Protesters get out of control, $10.9 million payout

The First Amendment prohibits the government from taking action that suppresses speech.

People have a right to free speech, but there are limits. The government has the right to take action against speech that might or does incite a riot. Individuals have the right to take action (sue for damages) for speech that rises to the level of what the law calls an actionable tort: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. Personally, I agree with the outcome of this case.

 

I think Freedom of Speech is our single most important freedom.

That being said, I hope these bastards are left penniless.

Protesting at a public figure's funeral is one thing. Protesting at a private family's is something else. I could not rent a billboard saying "John Smith (my neighbor) is insane." But I could rent out a billboard saying "Michael Jackson is insane" and be completely in my rights to do so. Same thing for funerals.

If it wasn't for the fact that it would be sinking to their level, I would love to attend Fred Phelp's funeral.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boo @ Nov 1 2007, 10:56 AM) [snapback]533383[/snapback]</div>

Boo, you have this one right on the money. Private citizens have a reasonable right to privacy and freedom from harassment in their private lives. For example, there are laws dealing with disturbing the peace so that your neighbor can't play loud music all night while you try to sleep. Striking Broadway musicians can't jump in the back of your car when you are stopped at a light, and play show tunes to protest poor working conditions. Zoning laws prevent neighboring property owners from putting up giant billboards to spread the Lord's word at the expense of your view. Our legal system is full of these trade-offs; trade-offs between the right of free speech and some other right. A funeral for a family member is certainly one of the times that privacy and respect trumps complete free speech.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Nov 1 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]533396[/snapback]</div>

I think everyone here will agree on this one. Hope the bastards are left penniless - unfortunately they probably do not understand the evil of their ways here. Truly disgusting.

 

Forgot to respond to your 2nd question re the enactment of laws prohibiting protests at funerals.

I have no personal problems with such laws. I'll gladly agree to refrain from political protest at funerals. But I think such laws violate the First Amendment (government action that suppresses speech) ... however a court may disagree on the grounds that it's a reasonable this or a reasonable that ....

 

I certainly agree that some forms of contemptible and hurtful expression at a private function can be legally restrained (such as by a large group of strangers who are in effect "crashing" the function), but I strongly disagree with the magnitude of the penalty. Devastating financial ruin as the price for hurting someone's feelings? Lifetime financial independence as compensation for injured feelings? Here's news: life ain't fair. Emotional bruising is part of the ride. I find the judgement disproportionate in the extreme and, much as I despise and loathe the message of the protestors, and disagree with their method, I nonetheless hope the judgement gets reduced significantly on appeal.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Fred Phelps is not really a "protester" because in reality he's not "protesting" anything. His "church," while legally incorporated as a church under the silly laws of our country, is basically himself and his family. His tactic in the past has been to "protest' in such an obnoxious manner that someone will take a swing at him, and then he sues him. He has several daughters who are lawyers.

A decade or two ago he went to the funerals of people who had died of AIDS with signs that said "God hates fags" and other such disgusting slogans. If someone slugged him: lawsuit. He made a living at it. But then the gay community got his number and spread the word and totally ignored his disgusting and offensive "protests." By the time he appeared in Fargo at Gay Pride Week people just ignored him, so he made no money.

Some time after that he switched to "protesting" soldiers' funerals, probably counting on the dead soldier's buddies to slug him, so his daughters could sue them.

It would appear that someone has finally turned the tables on him and is suing him. I hope they win. He still has his daughters to defend him (so he does not have to pay a lawyer) but now that he's switched his target from an oppressed minority that the mainstream considers it acceptable to hate, to a group of people who most Americans admire above all else, he's going to find it harder to get a sympathetic jury.

Fred Phelps is an abberation who does not fall into any political or religious category. He is neither liberal nor conservative, neither Christian nor atheist nor any other religion. he is a pervert who found what was, until now, an effective way to make a dishonest dollar, shielded behind a "church" that has no actual beliefs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 1 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]533461[/snapback]</div>

I imagine the jury felt it was nailing them for all of the times they have done this, not just this one episode. That may be improper, and it may get reduced on appeal, but juries have a way of interpreting the law as they see fit.

Tom

 

I'm not sure I disagree so strongly with the penalty. It's clear from the article and the statements of "members" of the "church" that this group's modus operandi is to try to inflict hurt on other people as a means of sending out a message. That's where they cross the line, and the judgment is a message not only to this group, but to people of any persuasion or politic that free speech does not mean "whatever, whenever."

