Westboro Baptist Church ordered to pay $11.9 million

[Severen13]

There is a God!!!

The Westboro Baptist Church, the charming folks who declare "God Hates Fags" and blame anything and everything on homosexuals, had their sorry asses handed to them in court today.

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.

God loves Albert Snyder.

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.

God says "Fuck you" to the Phelps clan.

Click here for the article.

[Rapscallion]

How didn't the First Amendment stop that court case? I'd have thought it would have been an open-and-shut case for the Phelpses. I don't agree with them at all, but I have no idea how this didn't get thwarted.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

There was a woman from that idiotic group with her young daughter on Howard Stern one time and she was so off the wall with her homophobic rants that she was actually funny.

[Soulstealer]

*MOD EDIT - Please do not quote entire posts. Quote removed due to excessive quoting.

The first amendment may cover free speech but there are also restrictions on that. For example shouting 'fire' in a building or commiting liable as in this case. Hell they're tresspassing on a private funeral since none of them were friends or family.

[derangedperson]

There's justice in the world after all. May Snyder use that money well, and may that inbred twat monkey Phelps and his psycho brood kiss our collective asses and go straight to hell.

[Rapscallion]

The first amendment may cover free speech but there are also restrictions on that. For example shouting 'fire' in a building or commiting liable as in this case. Hell they're tresspassing on a private funeral since none of them were friends or family.

That's all fine and I understand it, except that shouting fire in a building is on private property. That's where you can say that it's definitively someone else's business what can and cannot be said. This was a funeral - on the way to the funeral is public land, and most cemetaries are open to the public. There's the implicit right to public freedom there, as long as there's no desecration of gravestones etc. I'm just baffled by the legal aspect.

I can see the damages being reduced on appeal.

Rapscallion

[Acolyte]

Keep in mind, though, that the judge and jury are ALWAYS going to be biased against Phelps. And, in the end, it's their decision.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Raps

First off, it was a civil lawsuit, not a legal one. The point of a civil lawsuit is to benefit people who have been wronged, not punish someone who has broken the law. In a civil case the requirements to find guilt are not nearly as stringent as a legal case. That's why OJ was found innocent at his legal trial but guilty at his civil trial. Weird, I know, but that's the way it's done over here.

Second, the court found them at fault because they purposely went out of their way to protest at an event that was

A) Private (even in a public place you can have private events)

B) Has nothing to do with the topic they are protesting (Gay rights) and

C) Are reasonably sure that they will be causing mental harm to those attending for legitimate reasons.

It was a premeditated attack on the families of the dead regardless of the "reasons" they claim they were there.

Their actions were considered harassment, and so they were found liable for damages.


According to what I've read, they also wrote a bunch of crap on their website they they had dug up about the deceased Marine condemning him on his marital history, and this was also part of the lawsuit. They also apparently specifically targeted this family by making their protest signs about this family and not general in nature.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

*MOD EDIT - Please do not quote entire posts. Quote removed due to excessive quoting.

Yeah, ditto. Phelps is a loathsome human being. So are his followers. There is no good reason why a soldier's funeral needs to be turned into his personal soapbox where he can rail against homosexuality.

[Amethyst Hunter]

*MOD EDIT - Please do not quote entire posts. Quote removed due to excessive quoting.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

[Rapscallion]

Thanks for that, TPG. I have to admit that I only have a limited knowledge of US law.

Rapscallion

[ThePhoneGoddess]

Well, you're British! I wouldn't expect you to have a detailed understanding of all the complexities of our laws. I myself know very little about English law, even though I'm an Anglophile.

Excuse me while I go drink my imported tea.

[crazylegs]

I would imagine that like the Human Rights Act 1998 that freedom of speech is a right that has limits, as in slander etc. The HRA '98 does state you may not use your rights at the expense of others rights, which is probably the case here.

[Will-Mun]

This, makes me truly happy, more happy than Phelps Daughter/Granddaughter/ICan'tRemember getting arrested for desecration of a flag (cause laws against flag burning/desecration are stupid)... I despise Fred Phelps, with a fiery passion. He is scum, and the definition of an evil man...

He is one of the VERY few people I wish death upon...

But... Really all we have to do is wait for him and his brood to pass... He doesn't have ANY followers outside of his own like, 70 person family. His entire church is made up of his relatives... Or at least mostly so...

I've always wanted to make a Fred Phelps thread in Fratching, but I never got around to it, and also there wouldn't be a point. I have never MET a man who agrees with that monster, and I think that would be another one sided debate.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Raps, I asked the same thing. While I am happy about this, I am very interested in law and court cases and would love to know what the exact charges were.

But you know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking the prosecuter knew that all he had to do was trot this case out in front of a jury. Can you imagine an American jury (or any jury, for that matter) doing anything but deciding to pummel these evil, sick shits with anything less than a guilty verdict?

Juries are notorious for being filled with...well...human beings. Who let their emotions override the facts, in many cases.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have done the same thing. I'm glad. But then, our laws are not written to protect us from people this over the top. They still exist, however, so I would be interested in how they managed to pull this one off.