Judge orders lien on Westboro church

[Mugu]

BALTIMORE (Map, News) - A federal judge in Baltimore ordered Westboro Baptist Church members to post their church building and nearly $500,000 more in cash and property while appealing a judgment for protesting a Marine’s funeral.

The Kansas church members had hoped to avoid posting a bond while delaying payments in the $5 million judgment a jury awarded Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq.

Westboro church members preach that God kills American soldiers as punishment for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. They protested Matthew Snyder’s Westminster funeral in March 2006 by waving signs with such messages as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates fags.”

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett rejected their motion Thursday, ruling it would require “extraordinary circumstances” to avoid posting a portion of the judgment.



Complete article at:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1319944~Judge_orders_lien_on_Westboro_church.html

[TheUniverse]

1. There goes the 1st amendment.

I know noone disagrees that Westboro is trash, but Westboro is basically loosing their church over protesting. Protesting is an american right (or at least used to be) and you should be allowed to say what ever you want to say in this country (yes I know about libel and slander This wasnt a case of libel and slander but a case of somebody being offended). The 1st amendment is worth far more than your right to not be offended. Dont look at this as a victory thinking "Good Westboro is going down" Look at this as bad, our first amendment is going down.

[Clovis Sangrail]

5. I see what you're saying, but is it really accurate?

I have the right to protest for things I believe, and I want others to have that right as well... regardless of agreeing with them.
However, at some point protest can become verbal assault or attempt to incite.

Has Phelps crossed that line?
Apparently judge Bennet thinks so.

The differentiation is subjective (which can be scary) but there is no doubt there is a difference between legitimate and unlawful speech.
I realize this sounds terrible, but the 1st amendment is NOT absolute.

It doesn't give us the right to shout 'FIRE' in a theatre, to publish battle plans, or a host of other things.

[TheUniverse]

67. Basically he said the soldier was burning in hell.

certainly that is protect free speech, or we would start locking up all the preachers in the world.


:It doesn't give us the right to shout 'FIRE' in a theatre, to publish battle plans, or a host of other things." he didnt do any thing like that. Phelps basically gave his religous opinion, in a public place. ( he did not go within 200 feet of the funeral) His rteligous views are incredibly offensive but thats what we gotta deal with if we want a free society.

[mondo joe]

91. The the contrary: Phelps caused intentional emotional distress to a private citizen,

and violated the family's right to privacy by using their son's funeral on their web page.

Phelps ridiculously claimed the obituary notice made the son a public figure.

Even Phelps' own defense didn't try to rationalize what they did - they tried to get out of it by claiming the son was a public figure.

[MrScorpio]

98. And no church has a Constitutional right to make a family's life a living hell

Make 'em pay!

[wpelb]

158. What's odd about Fred Phelps

He was at one time some sort of civil-rights lawyer. He's been disbarred (I think for filing too many frivolous lawsuits), but his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, who gets on TV quite a bit, still practices law.

[horseshoecrab]

107. Absolutely right

Agreed -- the funeral is a private event.

Using the funeral of a soldier to foist their twisted ideas on the funeral attendees is very much intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the family of the Marine (and of all of the other families who've been vicimized by these clowns.

Claiming the son was a public figure by virtue of having been killed in a war and by having his obituary in the paper is not going to hold up. Good for the Marine's family for going for it. There's no good reason to put up with this kind of harassment. Most families have probably been so overwhelmed by their grief that they couldn't do anything. It was just a matter of time until a family would feel themselves able to go after Phelps and his jerk followers.

I fail to see how Phelps can claim that his 1st Amendment rights are being violated. This is right up there with yelling fire in a crowded theater. Yelling "God hates fags" at a funeral procession is really not protected speech at all. Yelling the same thing while milling about on a street with no funeral procession probably is protected speech, but it won't get you in the paper.


horseshoecrab

[Dhalgren]

6. Where does your right to protest cross my right to privacy? If you

are protesting the government by invading the privacy of my family member's funeral, where does the justice lie? I think that freedom of speech is one of our freedoms, but not the only one. If you are protesting me, personally, then I have recourse to the courts to make you stop. If you are protesting the government (as these cretins claim they are) then you should protest the government and not a private funeral - your protests should not infringe upon my right to privacy.

[TheUniverse]

59. They stayed on public property.

They even followed those unconstitutional laws saying they couldnt even be within 200 or so feet of the funeral.

