"A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict against a fundamentalist church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. "

See the rest of the article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/

Questions:

1) Do you think this will be overturned on appeal?

2) Should this be overturned? Are the First Amendment rights of the WBC being violated?

3) If yes to #2, is there any other course of action that would be in line with the Constitution that could maybe help keep these jerks away, or at least make them less of a visible annoyance? (i.e. making a law that says they must be 500 feet away from a funeral, etc...)

To the moderators: if this topic belongs elsewhere, please feel free to move it.

It should not be overturned. First Amendment rights go both ways. People are not permitted to force their religion upon others as this is infringement of others beliefs or lack of same.

Additionally, this is not a free speech question. Having political free speech is not protected at any place, any time. This is an inappropriate venue for political speech.

The Church is guilty of harassment.

Great topic, Dayna

1) Do you think this will be overturned on appeal?

I don't think it will be overturned, but the damages might be reduced.


2) Should this be overturned? Are the First Amendment rights of the WBC being violated?

No, the verdict is correct. One of the things that keeps judges busy is the fact that while we all have rights under the Constitution, sometimes those rights conflict with each other. It's the old "Your right to throw a punch ends at the point where it meets my nose" kind of thing. In this case, that is clearly the case. One thing in particular struck me from Danya's link.....



This is a losing argument. Maybe to these whackos a funeral is a "public event", but clearly to the family it is not. And, I think the court will side with the family's rights on this one, or they should. The First Amendment protects me from the government intruding on my practice of religious beliefs, but it doesn't authorize me to intrude on others' practice of theirs.

Aquilla

To add to this notion, these nut jobs should have to pay and also face some sort of criminal charges for trespassing or disturbing the peace.

If I stand in front of a wedding and harass people, the police will surely shoo me off. If I stay, I'll get handcuffed. Why is it okay to harass people at a funeral?

What are the legal issues with this? I suppose if they stand in a public street, there can't be trespassing charges.

I find the "sue for money" idea dispicable, excepting in this case where it might cripple the church's ability to picket. Frankly, suing a corporation who doesn't care about the money or a person who cannot pay is silly, but in this case where most likely it will impact everyone in an organization... kudos to the judge.

Picketing any funeral is absurd and shouldn't be tolerated.

I think it all hinges on this being a private ceremony. If this continues to be upheld as a private ceremony- I don't think the award will be even reduced much.

However, if it is ruled at some point as a public event- they the entire judgement will be overturned.

This is a civil judgment for a civil offence and imo the first amendment does not give you the right to use the tactics used by this group of nutcases. The bad news is they probably will never collect a dime – let’s hope the authorities shut them down.

As much as I am not a fan of "these nutjobs," "these jerks," "these whackos," I'm going to have to disagree with the verdict based on what I know of the facts. If some can point to some refutation of this information, that'd be great.

According to reports, the protesters were 1,000 feet away from the church, down a hill and out of sight and hearing of the participants at the funeral. The police told the protesters where to stand for their protest and that's where they stood. I haven't seen anything to dispute this information.

The funeral was publicized and Snyder admitted that he did not know all of the 500 people who attended, nor did anyone attempt to prevent the general public from attending (apart from, understandably, the protesters). Therefore, this can't be considered a "private ceremony."

This being the case, I think the verdict should be overturned.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent when you set a distance limit on protests of public events. I understand that this was probably intended to be a private event, but it actually wasn't. The WBC protesters were in a designated area away from the funeral and out of sight and earshot of the attendees.

Two of the charges were, apparently, dismissed - defamation and invasion of privacy - publicity given to private life counts.

The remaining counts were: invasion of privacy - intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

I don't believe that the invasion of privacy count is valid based on what I know. The intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy counts are a bit murkier.

*edited to correct the charges dismissed.

1) Do you think this will be overturned on appeal?
I doubt it.
2) Should this be overturned? Are the First Amendment rights of the WBC being violated?
No. As the old saw goes, your freedoms end where the other person’s nose begins. You can’t legally yell Fire! in a crowded theatre unless there really is a fire. A funeral is a private thing between the deceased and his/her loved ones. The Westboro whackos have caused some states to actually make specific laws to protect mourners at funerals from these parasites.

And let’s hope Federal Bill HR 5307 gets passed so we don’t have to see Phelps and his ilk disrespect the dead again.

The federal judge who allowed the case to go forward actually “dismissed claims of invasion of privacy and defamation arising from comments posted about Snyder on the Westboro website, calling them protected speech” so the judge graciously allowed Phelps and his not-so-merry band to continue to post their vitriol to their black hearts’ content on their own website.

Besides, these crazy freaks are actually happy about the verdict.

No, I don’t think they do, crazy woman. But I bet they’ll take what little you have and make it darned difficult to continue your campaign of hate...if there's any justice in the world.

