84102 by k1mgy on November 1, 2007 at 7:10 am

Bonzai wrote: "I think this is definitely harassment and probably violates other laws such as stalking and creating a public nuisance."

I wish you were District Attorney in the jurisdiction in question.

The decision to prosecute criminally are left to political and ideological (religious) whim.

The civil system is the only recourse people have when the government fails them.

Other Comments by k1mgy

43. Comment #84106 by black wolf on November 1, 2007 at 7:15 am

@dvespertilio
Not unclever. I recommend signs with messages such as "Thank you. We couldn't have said it better."

Other Comments by black wolf

44. Comment #84114 by steveroot on November 1, 2007 at 7:34 am

I'm all for free expression and tolerance of unpopular points of view. However, the WBC activities, even if technically "protected speech*, are clearly intended to be hurtful. The purpose of free speech is to permit the open dissemination and discussion of ideas without fear of reprisal. Their *must* be an acceptable compromise that allows the slime-balls to express their idiotic point of view while not spoiling the occasion for the mourners. Funerals are for the living; no one should have the memory of their last experience of a loved one marred by such behavior.

How about similar protests at a same-sex marriage? Or *any* marriage? Would this not be considered "disturbing the peace"? Why is it permitted at a funeral? If that dead soldier were my son, I would be quite likely to make his funeral an occasion to remember for at least one of those sphincter suckers. And I'm about as non-violent as they come.
Steve (the submitter! :-) )

Other Comments by steveroot

45. Comment #84124 by decius on November 1, 2007 at 8:09 am

Question about American jurisprudence: what if the sign read "god hates Jews", would it be allowed at all? In many European countries the Phelps would be jailed for inciting hate, in both cases.

Other Comments by decius

46. Comment #84125 by debaser71 on November 1, 2007 at 8:22 am

Just remember that it's a peaceful protest with notions of theology aimed at no one in particular. "God hates fags" is a theological statement. Note it's not, "Fred Phelps hates [insert proper name here]".

And I dislike having to call people out but the McDonalds coffee thing is bogus. The case settled out of court because McDonalds served coffee that was unreasonably hot. i.e. hotter than any reasonable person would expect. The woman also suffered bad burns on her crotch. I think she suffered much more than the family discussed here. And as much as I hate to say it, taking this to court seems to be tarnishing the memory of their son even further. Did the Phelps enter the funeral home or trespass on it's property? Did the Phelps go to the cemetery to bother the family there? I imagine that for 99% of the funeral services the Phelps weren't even capable being seen or heard.

Also place this in the context of 6 years of eroding civil liberties, a supreme court on the verge of radical conservatism, and religious folk going out of their way to get bent out of shape at any comments made against them. "suck it jesus" chocolate jesus, danish cartoons, koran in toilet. Remember when athesits/secularist go to court it's when the government over steps it's limits, not when citizens say or do something offensive.

As far as disturbing the peace or harassment, well those are criminal charges, this however is a civil case. If laws were broken then the Phelps should have been arrested first, and then stood before the court in a criminal trial.

I think people (maybe the Phelps) have protested at weddings.

And I know slippery slope can be fallacious but one day I might want to say protest a church oriented gathering, perhaps a funeral of some child molesting priest. I don't want this case setting precedence because we know damn well that people will seize upon this case, take the inch but then demand a mile.

I don't like to be contentious with my fellow atheists but I just want to suggest that one must be careful what they wish for...it might come true.

RL calls.

eta: forgot to mention that both abuse and harassment imply a situation where the bothering is longer than one instance. As in repeated botherings over a period of time. I don't think either word fits here.

Other Comments by debaser71

47. Comment #84127 by Klaatu barada nikto on November 1, 2007 at 8:32 am

dvespertilio

I wouldn't want to show up at the Phelps church pretending to be curious and seeking enlightenment, the press coverage certainly would be negative for atheists.

I can manage being nonviolent but showing respect for Phelps and his family would take some serious acting skills that I don't possess.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

48. Comment #84130 by steveroot on November 1, 2007 at 8:38 am

46. Comment #84125 by debaser71 on November 1, 2007 at 8:22 am

The woman also suffered bad burns on her crotch. I think she suffered much more than the family discussed here.

She did something stupid. She burned her sorry crotch. She got some money. Burns heal.
The family of this poor soldier will never be able to remember their son's funeral without the associated memory of these dipthongs' presence.
I think there's a big difference.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

49. Comment #84131 by mattpenfold on November 1, 2007 at 8:49 am

It strikes me that there seems to be a divide here between those who think Phelps should be allowed to spew his vile but that does not mean he can do so at anytime or anyplace. Then there are those who think his right to free speech is paramount. It is to those people who I ask this: Why do you think the right to free speech is more important than other rights ? There are also such things are a right to a family life and that would include burying your loved ones in peace. Phelps can protest in many places, he does NOT have to do so at a funeral. A family burying a loved does need to have some form of formal rememberance.

And people also need to remember this: Society does have a right to require people not to act in anti-social manner in a public place.

Other Comments by mattpenfold

50. Comment #84132 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 8:52 am

Just remember that it's a peaceful protest with notions of theology aimed at no one in particular.

Err.. picketing funerals does seem to be aiming at particular individuals. Now I don't know how close they were to the funeral site, but I assume the were close enough to make a scene for the grieving family to know their presence or it wouldn't be picketing a (specific)funeral. No one here argues that they should be charged for expressing their views, even though as disgusting as they are, but they don't have to do it at funerals. It is not an infringement of free speech to tell you to go somewhere else.

forgot to mention that both abuse and harassment imply a situation where the bothering is longer than one instance. As in repeated botherings over a period of time.

I don't know, maybe some lawyers here can help us out. I think it is unreasonable to say that only repeated pesty behaviour constitutes harassment, but I don't know the legal fine points.

Abuse was brought up by some posters concerning the way Phelps indoctrinates the children in his clan and uses them as tools in these spectacles, they are certainly ongoing over an extended period of time. I think the issue is whether U.S. laws consider indoctrinating children with disgusting ideologies constitutes an offense. I can certainly understand how the slippery slope argument may be relevant here.

Other Comments by Bonzai