Also see Hate on Trial.A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.
It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
They contend that the deaths are punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military.
Relatives of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder wept and hugged at the jury's announcement, which came a day after closing arguments in the civil trial in federal district court.
"Now I know it's going to be harder for them to do it to anyone else," said Albert Snyder, who mourned at his son's funeral in March 2006 while seven Westboro members waved signs nearby.
The compensatory damage award alone, $2.9 million, was nearly triple the net worth of Westboro and the three members on trial, their attorney said.
Fred W. Phelps Sr., Westboro's founder, vowed to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va.
"It's going to be reversed in five minutes," he said. This case, he added, "will elevate me to something important," as it draws more publicity to his cause.
The jury found the defendants liable for violating the Snyder family's expectation of privacy at the funeral and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
Snyder's lawsuit spurred a constitutional debate over how far the First Amendment should extend to protect the most extreme forms of expression.
Some legal experts said the judgment could be a setback for those who believe in broad free-speech protections.
"I think when speech is a matter of public concern it still has to be protected, even when by social standards it is extraordinarily rude and outrageous," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.
University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber said the size of award, which included $8 million in punitive damages, could have a chilling effect on speech.
"This was in a public space," Graber said "While the actions are reprehensible, the First Amendment protects a lot that's reprehensible."<
After the verdict, Phelps and his two daughters named in Snyder's lawsuit said they believed that it was really their religious beliefs that were on trial.
"The goofy jury threw a fit at God," Phelps said.
For years Westboro members have crisscrossed the country, turning somber funerals of soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan into attention-grabbing platforms to criticize homosexuals as immoral and damned. The church's 75-member congregation is composed mainly of Phelps' relatives.
The group also blames disasters, including Hurricane Katrina, the Sept. 11 attacks and AIDS, on what it views as permissive morals in violation of biblical dictates.
Alarmed by Westboro protests, at least 22 states have proposed or enacted laws to limit the rights of protesters at funerals. Only months after Matthew Snyder's death, Maryland passed a law prohibiting targeted picketing within 300 feet of a funeral, burial, memorial service or funeral procession.
The courtroom fight came down to whether Westboro had a legal right to demonstrate at Snyder's funeral or whether the protesters crossed the line because their message impugned the grieving family's reputation and unlawfully invaded the Snyders' privacy.
The Marine's father, a 52-year-old who lives in York, Pa., sued the church and three of its members, founder Phelps and two of his daughters, Rebecca Phelps-Davis and Shirley Phelps-Roper.
For Snyder's claim of invasion of privacy to have succeeded, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later, in an Internet posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.
Albert Snyder also contended that the church's actions were an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under the law, to find in favor of Snyder, the five women and four men of the jury needed to find that the church's conduct was "intentional or reckless."
Jury instructions also required that the conduct be "extreme and outrageous," leading to severe emotional distress.
"You must balance the defendants' expression of religious belief with another citizen's right to privacy," U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett instructed jurors Tuesday.
The weeklong trial brought together Snyder and his family and the progeny of Phelps, a retired attorney.
In the courtroom, the Phelps family dressed plainly, its women with long hair and no makeup. In testimony, they stood steadfast to their beliefs and did not apologize for their conduct.
Often overcome by emotion, Albert Snyder sat in shirtsleeves and flanked by his attorneys. When the videos made of the protest at his son's funeral were played for jurors during closing arguments, he wept.
During his testimony last week, Snyder told jurors that he was clinically depressed and that the sight of the protest at the funeral made him physically ill.
Fred Phelps took the stand after Snyder, testifying that he had not considered whether children would see a sign carried by protesters with the words "Semper Fi Fags" and two stick figures that appeared to be engaged in sodomy, according to the Associated Press.
Three adults and four children picketed the March 10, 2006, funeral at St. John Roman Catholic Church in Westminster. Westboro members insisted that their demonstration, about 1,000 feet from the Catholic church, took place legally.