I disagree with you on the privacy issue. It is possible to have a private function in a public place, happens all the time. I would argue that the nature of the function defines it more than where it's held or how it's attended. By its nature, a funeral is a private thing for the family. As such, it is their right to define the parameters. Inviting the public to attend the funeral to pay their respects doesn't invalidate the family's right to privacy and dignity. If I invite you into my home it doesn't give you the right to drink my expensive booze, kick my dog or throw a brick through my TV.

I think in this case the court will consider the rights of each party in the context of societal norms and determine that the rights of the family for a private and dignified funeral trump the rights of the whackos to make idiots of themselves.


Aquilla

DG- if that bill passes, how will it prevent real political activism from being stifled? What keeps some public politician, R or D behind thier name, from being picketed in the true meaning of free speech? What if each politician calls thier rally a "memorial" so in order to have it declared "private"-

personally- if it can be proven that this was a private funeral, and the judgement stands- I would be more than happy to let the law stay as it is.

I haven't read the bill that Daffy referenced, it wouldn't load for some reason, but it seems to me that it would be pretty simple to pass legislation that makes a distinction between a private function like a family member's funeral and a public function like a political event. We have long-standing legislation in place that does that sort of thing with our libel laws for example. The law makes a distinction between a "pubic figure" and a "private person", and quite frankly, it's really difficult to be found guilty of defaming or libeling a public person like a politician. I would think that in this situation such a distinction could easily be made.


Aquilla

I hope so Aquilla, a great deal many laws in America have harmed folks that the law never intended to harm.

But if Maryland law now states that protesters must be 300 feet from the funeral and these guys were 1000 feet from the funeral, what is it that makes this an invasion of privacy? So, if someone protests at a funeral and is 350 feet away, can they still lose a civil suit because the participants are offended by the protest?

Aquilla, the link did the same thing to me when I tried it! So, I went looking for it again. I transposed the number; it should have been HR 5037. But, I did find that it has already been enacted into law as the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act". The text of the law is here: GPO

It only deals with military funerals. Of course, I don't believe ANY funeral should be disrupted by the likes of Phelps or anyone els, but hey, I guess that's just me. But, if Phelps and his crew picket another military funeral, they might be looking at more than a civil suit - they might get a stay at the graybar hotel.

1) Do you think this will be overturned on appeal?

I don't really know, but I suspect that the fact that this tiny cult is more despised than just about any group in America will be a factor. It shouldn't be a factor, of course, but it will be.

Let's suppose that some other group had protested in exactly the same way -- following the same rules dealing with distance and so on -- and been charged with the same civil wrongs. Would the verdict have been the same? Imagine, for example, that the funeral had attracted people with signs saying things like "Support the War" or "End the War," and that the family members of the slain man had disagreed with these sentiments. Would they still have won the case? It seems less likely to me. Even if they had won, would such protesters been socked with such a gigantic fee to pay? I seriously doubt it. I think the jury threw the book at them because they hate them.

2) Should this be overturned? Are the First Amendment rights of the WBC being violated?

Yes.

As entspeak has already pointed out, the protesters were following the laws that had already been passed to minimize the disruption of their actions. They did not block anyone from attending the service.

It also really scares me that there is such a thing as "intentional infliction of emotional distress" which can be considered a civil wrong. Such a charge could be brought against just about any kind of otherwise legal protest. Maybe the folks marching in favor of the war bring emotional distress to those who have lost loved ones in battle. Maybe the folks marching against the war bring emotional distress to others who have lost loves ones in battle. The concept of "emotional distress" is far too broad and vague to be an acceptable legal standard, in my opinion.

3) If yes to #2, is there any other course of action that would be in line with the Constitution that could maybe help keep these jerks away, or at least make them less of a visible annoyance? (i.e. making a law that says they must be 500 feet away from a funeral, etc...)

Reasonable restrictions, designed to apply equally to all, are acceptable in many situations. I must point out once more that such restrictions already exist, and that this cult obeys them. However, we must be very, very careful to ensure that such restrictions are truly reasonable. When in doubt, err on the side of free speech.

In general, the best way to protect oneself from evil ideas is to allow them to be heard freely; to calmly and rationally speak out against them; to ignore them, and go on with one's life.

The WBC was not charged with a criminal offense by the state of Maryland which is where the 300 foot rule comes into effect. Rather, they were sued in a civil action in Federal Court under Maryland laws concerning defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress - all civil charges, not criminal ones. So whether they were 300 feet away, or 300 miles is irrelevant to this case. What is relevant is whether or not the WBC violated the Maryland laws invoked in this lawsuit. In fact, the federal district court determined that the Snyders' cause of action had merit under Maryland law when it denied the WBC's request for dismissal. All of the relevant filings and findings can be found here.

