The most interesting member of my state's unicameral(the only one in the nation thank you) filed a lawsuit against God a few months ago. He did it to show his displeasure with a woman who sued a judge over not allowing her to use certain words at her rape trial, as well as to highlight that anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit. I woke up this morning and looked at the Lincoln Journal-Star online and discovered that the Westboro Baptist Church filed a brief to have Chambers's case dismissed. Chambers finds the church's beliefs to be backwards and wrong, but he agrees that these people's greatest crime is espousing an unpopular belief. The interesting part is that the church admits to doing this for the sake of publicity. Lawsuits and other matters of public attentionen actually helps them.

Jut a few observations here folks-what ever happened to the notion of the right to assemble? Does that disappear because even with being out of sight and being over 300 yards away from a funeral, that someone might not like it? Is that what we base our rule of law on? I've stated previously that this group hasn't been charged with inciting a riot or disturbing the peace. They weren't charged with that because in all probablity, they weren't close enough to warrant such charges from the state government. if the state government couldn't charge them with anything, how was their actions so egregious that it was deserving a of a civil tort? I have to agree with Chambers on one thing, what this group is undergoing is definitely a case of selective prosecution.

Maybe so, but I see subtle differences. First off is that our society generally supports political protest but also wants a greater level of civility. Demonstrating at a funeral just doesn't seem like anything political. Someone is dead, what the heck is political about that? I would call it the end game, doesn't matter what political junk goes on afterward.

Colorado Springs justified its ordinance due to the high risk of someone in Gun City USA and Hummerville taking out a wide swath of the protesters. Still, I think a case could be made for harassment and possibly assault. Medical proof could be brought forth that while in the state of mourning, people become physically disabled. Yelling at a mourning person could worsen this disability, like kicking the crutch away from Tiny Tim.

What the crazies are doing is definitely emotional assault. We know that our physical wellbeing is tied directly to our emotional wellbeing. It'll be an interesting case if it ever comes up.

Be that as it may, I don't see fining an obnoxious cult leader as a threat to our bona fide rights to free speech. He may not be yelling FIRE in a movie theater, but he really isn't saying anything either. I'll stick with the apathy factor. Nobody cares about his rights. Pity. Bummer man. Life just ain't fair.

But people do care about free-speech zones meant to suppress real political protest. There's the difference.

So if you yell at someone who is mourning, you can be sued for assault?



LOL. So, we should only protect the rights of people whose views we agree with and don't find offensive. Well, who gets to make that decision? The government?



Fortunately, we have to protect the rights of people you don't care for, as well.

Just clarifying one thing, I'll address other points later when I have more time.....




After a little digging I found out why you really don't want to talk about this aspect of the case. Because your claim isn't true. One of those Maryland statutes I cited is not only relevant, it was the basis for one of the counts found in favor or Mr. Snyder. (and $6 MILLION of the judgement)

From this summary of the case......




Once again, from the Maryland statute......



Sorry, entspeak, the statute is back in play.

Edited to add a further response........




Yes.



What if cows could fly? When that happens, get back to me. Didn't happen in this lawsuit.




Can I sue Farmer Jones for a broken windshield? Hasn't happened, didn't happen.



I disagree for the reasons stated in earlier posts I have made. I think one can sue for invasion of privacy under Maryland law for invasion of privacy during the grieving process.



Yet another misstatement on your part, entspeak. No wonder you don't want to talk about the statute, the relevant statute. There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING in that statute that references a funeral at all. It references "private affairs". I would submit that the grieving process is a "private affair". The funeral is an important part of that process, but it is not the only part.

Ok, back again to address some of the concerns expressed here over the Constitutional rights of the WBC and why they weren't violated in this case, nor why this case will set a precedent to erode all of our rights.

The First Amendment expressly grants us all protection from the state for speech, expression and religious views that may offend the "state". And the "state" is defined with a broad latitude which at times may include large groups of people within our society. Since the majority of the hatred of the WBC appears to be directed at gay people, let's us that as an example for purposes of illustrating the point I'm trying to make.

If I want to go over to West Hollywood here in LA where there is a large population of gay people and carry a sign that says "God hates gays and you'll all rot in hell", I can do that as long as I follow the laws concerning use of public property, etc. The First Amendment protects me from retribution from the state and while I've "attacked" a specific group and offended an even larger group, I haven't made it personal against any one individual. So, there's no one person who can claim damages against me for harming them specifically and the community at large (the state i this case) can't claim damages because I'm protected by the First Amendment.