In closing arguments, the attorneys sparred over the nature of the protest and whether the demonstrators' "speech" is protected by the Constitution.
Sean E. Summers, one of Snyder's attorneys, said Westboro members personally targeted the family because they brought Marine-specific signs to their rally at the funeral and had researched and posted Albert Snyder's marital history on their Web site in an essay titled "The Burden of Lance. Cpl. Matthew Snyder."
But Westboro attorney Jonathan Katz argued that the protest was no different from thousands of others. Nothing about the demonstration was so offensive or damaging, he said, as to rise to the level of a libelous attack on the family, individually.
Protests by Westboro have produced so much negative reaction that members routinely tell local police departments of their plans so that they can provide added security.
The defendants staged a protest on Pratt Street near the federal courthouse at noontime Wednesday, before the verdict was announced.
Counter protests often follow, and groups such as the Patriot Guard have cropped up to try to shield families from Westboro members' controversial signs and songs.
What sometimes took a back seat in the federal free-speech trial was the life and death of Matthew A. Snyder, a 2003 graduate of Westminster High School. A victim of a vehicle accident in Anbar province in March 2006, the 20-year-old had been in the war zone for less than a month.
Snyder's sexual preference was not an issue at the trial; his father said his son was not gay. Church members said they did not target Snyder's funeral because of his sexual preference; they were there to oppose gays in the military.
They said they waved placards -- "Thank God for IEDs" and "Fag Troops" among others -- near the funeral motorcade to bring attention to their message.
Snyder testified that he never saw the content of the signs as he entered and left St. John's on the day of his son's funeral. He read the signs for the first time during television news reports later that day.
A Google search on the Internet weeks later led him to the church's Web site and the posting about Matthew Snyder.
In arguing for punitive damages after the jury ruled in favor of Snyder, attorney Craig T. Trebilcock urged jurors to "deter [Westboro] from ever doing this to another family again."
"These are malicious people," he said. "These are stone-hearted people. They were celebrants of Matt Snyder's death."
Katz, the defendants' attorney, urged jurors to "look dispassionately" at Westboro's financial status in awarding punitive damages.
He said Fred Phelps is an unpaid pastor, Rebecca Phelps-Davis is a low-paid attorney at the Phelps law firm and that Shirley Phelps- Roper is a part-time law firm employee and mother of 11 children.
As for the church, Katz said, its only income is generated by meager tithings from congregants, many of whom are children or unemployed.
Trebilcock told jurors that they did not have to believe the Phelpses' financial disclosures -- pointing out that Rebecca Phelps- Davis reported just $306 in liquid assets.
Earlier in the trial, the Phelpses testified that they spent $400 apiece on plane tickets to get to Snyder's funeral. And Shirley Phelps-Roper eagerly showed off her iPhone to reporters, which she said was a birthday gift from her children.
Summers, an attorney for Snyder, said after the verdict that the lawsuit was not about money, it was about stopping Westboro.
Summers said he was ready and waiting for the appeal. "We will chase them until they have nothing left."
Story Link
Naomi
After all, you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, your Right to swing your fists ends at the tip of somebody else's nose, and wiggling your Pee-Pee at people on the street is not "protected speech".
I hope the ruling stands and puts this traveling freak show out of business for good.
Likewise I don't see how yelling about how god is punishing us as a country for allowing certain behaviours is wrong IF there is a god raining down punishments upon us.
But if there isn't, they are causing, or attemting to cause, undue panic.
This, in my opinion, should be where the argument stems from and not the right to privacy issue or that it is highly offensive. It should be about whether or not this god they are afraid of is a real threat or not.
Just as the threat of the fire in the theater can be determined by evidence, so should the threat of an angry god be determined by evidence.
That would be less of a slippery slope issue than the offensive language thing that it seems to be stemming from now.
I think the reason that it is stemming from offensiveness and not truthfulness is because of the respect we as individuals are supposed to feel for someone elses unfounded religious beliefs.