I haven't figured out yet how to cut and paste parts of a .pdf file or I would cite specific citations of the Maryland state statutes that provide the foundation for this lawsuit. You can read them in the court's response denying the WBC's motion to dismiss the case. Ironically, the WBC's primary argument for dismissal appeared to be the findings in the Hustler Magazine v. Falwell which was ruled in favor of Hustler primarily because Jerry Falwell was considered by the court to be a "public figure". In this case the court determined that the Snyders were not. Still though, the WBC siding with Hustler Magazine in a court filing? Talk about strange bedfellows.....

In any case, this lawsuit demonstrates that there are provisions within the law that provide for and recognize common human decency. Violating those laws may not land one in jail, but they could result in a pretty severe adverse civil judgement. I am all for the First Amendment - right up until that fist hits me in the nose. I think this judgement is going to stand,


Aquilla

After reading Aquilla’s link, it looks like there was clear and specific defamation of character in this case. On the defendant’s website, they posted that the plaintiff and his wife had raised Matthew for the devil, and they personally “ripped that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery, taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity and taught Matthew to be an idolator.”

Case closed. The above is clear character defamation because it referred to a specific individual and his surviving family. Neither the victim, nor his family, are public figures. The freedom of speech defense doesn’t apply to such an obvious case of libel.


Edited to add: Link pertaining to the differences between civil and criminal law. Not all constitutional protections apply in civil cases.

I think you hit the nail on the head here, VS.

Let's face it, folks: be it an $11million verdict or an $11Billion verdict, there's no way it's going to stop them from preaching as they do. This is no kind of victory at all.

I feel bad for even starting this topic, because any attention given to them is exactly what they want. On their website, they have a notice which states, "Any of our material may be used at any time, for any purpose." This verdict, having been talked about on MSNBC and other news outlets, just adds fuel to their insane fire.

Interesting point.

To take it a step further. Funerals often have a religious element. So, could this be seen as one religious group interfering with the religious freedom of another group?

Well, not so closed. The defamation count was dismissed.



But there didn't appear to be any interference, did there?



But doesn't the states view of what legally constitutes an invasion of privacy at a funeral have an impact on whether or not it was an invasion of privacy? I mean, they passed the law to ensure the privacy of these funerals, right?

Well, certainly a criminal conviction of invasion of privacy or trespassing would add weight to the plaintiff's case in a subsequent civil case, But it's not necessary to have a criminal conviction in order to prevail in a civil case. The standards are different as we see from Mrs P's excellent link. We saw that in the OJ Simpson case where he was found not guilty of murder in the criminal trial, but lost in a wrongful death civil case.


Aquilla

While a civil defendant may not have the same Constitutional protections as part of the process of the trial that a criminal defendant does, there is nothing in the essay to say that First Amendment rights don't apply. They do apply in civil cases even when the plaintiff is a private citizen. The question still remains: at what point does the plaintiff's right to privacy stop and the defendant's right to free speech begin. In my opinion, 1000 feet out of sight and out of earshot was well outside the zone of privacy.

Add to this the fact that Snyder testified that he did not see the content of the signs as he entered or left the site of the funeral... he saw that later... on television. These protesters were not shouting, the offensive speech on the day of the funeral was on the signs.

The Maryland statutes which provided the foundation for the lawsuit don't require a "physical intrusion" on the plaintiff's privacy. I'll have to type them in by hand since I still haven't figured out how to cut and paste a PDF document.....

652B (Maryland torts).......



652D (Maryland torts).........



Given the events surrounding this case I would argue that the Snyders had a pretty solid foundation under Maryland law to pursue this action. Both from the actions of the WBC at the funeral itself as well as the comments they posted in public on their Internet website. Obviously the federal judge and jury agree with me.

Edited to add a response to Dayna.....



You shouldn't feel bad about broaching this subject at all. It is a great topic for discussion here and I think the arguments presented here on both sides of the debate have caused everyone participating (and reading) to consider the way our system works and is supposed to work. That is never a bad thing. The free speech issue works both ways and I think sometimes people forget that. This case illustrates this concept perfectly. While the WBC had the Constitutional right to do what they did without fear of prosecution from the state (and that didn't happen), their actions harmed another citizen and there were consequences for that in the form of a civil lawsuit. This wasn't a case of the state tromping on Constitutional rights, the state of Maryland wasn't even a direct party to this lawsuit. Instead, this was a case of one citizen causing harm to another and the "victim" seeking redress in court. That's how it's supposed to work.

So, ok, the WBC wants to claim they gained attention for their "cause", warped as it may be. Fine, let them claim anything they want. But, at the end of the day the people of Maryland can also make a compelling claim. Through their legislation they have demonstrated that a family from Pennsylvania can hold a private and dignified funeral for their son in Maryland. Anyone who seeks to interfere with that will have to face the consequences of that action. Not a bad message I think.



