Gay-bashing church pickets GI funeral - damages $11 million (almost)

[Michael Tee]

from today's AP

Jury awards father $11M in funeral case

By ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 11 minutes ago

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

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."

Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."

A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries. But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.

The church and three of its leaders ? the Rev. Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, 46 ? were found liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress.

Even the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted.

Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.

The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality.

Their attorneys maintained in closing arguments Tuesday that the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.

Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse. Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers." Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."

Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles.

[Plane]

Somewhere in Guyana is an unused little compound , could probly be picked up at a reasonable cost.

[Lanya]

Good.

[Michael Tee]

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate here - - is no one gonna raise the free speech issue?  Even assuming that the Church needs to be punished for abusing its right of free speech, is an 11 million dollar fine, spelling total financial ruin for the Church and all its members (assuming it's not incorporated) the appropriate punishment?  What would have been the downside in tailoring the fine to the actual financial circumstances of the losing side?  Something that would sting like a dozen angry hornets, make itself felt, but still leave the membership with a viable financial life?  Is $3 mill REALLY the measure of one family's pain?  Is $6 mill punitive damages way more than necessary to "punish" the offenders?

The other thing I wonder about is how public or how private is the funeral?  If public officials were in attendance in their official capacity to lend honour and dignity to the event, and if the family did not close the door on them, why should the public officials be allowed to express one POV (theirs!) on the taxpayer's dime and another citizen, nominally represented by the partisan public official, be silenced at the same event?

I thought some interesting issues were raised here.  Agreed, the fundamentalists would incur a lot of public opprobrium for disrespecting a military funeral, presumably of a straight soldier, but as unpopular as their action would make them, is nobody worried about the "chill" effect that a verdict of that magnitude could have upon dissenting speech in general?

[Plane]

The Rev. Fred Phelps defends the First Amendment in the same way that Jesse James defended the Second Amendment.

[Lanya]

Michael,
No, I'm not worried about a "chill" effect in this case. 

This is like not allowing someone to pour lye down other peoples' throats--they are that caustic and hateful.   
You don't picket and shout and protest at someone's funeral. 
If that steps on free speech,  so be it.  I guess so does not shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater. 

[Michael Tee]

I'm glad I played Devil's Advocate - - got a funny one-liner from plane and some down-to-earth, plain-spoken common sense (as always) from Lanya.

Actually, the "fire in a crowded theatre" isn't the real analogy here, because there's no chance of an abuse of free speech physically endangering anyone. 

The "pouring lye" was a lot more apt - - when the injury is hurtful and is invasive of privacy to the extent that this was (and regardless of the public aspects, if any, of the ceremony, I think it was right to regard this in essence as a very private, sacred moment for the soldier's family) then the free-speech value collides with the personal privacy value (the right to grieve amongst friends in peace and dignity) and free speech has to give way.  Those guys could find plenty of other venues to express the same opinions.

Once it's established that free speech was not under judicial attack, it becomes pointless to wonder if the awards will "chill" free speech.

[Lanya]

Those people (Phelps and his daughters) are scary to look at; have you ever seen a TV interview with any of them?
They have this intense eye contact and they smile in a real mean way.  And talk angrily while they smile--very inappropriate and weird.   
Charles Manson weird.

[_JS]

I'm with Tee.

Why is it fair that a jury hands down an obviously exaggerated penalty to a church that is practicing free speech?

Why is "God hates Fags" more offensive than someone flying a Confederate Battle Flag in their front yard? They call it "heritage", but quite clearly it has an historical use as a symbol of hatred and racism.

Can I sue them and be awarded $11 million? I can use the money and I will even give a good portion away to very good causes.

I don't see the difference, even if these guys are reprehensible and morally repugnant.

[BT]

I don't think the jury's actions constitute a free speech issue, but i do think the award is ridiculous.

[Plane]

I'm with Tee.

Why is it fair that a jury hands down an obviously exaggerated penalty to a church that is practicing free speech?

Why is "God hates Fags" more offensive than someone flying a Confederate Battle Flag in their front yard? They call it "heritage", but quite clearly it has an historical use as a symbol of hatred and racism.

Can I sue them and be awarded $11 million? I can use the money and I will even give a good portion away to very good causes.

I don't see the difference, even if these guys are reprehensible and morally repugnant.

I have heard about exceptions being made for "opprobrious" language , so that at some point a persons speech is offensive enough to be restricted , this must be hard when the offense is marginally applicable and subjective.

In this case the whole point of the exercise was to make offense and there is little mitigation.

The Confederate flag is offensive when it is ment to be so and when it is accepted to be so , most people who fly one do not mean offense and the people who take offense seem prone to it.

[_JS]

I have heard about exceptions being made for "opprobrious" language , so that at some point a persons speech is offensive enough to be restricted , this must be hard when the offense is marginally applicable and subjective.

In this case the whole point of the exercise was to make offense and there is little mitigation.

The Confederate flag is offensive when it is ment to be so and when it is accepted to be so , most people who fly one do not mean offense and the people who take offense seem prone to it.

One could say the same thing about a funeral and signs that say "God hates fags."

That "heritage" was one in which Africans were subjugated to being less than humans and the property of white persons. Make no mistake that if you read the states reasons for leaving the union, you'll read about slavery. Some use crafty language to explain it, others like South Carolina and Mississippi just say it point blank.

So what is the difference? Other than people are "prone to" being offended.

[gipper]

There are First Amendment issues here, however strained, that have to be accounted for. The only -- or the best -- way to do it is to posit a countervailing right as outbalancing First Amendment speech in this instance. That would be through the heretofore maligned right of privacy, whose wisdom all can see in this circumstance. Whether a common-law or state-statute right to privacy can trump a constitutional right to speech should not be a high hurdle to cross, nor is it impossible to construct a theory that the mourners have a constitutional right to privacy that countervailing (constitutional) laws allowing impingement interfere with. In that battle, as stated, I come down on the side of privacy: an equally fundamental national concern raised to preeminent status by the details of this circumstance. It's a familiar contest: the battle of rights.

[sirs]

I don't think the jury's actions constitute a free speech issue, but i do think the award is ridiculous.

Precisely.  Not sure why this is being portrayed as so much more complicated then that

[_JS]

The church was officially sued for:

defamation of character, invasion of privacy--intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy--publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy

Domer certainly knows his stuff. I'm a little unsure what a "civil conspiracy" involves, but the others seem rather clear. It does seem to be a case of free speech and privacy rights (implied or otherwise) taking the ring.

I am curious though, especially for Domer's opinion, what is the difference in someone flying a large Confederate Flag in their front yard? Now, what is the difference in someone flying a large flag that says "Fag Troops" or another of this group's posters in their front yard? Would both of those be protected by both free speech and privacy?