[orleans]

159. yes and i'm going to start a church that will allow me to

discriminate against a specific group (i haven't decided which group yet--i'll get back to you on that)

this way i can go to all the funerals of said group, my congregation and i will hold up signs saying god is punishing america because so-and-so (the departed) is a dirty sinner because god hates (whatever group i've decided to hate)

and...i'll expect to get and keep my tax exemption status because, my "church" is in god's holy name.

think that'll fly?

who decides a church must preach love and not hate?

you know that "church" is a bunch of shit.

how do we define "shit" when it pertains to this sort of thing -- that is the bigger question.

[yardwork]

10. bushco has been responsible for far more serious attacks on the First Amendment.

The Phelps's have gone beyond protesting. People are arrested every day in this country for disturbing the peace. You can't play your car radio above a certain volume in my very liberal town without getting a ticket.

If you're really concerned about the First Amendment, as I am, then let's put our efforts into trying to restore some semblance of journalistic integrity in this country. Let's put our efforts into restoring the various constitutional rights that bushco has erased, and let the Phelps's spend their own money defending themselves in court. They're telling people that the U.S. is damned because the country doesn't *kill* me, my partner, and the many thousands of other gay people in this country.

Should I sue the Phelps's for putting my life in danger? They advocate for my death every day.

[colinmom71]

11. This wasn't about someone just being offended...

That family was harassed during their son's funeral. The First Amendment does not cover a right to harass others, especially during a private family event.

The First Amendment protects citizens from having their right to assemble and exercise free speech in protest interfered with by the government. It does not protect people who choose to harass and inappropriately "protest" at private events to which they know they are considered unwelcome.

[theboss]

19. "Inappropriate" protest?

Do you really want to start going down this path?

[colinmom71]

28. Inappropriate, in that it was a private family event...

I'm referring to the context within which the protest occurred, not necessarily the substantive content of the protest (offensive as it was). If one wishes to protest issues with governmental policies, the appropriate venue to do so is before governmental properties and functions, not at private venues such as funerals. Unfortunately, the context within which Westboro Church chose to protest constituted harassment since they were publicly informed they were not welcome to protest within obviously close proximity to a private function that was factually irrelevant to their chosen protest issue.

[theboss]

29. Harassment has to be ongoing, does it not?

If the Phelps were following this poor family around the country, that would be one thing. Showing up a funeral - while wildly inappropriate - does not pass the test of harassment for me.

[Richard Steele]

49. No, it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about. nm

[Jed Dilligan]

53. Really?

That would mean I could go up to any woman at any bus stop and describe my lurid sexual fantasies about her without getting arrested, as long as I didn't do it to the same woman twice.

[TheUniverse]

70. Im a first amendment absolutist.

So Im going to say yes... Im sure noone else will but I am a freedom absolutist.

[mondo joe]

72. So you don't believe in damages for slander?

?

[TheUniverse]

76. For the most part no.

I believe only in the cases where they can show a person knowingly lied about a person. So if a person said "I saw john molesting 3 children yesterday" and John can prove he didnt molest those children, I would agree then. So yeah I only believe in the slander laws, when actual lies take place, not just "degradation of character" whatever that means. I believe that you should be allowed to absolutely trash a person and call him whatever you want to as long as you dont lie. Yeah, I know no justices would agree with me, but Im a freedom absolutist, and sometimes freedom isn't pretty.

[mondo joe]

77. Um, that's what slander IS.

So why do you believe in damages for slander?

[TheUniverse]

80. Because they didnt commit slander in that defintion.

All they said was "he was burning in hell" and "he was fighting for a fag flag" Those are there beliefs. Yeah they are crazy but they believe it and we have religious freedom in this country or at least should have it. If ytou want to start saying a religous belief is slander, thats a very slippery slope.

[mondo joe]

83. Now let's consider this: you are willing to hold person accountable in their speech

for damages by slander.

So, why are you willing to limit free speech in this way?

[theboss]

119. Slander causes actual, measurable damages

The damage caused by slander is ongoing and has a large financial aspect to it.

Most courts are uncomfortable with IED because it's far more....etheral may be the best word.

I think you really have to understand the history and reputation of IED claims to grasp why this is troubling to some. This is not a tort that has any sort of widespread acceptance.