Aquilla

Being that Snyder testified that he did not see the content of the signs while entering or exiting the funeral site, and being that he could not possibly have seen the content of the signs during the funeral, how were the protesters intruding? By simply standing 1,000 feet away? How was that an intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of the funeral?



This count was dismissed and, therefore, should have played no part in the decision.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dismissed". Dismissed by who? The judge or the jury? I can't find the documentation on that. Help me out here.


Repeating a part of your post......



The court answered this question in this finding. Once again, typing it out since I can't cut and paste.......



Works for me.



Aquilla

Dismissed as in dismissed and by that I mean it was dismissed. This was stated earlier in the thread by DaffyGrl and myself.



The church was granted the motion to dismiss counts I and III - defamation and invasion of privacy - publicity given to private life.



Sufficient for the claim, meaning that the count could go to trial... not meaning that they win on that count. Snyder didn't testify until the trial. Being that the finding you mention occurred before the testimony was heard at trial, I don't see how the finding is relevant.

The fact that Snyder did not see the content of the signs on the way into the funeral and did not see the signs on the way out of the funeral and did not see the signs during the funeral. Being that Snyder learned about the signs and what they said later on... on television. How did they distrupt the seclusion of the funeral itself?

Man, this is a tough one- both entspeak AND Aquilla make very good arguments- it is difficult for me to take a stand on this one- because, as far as I read the articles so far, hoping I haven't misunderstood- is that the plaintiff DID NOT have his privacy intruded upon- simply because he didn't even know about it until he saw it on TV.

Aquilla- what is the legal argument about that issue? When the plaintiff was clearly NOT disrupted DURING the funeral?

First of all, entspeak is absolutely correct in stating that thus far most of the legal discussion here has centered around the pre-trial hearings where the burden was on Mr Snyder to demonstrate that he had a cause of action under Maryland law. That burden, which he met didn't establish guilt or innocence or damages or anything like that. It just merely established that there was a reasonable cause to have a trial, and it laid the framework for the parts of Maryland law that the triers of fact (the jury) would use in rendering their verdict. Still though, it's an important discussion to have because if the WBC does appeal the judgement which they most certainly will, that appeal will have to be based on grounds of legal error, not on the findings of fact by the jury.

So, on to CR's question about the legal arguments made by Mr Snyder during the trial itself. I don't know how the Snyder legal team proceeded, I haven't read any trial transcripts, but I would have talked to the jury about what "a funeral" is. It is a step, albeit an important step in a process we call "the grieving process". It is not the beginning of the process, NOR is it the end. It is a bookmark if you will somewhere in the middle.

We all go through some sort of a grieving process upon the death of a loved one. How we do that is unique to each individual shaped by cultural, traditional, religious, philosophical factors unique and different and deeply personal for each of us. What is relevant in this case is the process that Mr Snyder went through, and most likely continues to go through to this day. His testimony to the jury during the trial almost certainly described his unique way of handling the horrific loss he endured with the death of his son in Iraq. He would have described what his son's funeral meant to him and how the memory of that funeral was tainted after the fact when he found out about the actions of the WBC. I know in my case I view the funeral of my father who passed away several years ago as the last chance I had to be with him in this world. It was, and is if you will my last memory of him. To have that memory tainted by a bunch of cretins exploiting a solemn and important occasion for their own selfish and hateful purposes, even if I found out after the fact would forever cause pain to me in what should be the start of a "closure phase" of the grieving process. Try as he might to ignore what they did, it just won't go away and it has tainted forever the last memory Mr Synder has of his son.

Nobody has the right to do that to another person, not under religious or Constitutional grounds, certainly not under moral or human grounds. The people of Maryland through their elected representatives agree and have codified it in the form of the previously mentioned Maryland state statutes. Unfortunately, there is no way to undo what has been done. Try as it might, the court can't change the memory and wipe the stench of the WBC actions away. All it can do is attempt to offer some sort of compensation in the form of monetary damages to Mr Snyder. Furthermore, the court can reflect the collective outrage of the citizens of Maryland over the acts of the WBC by levying punitive damages as was done in this case. That punitive award was in a sense the people of Maryland telling the WBC and groups like them to take their hate and shove it where the sun don't shine. Get the hell out of our state and don't come back. We don't want you here, we don't like you here and if you think you can come here and play, you're gonna pay.


All things considered, not a bad message. Not too bad at all.



Aquilla

Aquilla- I agree with much of what you say- but it does concern me that this decision will be used as a bludgeon against true political or other forms of speech.

For instance- what if my son WAS a real scumbag, maybe never convicted of a crime, do his victims have a right to vent thier ire at him/her 1000 ft away?

I hope I am communicating this effectively- but as larry flynnt said "when the constitution protects a scumbag like me, it protects everyone"

and he has a point- as a nation, we have a knee jerk reaction against horrible poeple, and react with horrible legislation that does actually stifle freedoms- one must only look as far as the last election when both parties excluded protestors from thier public events, going even so far as to mis-name them "free speech zones"- like in America, there is a zone of free speech and un-free speech.