As if this wouldn't be taken a way if they were saying that Zeus was the deity that was behind these punishments.
But I could be mistaken.
I meant to say: As if this wouldn't be taken in a different way...
And sorry about the spelling errors. I can't seem to help it.
What these people are saying is not freedom of speech. They are not trying to spread new ideas or to convince people of the veracity of their claim. They are hate-mongers and nothing more. If it's hatred they want, let some of the comrades of the fallen military personnel (whose funeral they are defacing) have 5 minutes alone with these people.
Their actions are indefensible and below contempt.
Totally rotten scum, they have gotten what they deserve.
Rather than make this a free speech issue, it should be made into an issue of false claims, intent to emotionally harm, and false advertisement.
That would prove far more helpful in the future to those that would try to spread lies, innuendo, and unfounded beliefs. Rather than non believers being jailed for protesting Creation Museums, exorcism events, and anti-gay demonstrations.
Maybe there is a god......ha ha, just kidding.
Boe
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/funeral.protest/index.html?iref=newssearch#cnnSTCVideo
so my questions to these idiots would have to be...
which is worse? some one who doesnt believe in your "God" and does as they please? or someone who believes in "God" and not following his or her laws???
both, seems to me, would go to this so called "Hell" place.
I truly hate religion AND hipocrates!!!
both, seems to me, would go to this so called "Hell" place
You're either a hate monger or very bad at expressing a point.
Did you know that every theocracy in history has been murderous and oppressive?
Listen, xian, why don't you goggle up to a place called "jesusneverexisted". From there, click "hell on earth". From there, click "missionaries or murderers". You will see a graphic representation of the torture devices that were used under theocratic governments in Europe. The men who were in charge of these governments were good men; they loved jesus; they gave their lives to god; they wept bitter tears of contrition over their many sins; they prayed without ceasing; they went to heaven when they died, and all who oppossed them went to hell to burn forever. They were, in summary, good xians. It is just too fucking bad that secular governments in civilized countries have put a stop to all this. Aint that just awful? You can't hurt anybody in the name of jesus. How I wish those days could come back. Ah well, we live in a godless society, where we exercise an evil individuality; free speech; freedom of choice; freedom of conscience; freedom of thought. My god, we have fags and niggers and witches just running fucking wild. Surely a just god will rain down his righteous wrath.
did you know that every single atheist/communist state in history has been murderous and oppressive.
Reason responds:
Do you know how ignorant you are?
In a strange way I feel sorry for the poor slob. I have encountered his kind before in formal classroom settings. People of otherwise normal intelligence, or even superior intelligence, find it impossible to participate in question/answer exercises. They fail to understand what an "answer" is. Ask them a question and they babble off into left field. They cannot be brought back to the issue.
I have tried a few times to help these people with their papers and they can't seem to "track". Look, here is your assignment; here are the questions and the issues; deal with them; what you are writing are not answers. Such people, I suspect, are victims of autism or Asberger's syndrome, off in their own world and unable to respond.
Madame M~
Fallacies:
Complex Question: "Asks a question with an unjustified presupposition."
Unjustified presupposition is that atheism (distinct from political theory) is synonymous with communism.
Contradictory Premises: "Contains a self-contradictory premise, or two or more mutually exclusive premises."
Since communism and atheism are not synonymous, there needs to be at least two premises one for Atheism and one for Communism.
False (questionable) Cause: "Assigns a particular cause to an event, despite reason to consider other possible causes."
Like, atheism requires communism to work as a political theory.
Guilt By Association: "Implies that an idea is bad if it is associated with harmful ideas or practices."
Attempting to associate atheism to murder and oppression, like; if atheism exists, then all else must follow.
The Westboro Christians, do not make Christianity a false religion, they get all the credit for being parasites that feed on human suffering.
However, Christianity as a theology is ambiguous; and unlike atheism, it has a doctrine (bible), that can be used by Christians to "prove" their actions as morally "right"eous - just like Westboro Baptist Christians have.