Ok, now scenario two. I find out some individual has lost his partner to AIDS and the funeral or memorial for his partner is on a specific day. So, on that day I march around the same streets, following the same laws and carry a sign that identifies the individual and his partner that says something like, "I told you God hates you and it's God's will your partner (by name maybe) is dead and you will burn in Hell with him! Good riddance!!" I taunt him from afar and even though he can't hear me I create enough of a ruckus that the TV news comes over and makes a news story of the whole thing. Later that evening this grieving person sees the story on the news and thinks, "Oh man, that's all I need today. As if saying goodbye to my life partner, lover, best friend isn't enough, now I have to deal with this....."

Does he have a cause of action against me? My position is an emphatic yes! He most certainly does because he has been harmed by my actions. Not just as a member of the gay community, but as an individual. My actions have caused him pain in the form of emotional distress, and my timing and what I said on my sign proves it was an intentional infliction of that pain. I don't have the right to do that to an individual. And he has the right to sue me for redress and let reasonable people decide.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution establishes the concept of "equal protection under the law" of each and every individual citizen. That means, among other things that when one citizen invokes their rights and in doing so violate another person's rights, you have a trial to settle the dispute. That is what happened in this case.

Aquilla

What on earth are you talking about?!!

I never, ever, not once, said the above statute wasn't relevant. I said the other statute was irrelevant.

I've consistently discussed the fact that the church did not violate the above statute, but I never stated it wasn't relevant.

You keep bringing up the publicity given to private life statute as though that statute was relevant. It was dismissed.



And did Snyder sue because of a violation of privacy of the grieving process? Or just a violation of the privacy of the funeral?



Again, we're talking about precedents being set, Aquilla.



Again, an issue of a precedent being established.



A-HA!

But invasion of privacy during the grieving process is something entirely different. There would still have to be the invasion of privacy - there would have to be an intrusion of seclusion or isolation during the grieving process. If the intrusion occurred on the news later, then Snyder should've sued the television station for airing the offensive material... the church is not responsible for the actions of the television station.

Or the Church could've been sued for invasion of privacy - giving publicity to private affairs. But that count, for whatever reason, was dismissed.



Well, when you sue, you have to state where the intrusion occured. In this case, the intrusion occurred at a funeral, did it not? You can't go in and say, in general, this guy violated my privacy. Really? How? He intruded upon the seclusion of my son's funeral. That was the claim, wasn't it?



Okay, the church carried signs that said:

God Hates You!

Your Going to Hell!

While this may be intended to cause emotional distress, this is not an invasion of privacy. They, in no way, disrupted the funeral, physically or otherwise.

In order to succeed with a claim of emotional distress, the plaintiff must prove that:

1. the conduct must be intentional or reckless
2. the conduct must be extreme and outrageous
3. a causal connection must exist between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress
4. the emotional distress must be severe

Was the conduct intentional or reckless? Sure.

Was the conduct extreme and outrageous? Sure.

Was their a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress?
Well, I would argue that Mr. Snyder was already in a state of emotional distress because of the death of his son. This doesn't mean that the protests didn't cause additional emotional distress, but to what extent?

Was the emotional distress severe?
In order to meet this criteria, the distress must cause severe mental, emotional and physical damage. The plaintiff must not only claim this, but he must prove it. The problem with proving this is related to the 3rd criteria and the fact that Mr. Snyder was already under severe emotional distress (as would, naturally, occur with the death of a child.) So, how does one determine the extent of the additional emotional distress?

As to the intrusion upon the seclusion and isolation of Mr. Snyder's affairs. I don't believe that occurred. 500 people attended that funeral and Mr. Snyder didn't know all of them. The protesters were 1,000 feet away from the funeral, Mr. Snyder was not disturbed by the protesters at the funeral, he was only disturbed after the protest was aired on television.

Ok, at least we're in agreement that the one statute does apply. I referenced both of them in previous posts because when the court made it's original 2006 rulings denying the motions to dismiss, for whatever reason the court saw fit to include both counts II and III in the same section and cited both statutes. Later on in 2007 the court dismissed count III, but kept count II.




He referenced both in his original complaint. He referenced his "private affairs" which would include the grieving process and he referenced his son's funeral which I argue is an important event in that process.




Oh please, you know this is a losing argument. The television station didn't cause the event, they merely reported on it. The WBC bears full responsibility for caused the event in the first place. No WBC, no news report.