I am happy, that, at some point, WBC may lose all it's assets and ability to make these protests- but worried it will have far reaching effects on civil liberties- and I think Entspeak's concern is the same, if I am not mistaken.

No, the court could overturn the verdict based on findings of fact by the jury if the findings are clearly erroneous.

So, if the protesters were 1,000 feet away, Snyder neither heard, saw, or even knew what the message of the protester's was while entering, or while leaving after or during the funeral, but only found out about it on television later, how did they intrude upon the seclusion of the funeral? The seclusion of the funeral was completely unaffected by the protesters. Now, they may have intruded upon the seclusion of his memory of the funeral, but can one be sued for intruding upon the seclusion of another person's memory?

What if the people were miles away? Could Snyder sue for intrusion upon the seclusion of his son's funeral even if the protesters were in another city?

In theory yes. In practice, no. Appellate court judges are loath to be fact finders, that's not their function. Without an underlying legal error they aren't going to overturn a jury verdict. They aren't going to even listen to the appeal if all it says is "the jury got it wrong".




CR asked for how I would apply the law to this case specifically with respect to how Mr Snyder was harmed by the actions of the WBC. The answer I provided was a part of the way I would have argued the case, not necessarily the way Mr Snyder did. I don't know how his lawyers made their argument. But, yes, in the case of a funeral I think one can be sued for intrusion under Maryland law by tainting the memory of the funeral and I explained why in my response to CR.






What if cows could fly? Could I sue Farmer Jones for a broken windshield? Who cares? Cows can't fly and the WBC wasn't miles away. They were where they were and the case is what it is. I believe it was decided correctly under the Maryland statutes.....



and that leads me to CR's concerns......



I understand your concerns, but read carefully the statutes I quoted above. Note the term "reasonable person" contained in each of them. The word "reasonable" is one of the most used words in the legal world. "Reasonable doubt", "Reasonable search", "Reasonable person", "Reasonable belief".... I'm sure there are many other instances. It's a pretty important word. Why do you suppose that is? Nevermind, it's a rhetorical question and as you may have "reasoned", I'm going to tell you.....

"Reasonable" means you and me and virtually everyone else reading this message board. It means us, "We the people". That is where the true power lies in our system because we are the system. Regular folks like you and me. We hold the power and our system of justice recognizes that because that system depends on it for it's very survival. Sound "reasonable"? It should because it is.

There is a wide spectrum of human behavior, infinite really. Some completely innocent, some totally outrageous and unacceptable in a civilized society. Where does "the system" draw the line? The simple answer is it can't. Instead what it does is depend on it's true source of power - people like you and me to determine what is acceptable and what isn't. "Reasonable people". That's why the Maryland law is written the way it is. The elected law makers who wrote that law and the judges who interpret that law depend on the people to make the call. They depend on us to determine what is right and what is wrong. IN the words of Justice Potter Stewart who wrote about hard core pornography that while it was hard to define "I know it when I see it".

Well, the Maryland legislature has entrusted the people of Maryland to determine what is behavior that is so offensive that it violates the rights of others. At the end of the day, it is the people represented by the jury who are entrusted to "know it when they see it". Not the judges, not the lawyers, not the police, not the state. The people - they are the final arbiter. You and me.

You said.......



Only if we, reasonable people, you and me allow that to happen. And it won't because at the end of the day, we the people make the final decision. And, afterall, we are "reasonable people" aren't we.


Aquilla

To the extent that the punitive damage award exceeds the worth of the organization, said award will be reduced and/or overturned. That much is certain.

Re the intrusion, 1,000 feet away is not "intrusion". If Entspeak is correct re the facts, then the "intrusion" claim is meritless. And for all you civil libertarians, if words on a sign are enough, well, then you're no civil libertarian at all. The act was entirely crass and tasteless, but why join the club?

And we don't yell "fire" in the crowded theatre because it might create a panic, subsequent stampede, and someone may be trampled to death. Where is that danger here? The tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress [IIED] is otherwise not a favored tort. And for the irony here, on that other thread re Jefferson and his being tarnished, well, if you're looking to enforce the majority morality, no better way than through the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. I mean, the "black" slave is human and should be free, and you all, Jefferson included, are in mortal sin for the enslavement of these people, and so please know that in your present state you can no more be saved than the Moors and the Turks who do not have and do not want... "Outrageous" screams the majority of the good friar's parishioners. That's the tort and that's why it's disfavored. No hard numbers, but my guess is that 9 of 10 of these types of claims fail.

I have not otherwise been able to use the links for the findings, as my browser keeps saying that it cannot display the page, but the citation to "funeral protection", well, for anyone who has the cite, first, what is the cite, and second, is it a funeral home case? It's one thing to be 1,000 away with a sign, while it's another thing for the funeral home to "mismanage" the corpse of the decedent and engage in certain other misconduct incident thereto.