Maybe they are trying to save their pennies to cover the tab they've run up...
Free press coverage, at the expense of suffering families.
They targeted families in grief, because they are less likely to physically retaliate, out of respect for their dead children. As well, police officers are typically in attendance.
The WBC Christians are cowards.
What exactly do these people want? What would make them happy? Have they ever stated their ultimate solution to make God love us as a nation? If we rounded up all the gays threw them in gas chambers would that do it? What do they really want? What is their real goal? Do they have one?
The jury found that damage had been done to the family of the dead soldier and not that the WBC should be forbidden to voice their opinions. Two very different things.
I also believe that the WBC most likely has at least some hidden assets; Fred Phelps is a very paranoid man.
Jeopardy Question, what is NPD?
"Translation: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior that shows up in thinking and behavior in a lot of different situations and activities. People with NPD won't (or can't) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others (or themselves? none of my narcissists ever admit to being distressed by their own behavior -- they always blame other people for any problems). This pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior is not caused by current drug or alcohol use, head injury, acute psychotic episodes, or any other illness, but has been going on steadily at least since adolescence or early adulthood.
NPD interferes with people's functioning in their occupations and in their relationships:"
Well, true, unless one's occupation reinforces the disorder :-) Serial killers are well-adjusted in their occupation, if they lack empathy as well.
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)”
As a real-life example, I used to have a neighbor who told his wife that he was the youngest person since Sir Isaac Newton to take a doctorate at Oxford. The neighbor gave no evidence of a world-class education, so I looked up Newton and found out that Newton had completed his baccalaureate at the age of twenty-two (like most people) and spent his entire academic career at Cambridge. The grandiose claims of narcissists are superficially plausible fabrications, readily punctured by a little critical consideration. The test is performance: do they deliver the goods?
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Translation: Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or "autistic" fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Translation: Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average aren't special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.
4. Requires excessive admiration
Translation: Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments, deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue here; all that matter are frequency and volume.
5. Has a sense of entitlement
Translation: They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able to go first and that other people should stop whatever they're doing to do what the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations are frustrated.
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
Translation: Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people.
7. Lacks empathy
Translation: They are unwilling to recognize or sympathize with other people's feelings and needs. They "tune out" when other people want to talk about their own problems.
In clinical terms, empathy is the ability to recognize and interpret other people's emotions. Lack of empathy may take two different directions: (a) accurate interpretation of others' emotions with no concern for others' distress, which is characteristic of psychopaths; and (b) the inability to recognize and accurately interpret other people's emotions, which is the NPD style.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
Translation: No translation needed.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
Translation: They treat other people like dirt.
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html#emp
NPD’s don’t find themselves in clinics often, due to insufficient incomes or insurance coverage. Also, narcissists typically don’t engage in physical confrontation, so they aren’t considered an open threat to society – no one is turning them in for criminal activity. Treating people like objects in order to elevate one’s grandiosity is the key feature here.
The fall of WBC isn’t in its reinforcement of personality disorders among its group, but in how it organized such a group, and targeted specific families in order to achieve such a position of self-acclaimed grandiosity. Even Phelps suggests that all an appeal is going to do is to bring more “spotlight” on him and his righteous followers of God.
To ask what these people want; is to ask how to accommodate someone or some group that reinforces NPD. The answer would be to support items 1-8 above, at the cost of individuals and society.
While treating people like dirt may not be illegal, I really don’t care to associate with them. As well, it would seem that a strict fundamentalist life-style would attract people with common personality traits – whatever, those traits may be ;-)
Correction, the answer would be to support items 1-9, which includes treating people like dirt, didn't want to leave that one off the list :-)
They are the DEVIL! and they are trying to ruin christianity.
Chibi, you realise your a christian, untill someone films you masturbating to a bra catalogue, and then your not a christian. You're just a satanistic masturbater, flying under the christian banner.
Anony bot#09834756