According to the summary I linked to above, that count was dismissed on First Amendment grounds.




His claim was that the WBC intruded into the "solitude and seclusion" of his family and into his "private affairs and concerns". He further referenced the occasion of that intrusion as his son's funeral which he claimed was "not a matter of public concern". That was his filed complaint. I don't know what he argued in the trial.



I disagree. Under the Maryland statute (which we both agree is relevant) Mr Synder only had to prove that the WBC intruded into his private affairs, seclusion and solitude. The timing and place that the WBC chose to pull their antics clearly targeted the Snyder family specifically.



The proof of the extent of the additional distress would be up to the jury to determine as "reasonable people" based on the testimony they heard in court. Apparently the "extent" in their opinion was $2 MILLION worth.




How? Well through presenting a case to a jury I suppose. That's why lawyers make the big bucks. The only source I have found at the present time is the summary of the trial I linked to above, so I don't know what arguments were made in the trial. However, you argument that Mr Synder was already under severe emotional distress so "what's a little more" would not be an argument I'd make in front of a jury. That would be a little bit abut defending a person accused of beating up another person who already had a broken arm and in the process breaking the other one. "Hell, he already had one broken arm, how much more could he hurt by getting the other one broke?" Not a winning argument in my opinion.





I and the Maryland jury that heard this case disagree with you. There are differences between the behavior of people who didn't know the Snyders coming to their son's funeral and paying their respects and the WBC exploiting the occasion to spread their message of hatred. I have myself attended a couple of funerals here in Southern California of fallen soldiers from the local area. I didn't know them, they didn't know me. I just wanted to go and pay my respects and let their loved ones know how sorry I was for their loss. I know all too well what it's like to lose a close friend in a war, goodness knows I've lost enough of them in my time. I know that in that solemn and intensely painful and personally private occasion it helps to have a stranger come up and share your grief. That doesn't make it a "public event". And it most certainly does not make it right for a group filled with hatred to exploit that funeral and turn it into a way of spreading their vile message of hatred at the expense of the family. That is how the Maryland jury of reasonable people found, and I agree with them.


Aquilla

Really? I didn't know that. Oh, wait... yeah I did. I believe I stated that a long time ago. And that's what I've been telling you every time you claimed the statute relating to count III was relevant.



Really? Did he say in his original complaint that his "private affairs" included the very general "grieving process"? Or did he claim that his grieving process was made more difficult because of a violation of privacy? Do not confuse result with actual incident.




That doesn't change the fact that an invasion of privacy would still have to occur during the grieving process.



Really? I didn't know that... oh wait, yeah I did. And stated so long ago.



Well, "not a matter of public concern" relates to the "invasion of privacy - giving publicity to private affairs" count... which was what? Yes, dismissed.



No. Mr. Snyder did not only have to prove that the WBC intruded into his private affairs and seclusion and solitude. He had to prove that the WBC intruded upon the solitude and seclusion of his private affairs. That's a very different thing. Now, the funeral had the protest nearby, Mr. Snyder in his solitude and seclusion went to the funeral... did they intrude upon the seclusion and solitude of his private affairs at the funeral? NO! He had no idea what the protesters were protesting about. He still had the solitude and seclusion of the event. He was undisturbed by their presence near the funeral.

He was only disturbed when he saw the protesters on television.



No. It was more than that, actually. There were compensatory damages as well. You only quote the punitive damages.



This does not make you or the jury correct. So, what's the point in making the comparison?



So, it's the message that's at issue... not the invasion of privacy?



It makes it a "public event" if the general public can be there. While it may not be a publicized event, that doesn't make it any less of a public event. A private event involves people who are asked to be there - one that is closed to the general public. If you intrude upon a private event, you've invaded someone's privacy. If you intrude upon a public event, there can be no invasion of privacy.



Well, that really doesn't have anything to do with an invasion of privacy and a whole lot to do with not liking their message. So, I'd argue that the jury confused the facts with an emotional response to the message being spread by the Church. And, once again, your agreement with the jury doesn't make your argument any stronger. Obviously, you agree... otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate, would we? So, we can all agree that you agree with the Maryland jury's verdict. Noted for the record.

A traditional funeral necessarily occurs in open space, but it is a private ceremony nonetheless. No one has the right to disturb such a ceremony merely to exercise his speech, and the right of speech is not abridged by requiring a decent silence in the neighborhood of someone's ongoing funeral. It is not the funeral party that sought out the demonstrators and set itself up to impinge upon the demonstration; the seeking out and the impingement went the other way around.