Now think about it, if the Nazis can march down the main street in the Jewish part of town with their signs... My heart goes out to this family, but their boy was already dead, while in Skokie, some appeared to be contending that living people with human rights ought not to be treated as such. Let that sink in, and then ask yourself, which is more dangerous to us and our society? And so if the Nazis get to march in Skokie... And careful here also because today it's the "God hates homosexuals and adultery" sign, tomorrow it's your "no blood for oil" sign. And that's why this claim ultimately fails if the basis is merely the word content on the signs. Or at least that's why it ought to, but given Dred Scott, Fred Korematsu, and Sarah Prince, I won't be holding my breath.

Your successful IIED claims would be where racial taunts attended the beating, sexual harassment in the workplace, telling some soul that you have HIV [when you really don't] after you've had unprotected sexual relations with such soul, and exhibiting to that woman who recently miscarried a jar containing a deceased "fetus". Again, here entirely crass and tasteless, but not in the same category as the types of cases just described. One question that I do want answered is, was this conduct specifically directed at this particular family and no one else, including the public at large, and what was the purpose of the conduct. The woman shown the jar and content wasn't simply in the classroom with the instructor forgetting about the miscarriage and/or forgetting to have a warning prior to exhibit, no, some human was aware of the miscarriage and only and simply wanted to cause some other human some pain, that was the point of the exhibition, and you hopefully get the point. But if you don't, posit the same woman with a history of miscarriage, but now she's a US Senator and during the course of a hotly debated bill affecting the practice of abortion, some soul approaches the good Senator, exhibits a jar containing a deceased human "fetus", and then says, Senator, look inside this jar, what you refuse to call a "person" looks very much like a human to me. No IIED claim with that [and even if it did cause some very real distress].

I suppose that what I [and maybe entspeak] am saying is that unless one can say, to borrow the other legal word here, that this conduct constitutes "harassment", then no IIED [and/or "intrusion"] claim. Harassment is usually defined as conduct intentionally/purposefully directed at a specific person that is known or should be known to likely result in extreme emotional and/or mental disturbance, and where the conduct otherwise serves no legitimate purpose. So, again, was this an exercise in simply wanting to cause a human pain, or was this, as crass and tasteless as it is, simply some souls' means of protesting and otherwise engaging you, me, and the rest in the struggle concerning our more common morality? If the latter, then while the means was crass and tasteless, there was a legitimate purpose, and so the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, accordingly, this action hereby is dismissed [or so ought to read the last line of the dismissal order in the civil action here under review on AD]. The order here should otherwise be about 10 pages or so, with the jurist making it entirely plain that he or she considers that the chosen means were crass and tasteless and telling such souls that they'd be better off doing a thousand other things to engage us without alienating us from the get go, and then expressing the heartfelt sympathy for the family and then letting them know that it is precisely to honor their son that the action should rightly be dismissed.

In practice? Really?

Defendants more than twice as likely to win appeal.





What you appear to be talking about is publicity given to private life... not intrusion of seclusion. He saw the publicity received on television. He was upset about the media circus. The funeral itself enjoyed the solitude and seclusion.



Who cares? We are talking about a precedent being set, Aquilla. This precedent will not only apply to funerals - as the laws in question do not only apply to funerals. There is a serious First Amendment concern when you can intrude upon the seclusion of an event when nobody at the event can see you, hear you, or even knows what your message is. Can the President sue individuals protesting outside the White House for intrusion upon the seclusion of his personal daily business?



Again, the above count was dismissed. And, yes, I mean dismissed as in dismissed via a dismissal of the count through a motion to dismiss. Stop quoting it as though it's relevant.



Before you even get to the "reasonable person" portion of the law, there has to first be the intrusion. If there is no intrustion, then it makes no difference what the protesters said. The First Amendment allows them the right to say it. You can't intrude after the fact. If Mr. Snyder was not disturbed by the protesters upon entering, upon leaving or during the funeral, there was no intrusion upon the seclusion of the funeral.

1) Do you think this will be overturned on appeal?

I don't see why it would be. The attitudes of this fake religion violate so many things that I don't think they'll find any sympathetic lawyers or judges. The crime is non-violent and so is the punishment. Might be different if the cult was condemned to burn at the stake.

At one time this could very well have been the verdict. But you see, we live in a civilized society where you are free to say or believe anything you want. Of course, there may be ramifications to this practice, and that's what the cult asked for and received. I'm sure they expected someone to get violent with them, but no, we have this thing called money.

It's just a symbol and relies on belief. We commonly believe that money has value.

SO PONY UP YOU DIP WEEDS!

Get the yard sales going.

How do you earn $11 mil? A buck at a time.