This case shows that maybe we don't need a law for protest at funerals. I think most organizers of protests would have enough decency to leave private citizens alone at a funeral, so I don't see an urgent need for regulation. This joker made a habit of spreading a hateful message in the most hurtful way he could come up with, and existing laws seem to be taking care of that nicely.

 

p.s. If you didn't see this link in the article, read it now. It's kind of funny, and kind of sad: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cn...bc22307acmp.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 1 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]533411[/snapback]</div>

You see? There are some things we can totally agree on!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 11 01 08:07) [snapback]533411[/snapback]</div>

I never thought I'd see the day, but yes, dberman, I agree with you. Just this once though, don't get carried away.

On another note, I see Phelps's continued existence as evidence there is no God. If there were, Phelps and his cult surely would have been struck by lightning by now, for taking the message of love and peace and turning it into hate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 1 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]533461[/snapback]</div>

I agree with the magnitude of the penalty being blown out of proportion. I'm curious if the slain solider's family will ever collect anything from Phelps and his church. OJ hasn't paid a dime of his civil suit.

 

I think the dad has been quoted saying he really doesn't expect to see any of the penalty money - but he does hope that this will give other families the courage to sue the Phelps clan.

The way I see it, either Phelps is a horribly twisted person, using the Bible as an excuse for his own disgusting behavior. Or, he has come up with a scam to sue people who are already going through hell and make a living off of the proceeds rather than actually doing an honest day's work

Either way, he's absolutely disgusting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 1 2007, 10:35 AM) [snapback]533373[/snapback]</div>

1. Yes.

2.No


There you have it. Simple and to the point.

 

Nobody has responded to my post #8 above.

Phelps knows perfectly well what he's doing. He does not believe any of what he says. he does not believe anything. He is a twisted person who has found a way to make a living by inciting people to attack him so he can sue them. This time it backfired and someone sued him instead.

He is not a person using freedom of speech to express an honestly-held opinion. He is a person exploiting freedom of speech in a cynical manner for simple greed.

As much as I hate religion, and as much as I consider religion to be directly responsible for half of the man-made suffering in the world, Fred Phelps has nothing to do with religion, and his behavior says nothing about religion. Although he has incorporated his criminal family organization as a "church" this is one of those rare cases where religion and religious belief has nothing to do with the issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Nov 1 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]533461[/snapback]</div>

I think the award is fine. Have you read what they have done to people?

Going to a dead soldiers funeral and having a sign saying "thank god for IED'S" and another saying "god hates your tears" is gonna cause some hurting. Now I know this judgement was for just one protest but he has done this to HUNDREDS of other people. I think its just. I hope others sue him too.

Read about Phelps. If after you read all of what he is done and you don't think he should be ruined financially then we are vastly different in our thinking.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Somechic @ Nov 1 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]533544[/snapback]</div>

They will probobly collect a small amount of it.

OJ HAS paid a small amount of his civil suit. Not voluntarilty.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Somechic @ Nov 1 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]533544[/snapback]</div>

They will probobly collect a small amount of it.

OJ HAS paid a small amount of his civil suit. Not voluntarilty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 1 2007, 04:38 PM) [snapback]533568[/snapback]</div>

Should there be a law against your neighbor blasting their stereo at 2:00 in the morning? If not, fine, but if so, what's the difference?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Somechic @ Nov 1 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]533544[/snapback]</div>

If you read the text of the complaint (I linked it above as pdf, and it's linked in OP's article) they claim that the Phelps spend $250k annually to perpetrate these kind of personal attacks. Personally, I think if they have that kind of money to go around spreading hate and inciting violence, then they deserve financial ruin as their reward.

I also doubt that all or even most of the judgment will be paid, but hopefully it results in bankruptcy for their "church" and an end to their organized crimes. And although I personally disagree completely with their message, they're entitled to hold those opinions, but not to act in that way. I would say the same thing of someone acting similarly under any pretense.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 1 2007, 05:38 PM) [snapback]533568[/snapback]</div>

I'm glad you're not my lawyer. Again, I'd point to the complaint linked above, and you tell me if you think all the things they're accused of fall under the protection of the first amendment.