Certainly, the a heavy burden will be on the defendants to show on appeal that their inability to shout and wave signs at military funerals restricts their freedom of speech. There are many other venues and methods they could have employed to make these same points. It does not require a dead soldier's bodily presence to make the absurd claim that the deaths of our soldiers are due to our tolerance of homosexuality, or the more reasonable claim that they are due to our national arrogance and folly in starting an unnecessary war.

But this has nothing to do with the military connection of the persons being burried, homosexuality or anti-war politics. It is merely that any funeral party deserves the chance to proceed without irresponsible interferance or annoyance.

I do however think that there is a resonable chance that the damages, which seem exessive in this case, will be reduced on appeal.

Has anyone mentioned that the event costs money, and that there should be some sort of privacy inherent? Aren't these places private property?

I believe what is at hand here is that, for some reason, the law wasn't applied in the criminal sense on the front end. Police should've been called, the Westboro nut cases should've been arrested, and no law suit would've ever been filed (most likely).

I wouldn't say that private events have to "advertise" being closed to the public as you'd insinuate in the quote above.

Are weddings public events because there isn't a sign on the church door? Are parties in rented spaces public because space may ordinarily be "public"?

The private vs public thing is absurd. I believe that, aside from politics, due to the cost inherent to funerals that people should be held to a legal standard. If you come to disturb a funeral, you should be held legally accountable for disturbing the peace.

The protesters were not at the funeral. They were 1,000 feet away. On public property.



Calling the police would have done no good. The police knew they were there and supplied them with a cordoned off space in which to protest.



Well, if the general public can attend, then that is... by definition a public event.



People receive invitations to weddings. Generally, those without an invitation are not welcome.



The protesters did not disturb the funeral. They were 1,000 feet away. Nobody at the funeral heard them or saw them during the funeral. Mr. Snyder, himself, did not think anything of it until he saw the Phelps on television later.



The funeral ceremony was not disturbed by the protesters.

Only in the United States of America will someone stick up for protesters... at a gosh darn funeral.

1000 feet away? Were they hiding behind trees? How do you know that they didn't think anything of it? Were all at the funeral polled?

The point is that it's dispicable. Even by your logic, at 1000 feet away, had it been advertised as "private" they could've been there. You mention it being on public property.... so like a little kid putting his foot over a "line", one could protest just outside the confines of the legally "private" space.

In the US, we need to begin to move back towards some decency. Shame and common sense should begin to be part of our society again. I can't imagine any other nation that would allow nuts like this at a funeral and have people posting on a debate board sticking up for them. Good Lord.

"...move back to dececency..." Please tell us what years were these?? Aevans, Entspeak is saying they were more that three football fields away.

As for the rest of your spill the KKK has rally's all the time. Do you want to prevent them as well??

Let agree that what these people are doing is dispicable, because we do. Do I want to see their freedom trampled on?? It wasn't private property it was public. They weren't intefering with the funeral 3 football fields away. Their message did not make anyone feel they were in threat or danger.. except for their immortal souls, that is.

So explain how can we stop them by legal punishment, without trampling the first amendment??

Just clearing up the record......



Mr Synder didn't reference the grieving process in his original complaint, and I don't know if that was argued during the trial. CR asked for a legal argument that could be made on Mr Snyder's behalf at the trial and I introduced the concept of the grieving process. Whether or not he used that argument at the trial is something I don't know.




and it did.



Opps.... wrong again oh learned one. Read the complaint. Page 7, line 40 Count II. NOT dismissed.



Once again, you are attempting to isolate the event from the process. Nice try, doesn't fly.




Ok, $2 MILLION and change. I stand corrected....




Gee, I would think a jury verdict would carry some weight in this debate.




Didn't say that. But the message does come into play if you read the relevant statute. The threshold in that statute is set at "offensive to a reasonable person". So yeah, the message is an issue as well.



No it doesn't make it a "public event". You're wrong.



And you disagree with the jury's verdict. Noted for the record. See you in appeals court counselor. (once your client posts the bond)

Aquilla

aevans176, a debate board is a place where differnt ideologies will invariably clash. If you find that to be "indecent", so be it. Just remember that your idea of "decency" is not a carbon copy of everyone, or perhaps even anyone else's.

Maybe these protesters were "despicable". Certainly they seemed to show a lack of respect for the dead, which is a taboo act in many countries and cultures. In some places, they could be arrested, in others, even killed (i speak of the primitive ones, mind you).