Entspeak is right, Aquilla. The "what-if's" presented in prior posts do matter, because they are really asking the reasonable question of "Where do you draw the line?" One has to be able to ask, "Well, what if they were 1500 feet away, what if they were standing on their lawn, what if they simply posted their opinion on their website (which they did, of course)." If I have a disgusting opinion that nobody agrees with, and I spread that opinion just by telling it to everyone I come in contact with, do I have the right to be sued?

The "stalking" picketing activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, and its members, are not protected under the First Amendment. See e.g., Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988). Shirley Phelps, and her ilk, cannot escape liability for damages for their intentional torts by hiding behind the First Amendment. Their picketing of funerals of those killed in the service of our country is only designed to provide them with a platform for their perverse antigay agenda at the expense of those made to suffer unjustly at their hands. They are not true Christians; they are nothing more than homophobic bigots, and their so-called church a mockery of religion. It is truly “judgment day” for them.

When the Nazi group was going to march in Skokie adn the Jewish community sued, the Nazi group was defended by a Jewish lawyer.



See what, exactly?

The study referenced in your link was a statistical analysis of jury vs. bench trials and plaintiff v. defendant successful appeals. It didn't discuss the reason for the reversals, nor the nature of the reversals - only who "won". If the damages are reduced on appeal, is that a "win"? My point was that in order to get an appeal heard in the first place one has to allege that a legal error occurred in the course of the trial.





My point is that a funeral is an event in a process. It was that process that was violated by the WBC.




Ok, so now you're challenging this verdict on Constitutional grounds which means you are n fact challenging the Maryland statute that formed the basis for this lawsuit in the first place. That's considerably different than an appeal based on "the jury got it wrong" argument. A First Amendment appeal will probably get heard. Your 'President' argument is apples and oranges. The President is a public figure, Mr Snyder is (or was) not.




I'm not sure why this count was dismissed, haven't seen the judgement on it, but it's still relevant. It's a part of the same statute that formed the basis of the lawsuit.





I disagree for the reasons I stated in an earlier post here. Your argument is that the First Amendment is a carte blanche for outrageous and repugnant behavior just so long as the target of that behavior isn't aware of it at the time. I disagree.

Edited to add a response to Dayna.......



First of all, I don't think you mean "right to be sued". Most people would probably give up that right. But, I know what you mean.

Your question of "where do you draw the line" is an important one a couple of levels. First of all it means you think there should be a line drawn somewhere. With that I agree - there should be a line, somewhere. But, where? I don't know, but I go back to my earlier quote of Justice Potter.... "I know it when I see it". That's why the Maryland statute was written the way it was. "Reasonable person". They didn't know where to draw the line either, but they did recognize there is a line. So, they left it up to the people on the jury to decide on a case by case basis where to draw the line. That's why "what-ifs" are not terribly relevant in this debate. Each case has its own set of facts and should be judged on that specific set of facts - not on generalities or slippery slope type of arguments. This case isn't going to set a precedent that will destroy the First Amendment as we all know and love it. What it will do is send a message to people who think they can do whatever they want to do regardless of who it hurts and be protected. There is a line and you cross that line at your own peril.


Aquilla

Cases like this are something I usually like to reserve jugment on. None of us were on the jury, I'm certain there is some pertinent information that we aren't privy to yet. I've tried to find pdf documents about the case, but haven't found anything else other than rulings on various appeals. I can't help but have the opinion that the jury did things backwards. I'm miffed as to why the defamation charge was dismissed when the parent's parenting was negatively mentioned by the defendants on their website and perhaps elsewhere. One of the links had a thing about the parents teaching their children about "divorce" or some other form of supposed immorality. How that doesn't constitute defamation is beyond me. The emotional distress item was a good decision, on that account, they more than ruled correctly. As for the invasion of privacy, that appears to be quite "iffy." Had they been across the street from the funeral directly, perhaps they could've been hit with inciting a riot or disturbing the peace. How being far away as they were constitutes invasion of privacy, hasn't been fully explained here. It looks as if the jury went with the prosecutor's "send a message" appeal that resorted to emotion, and not legal fact.

I think I am with you on this one- confused and perhaps needing more facts before I start really jumping in this debate like i would like too- I am a memer of the patriot guard BTW- an organization founded because of WBC.

I am more than a bit wary of juries deciding on these kinds of issues Aquilla- I mean, look at OJs jury- you think they got it righ?

I think the entire verdict will probably be overturned on appeal.

Which OJ jury, CR? The one that acquitted him in the criminal trial or the one that found him liable in the civil wrongful death trial? Is it possible that they both "got it right"? The burdens of proof are different and quite frankly, the prosecution in the criminal trial sucked. Don't blame that on the jury system, blame it on the DA and the pathetic team of prosecutors he put together to try that case. None of the lead DAs in that case had any trial experience in a capital murder case. Meanwhile, there was an ADA over in East LA who had prosecuted over a thousand homicide cases with a conviction rate in the high 90's. He wasn't as "pretty" as Marsha Clark or Chris Darden though. That's why LA has a new DA and Marsha has a TV show.