BUT NOT HERE. This is a country where, by our founding constitution, we are allowed to say what we like, where we like, and (generally) remain free from repercussion. It seems here, that this is simply a case of the courts slapping down an uppity and deranged religious group. But think about where this could lead. How long before this "gung ho" court philosophy spreads eslewhere? To political protests, for example.

Its the way this country works. We have to put up with a few lunatics, in order to preserve the rights of the whole.

edit; Wow. THree rebuttalls at once. eergh . Sorry Aevans, today must not be your day

Wrong. The first amendment is not a carte blanche to "do whatever you want". There is a line between what is Constitutionally protected behavior and what is not and that line is at the point where your behavior violates on another person's rights. In this instance, a jury of reasonable people determined that the WBC had crossed that line.

Aquilla

Yes? And yet the line is such a blurred one.

If fifty protesters, a thousand feet away from a military funeral can be sued to the tune of ten million dollars, where does it end? Surely, it cannot be all that different from several idealistic, unarmed, and yet inexplicably "dangerous"students at Kent state, standing mere inches away from members of the nationsal guard, and screaming epithets at them? Surely, it cannot be all that different from a "hostile" group of "dissident" native americans at a little place called wounded knee?

Oh yes. These incidents are completely irrelevant to the case at hand. but for how long? Individual and civil rights are not a constant. They can be lost, easily, the minute we allow complacency to slip into our thoughts.

We have had a period in which the government tried to suppress our free speech. We have seen the bloodshed, and civil unrest that it has caused. Let us not give our govenment the opportunity to do so again.

Yes it is and that's why we have trials. Trials in front of juries composed of people like you and me. Elected legislators make the laws, lawyers make the arguments, judges make the legal rulings, but at the end of the day, the people make the decision. The line is indeed blurred and the determination of where that line is has to be made on a case by case basis. And, in this case a Maryland jury composed of reasonable people made a determination that that line had been crossed. They didn't have to decide where the line was exactly, just that it had been crossed. Once again from Justice Potter Stewart -



Aquilla

Got it. So, Snyder didn't sue in regards to an invasion of the privacy of his general "grieving process."



At what point?



No. The Maryland statute that deals with the private affairs being of public concern is this one:



This count was Count III and was dismissed. The fact that Snyder includes it in Count II in the complaint does not make it so.



Once again, you can't prove that the plaintiff sued for a violation of a process. He sued, according to the complaint, for the intrusion upon seclusion and solitude of an event - his son's funeral. He also sued for the intentional emotional distress inflicted as a result of that intrusion.



Being the topic of discussion - because it is the jury's verdict that would be overturned if an appeal was won, it carries that weight and that weight only.



Well, what's the difference between a member of the general public coming to the funeral to pay their respects and a member of the general public protesting 1,000 feet away from the funeral?



Why am I wrong? Allowing the general public to attend does not make it a public event?



Well, if they were actually at the funeral, I wouldn't be arguing in their favor.



Well, because Mr. Snyder testified as much. He didn't learn the message of the protesters until later on television.

And thus, they set a precedent. It starts so easily, and often ends in tragedy.

Maybe i'm overdramaticizing, but this is a serious breach of first amendment rights. Obviousbly, what they were doing was "wrong" by some standards, but nonetheless, as taxpaying citizens of this country, they were entitled to free speech. And they were deprived of that right.

It takes a single case to set a trend, you know. And this is one trend that i'm sure no one wants to see repeated. What we take for granted; the government's inability to clamp down on dissenting voices, was one for us in two battles; first by our forefathers against the british, and then by thousands of anti-war and free-speech activists who paid for it, in blood.

We are getting lazy. We are giving away what our predecessors faught so hard to keep.

...Wow. That was dramatic.

Mr Synder sued in regards to invasion of his privacy into his "private affairs". I advanced the argument here in this forum in response to a question that the grieving process would be included in Mr Syner's private affairs. Whether or not Mr Synder made that argument in court is not something I would know (and I stated so earlier) without reading the trial transcript. I suspect he did in some form based on some of the witnesses I read about him calling, but I don't know.





When he found out about it.




He still included in in Count II and Count II wasn't dismissed.




No, he sued for invasion of privacy into his "private affairs".




Depending on the nature of the protest, the difference is one is not "offensive to a reasonable person" and the other is.




No, not necessarily, not in this case.