Aquilla

Ignore them and they will go away seems to be a strategy that isn't working. Many of us have been ignoring these cretins for several decades. I think it's time for action.

A gay bud of mine toes the line that we should ignore them, and that any counter protest, no matter how awesome would be playing into Phelps' hands. But still, I think 100 outraged citizens infiltrating their ranks and at a signal, introduced the people of Westboro Baptist to Mr. Pepper Spray might make them think twice about their disgusting behaviors.

That's actually mild compared to what I'd like to do. I'd like to have a massive protest at their home in Kansas. I'd like to level their church and the houses they live in. I'm that mad, and I've felt that way for years. Enough is enough. They should be made to pay for their crimes.

Any like-minded thinkers out there?

Coaster, I think everyone here is like-minded in thinking that they are total jerks and that their behavior is disgusting. But emotional responses to this issue don't really do anybody any good.

What we're arguing is the constitutionality of the issue---I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

And welcome to the forums, btw.

Other than inciting a riot and defamation, I fail to see what other "crimes" they may have committed.

I think that a protest at a soldier's funeral outrages public decency. While overly broad, isn't this a crime in many locales? I'm a public and my decency is definitely outraged. Doesn't their actions anger you? I can't merely intellectualize a discussion of Fred Phelps and his Family of Mutants. That's too easy and not satisfying in the least. The verdict will likely be overturned, as it should be, and he'll proceed unencumbered. There. Intellectual part done.

I, for one, don't think this King of Haters should have such an easy time of it, and I want to part of the roadblock he runs into head first.

The charge of indecency is more or less related to minors and the irresponsible actions of adults towards them. No, holding unpopular views is not against the constitution, or the law.



Offending others with their public views isn't a crime, hence why anti-abortion advocates can hold pictures of fetuses up or plast them onto the sides of trailors pulled by rigs. Tasteless, yes. Indecent?, not really.



I do find their beliefs rather reprehensible. In my opinion, they are guilty of defamation, inciting a riot, and emotional distress. Beyond that is excessive and a big stretch legally.

That actually has some ironic value. I'm trying to figure out what lawyer would defend these so-called religious and rightfully-called homophobic, or more accurately hate-mongering idiots. What would be an ironic lawyer in this case? A gay atheist?

Then you have to wonder just how much work the lawyer would put in. Okay, I can see that happening down the road. Now, about the judge . . .

And the jury . . .

Don't see these people having a prayer on appeal. Some ideas are that universally disgusting, but we'll see how it turns out.

BoF brought up the religious angle, but what about the right to peacefully assemble? Seems to fit a funeral. Then there's inciting a riot potential. I'm a little surprised that nobody's gotten violent with these types.

I don't see a slippery slope developing either. So I can't run around being an obnoxious, hate-filled moron. Okay, I'll accept that restriction on my freedom to be stupid.

I'm only mildly for political rallies like the nazis and klan types. If we made them illegal, I wouldn't shed a tear. This gets back to the giving a darn principle, and I just don't. Any organization that actively promotes illegal moves should itself be illegal. Well, one might say, what about our right to revolt against our government?

We've got that one? I don't think so. Not in a violent way, anyway. That right has to be taken and supported with blood, which isn't really a smart way to do it, but yep, sometimes necessary like in the 18th century. Think that goes in there with the right to liberty.

But that's not what we're talking about.

The days of these hatemongers are numbered. The Westboro Baptist Church is a religious fraud; and it will end when it loses its tax-exempt status. Its morally bankrupt members - as did Tom Metzger and his White Aryan Resistance - will end up legally bankrupt as well.

AM- but isn't this the same type of legislation that somehow allows GW to insulate himself from protest, and both parties that enforced "free speech zones"- a goebels like mis-nomer- and is stifling free political speech today?

So, you can sue for violation of the grieving process. What if someone says something bad to you at the store when you're grieving? What if someone tells you your son was a prick during your grieving process? Can you sue them for invasion of privacy? Because they are violating your grieving process? I don't think so.

This case was about the intrusion upon the seclusion of a funeral. No such intrusion occurred.



That is not at all what I'm doing. I'm saying that it is unreasonable to claim that a funeral was intruded upon when the funeral was not disturbed at all. How could the intrusion be considered highly offensive if they never intruded? He didn't see them, hear them and didn't even know what they were protesting until well after the funeral... on television. They were 1,000 feet from the funeral. The First Amendment played a role in this case. The plaintiff tried to prevent that from being the case, but that motion was denied.



I don't care that you don't know why it was dismissed. It was dismissed. It is irrelevant in terms of arguing whether or not the case could be overturned on appeal. This stat