This is not about "the state" clamping down on free speech rights, nor depriving anyone of such rights. The "state" wasn't a party to this lawsuit. The "state" didn't file criminal charges at all. Mr Snyder as a private citizen filed civil charges against the WBC for violating his rights as a citizen through their actions. It is a legal dispute between Mr Snyder and the WBC based on what Mr Snyder asserted his rights to be under Maryland law. The state wasn't a party to this lawsuit at all other than to provide the forum (a jury trial) to arbitrate a dispute between two private parties.

Now, if the WBC appeals this case which they claim they will it will be interesting to see the basis of their appeal. Will it be the kind of argument entspeak seems to be pursuing which is a "the jury got it wrong" argument which I believe is a losing argument from jump street. Or, will it be a more broad-sweeping First Amendment challenge to the Maryland statute that formed the legal foundation for this case in the first place? If it is the later, the state of Maryland will get involved because their attorney general (or whatever they call it in Maryland) will have the responsibility of defending Maryland law. Depending on what happens, it could make for an interesting discussion.


Aquilla

The invasion of his privacy occurred when he found out about the protests?



He included it in the complaint, but there is no test in the relevant privacy statute regarding whether or not the event was of public concern. When discussing the making public of private affairs, you are talking about the privacy statute relevant to the making public of private affairs. A count that was dismissed.

And the specific manner in which they did that?



Then you are talking about the message.



That doesn't answer the question.





As you've already stated, one of the counts... Count III was dismissed because of First Amendment issues. This wasn't a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, but rather the plaintiff's invocation of State power vs. the First Amendment rights of the defendant.

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment - one is not free to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and be protected from liability under the First Amendment from the foreseeable consequences. The right of free speech does not come at the expense of the right of privacy of others; and the Westboro Baptists are not at liberty to trespass on the Snyders’ private funeral service under the guise of public protest. Theirs is not free speech; it is hate speech intended to inflict emotional distress on others to accentuate their political agenda against homosexuals. Nor can it be justified under the First Amendment as the free exercise of religion. Let them practice their religion in their own church, and leave the rest of us free from their proselytizing.

Well, I'll say it again. They did not trespass on the funeral service. They were 1,000 feet away and Mr. Snyder wasn't even aware of the nature of the protest until he saw them on television.

That's a sneaky lawyer question. I'll answer with an equally sneaky lawyer answer. His damages occurred when he found out about the protests.




Through their behavior which was "offensive to a reasonable person".





Yes their message was a part of their behavior which was "offensive to a reasonable person". The legal standard.



Ok, I'll expand on it then. As I stated in a previous post, a funeral by it's nature is a private affair. It is the nature of the event itself, not who shows up that defines the event's privacy.





That's a real poser isn't it? Why would a trial judge reverse a ruling he made a year previously? Don't know, but he did and it wasn't a Constitutional issue over the statute per se, must have been some new evidence or facts that came to light. Trial judges are finders of fact in pre-trial hearings, that's what they do. Something must have changed to cause this judge to change his mind on the factual finding of that count's basis under the law. No clue what what was.

But appeals court judges aren't trial court judges and they tend to rule on matters of law, not findings of fact. Appealing a finding of fact by a jury to a higher court means you're starting off with strike one. You better have a more compelling argument for why the jury's decision should be reversed than "those idiots got it wrong."

Aquilla

So they invaded his privacy when they appeared on the television?




Their behavior when?



Solemnity = privacy?



Suing on that count infringed upon the church's First Amendment rights. Even though there was no direct state action, the infringement came in the form of a civil suit... a private actor invoking State power.

Likewise, with the other count, there is an infringement, because the issue seems to be with the offensive message. They didn't intrude upon the seclusion and solitude of the funeral. So, it's about the fact that Mr. Snyder saw it on television later and was upset by what the protesters were saying. Had they not been saying what they were, he wouldn't have sued. He didn't sue any of the other strangers who appeared at this "private event".

So, Count II is based on the speech of people who were 1,000 feet away from the event. Mr. Snyder didn't hear the speech at the event, didn't see the speakers at the event. The Count should be dismissed because - applied the way it is by Mr. Snyder - the statute infringes upon the church's First Amendment rights. This doesn't mean the statute is unconstitutional. It is Snyder's use of the statute. To use it to claim that one is capable of intruding upon the privacy of a man's memory of an event is too broad.



A jury verdict can be overruled if it is deemed "clearly erroneous." That sounds to me like a "they got it wrong." argument. So, you better nothing, Aquilla. It can be done.