[mondo joe]

122. Thank you - though I'm still hoping for an answer from The Universe.

That makes me sound very woo-woo though. ;-)

And yes, I do understand courts are not always comfortable with it.

But when we getdown to it: yes, you of course gave the principle: actual measurable damages. The question then is whether IED can be shown to cause actual measurable damages. In this case, the jury thought so.

[theboss]

128. I don't think it should have gotten to the jury though

The Phelps are so reprehensible that most juries are going to find them liable for some reason.

This is why it is a First Amendment issue even though there is not government action. You should not be held liable for engaging in protected, legal activity. Juries are not the end all and be all of the legal system. A judge has to decide what information actually gets to the jury...or whether a jury gets to hear a case at all. Juries are an important - yet most easily manipulative - part of the system.

[mondo joe]

132. I'll spare you my disagreement.

You've suffered enough of my opinion.

Thanks for the very civil discussion. :-)

[colinmom71]

125. From what I understand, most state and local laws regarding harassment....

Require that the recipient of unwanted communications had simply previously informed the communicator that their communications were unwarranted and unwelcome.

For instance, say you break up with a romantic partner who not quite getting the message that you no longer want nothing to do with them. You have the right to say that you no longer want to receive communications from them since they are calling your phone night and day, thus interrupting your normal daily functions. If they ignore your clearly stated declaration, you then have the right to seek legal relief to enforce your previously stated warning for that person to stop communicating to you. Once a person/party is informed that their communications are unwelcome by the recipient, harassment charges (civil or criminal, depending on severity) often apply.

From what I recall in this Marine's funeral case, the Phelps publicly said in advance they wanted to hold a protest at the entrance to the cemetery during the gravesite service. Both the family and the local municipality replied that they were unwelcome and that such a protest would be considered legally as harassment. The Phelps went ahead and staged their protest. And now, they are facing the consequences of knowingly violating local harassment ordinances and thus leaving themselves open to the family's just civil action for damages against them for that harassment.

[theboss]

129. Except you can't just define harassment out of wholecloth

I always go back to my college graduation. President Clinton is the commencement speaker - which is wonderfully cool. However, he brings huge numbers of abortion protestors everywhere he goes. So, the final tradition of graduation is to walk through the gate of the university (which has a supposed curse attached to it) and basically enter "Post-collegiate" life. My best friend and I do this together....and walk right into a poster of an aborted fetus. My friend - who had an abortion I might add - starts crying. I start swearing. Another student threatens to punch someone. It's a mess, though ultimately nothing really dangerous or violent happens.

Anyway, are you suggesting that if I had called the protestors ahead of time and told them not to come that I could sue them? What they did was perfectly legal.

[colinmom71]

145. There's a difference between criminal actions versus civil tort suits...

Even if what they did skirted around state criminal laws and local ordinances, their actions were still open to a civil suit seeking damages for emotional harm. Westboro Church's members were never convicted of a crime in this case IIRC. However, from what I recall, they openly declared their intent to protest before the Marine's funeral and the family responded openly with their request that WC not do so during the private funeral hosted for their loved one. After ignoring the family's request, WC opened itself up to any resulting legal issues by staging the protest anyway.

Some states have more stringent harassment laws than others, but essentially once you've given notice to another party that their communications are unwelcome and they then continue to contact you, they leave themselves open to any resulting charges of criminal harassment, or absent their actions meeting the statutory definition of criminal harassment, you still have the legal option to seek damages in a civil suit for their actions against you. Civil tort actions don't have to revolve around a criminal action, only about an issue that you can prove caused harm to yourself and/or your family.

[MiniMe]

66. You can't yell "Fire" in a theatre either.

Protesting, as much as I hate that they are doing it is one thing. Harassing is another. You can sue for harassment.

[TexasObserver]

34. What you're saying is that you don't understand the first amendment

Your attempt to carve out an exception based upon your conclusion that a funeral is a private family event is absurd. The alleged sin is a use of free speech, however offensive you or others may find it, not trespass. An event in a public place is public, no matter how private you or others may want to construe it to be.

The problem is simple. Some people, like you, think free speech should not exist, because sometimes it is offensive. You either believe in free speech, or you believe in the control of speech by government and/or individuals offended by free speech.

No, this has nothing to do with the oft repeated prohibition against shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre.

One does not need to approve the message, however hateful, to approve the medium and principle of free speech. We have free speech because we allow excessive speech, not because we flinch every time someone shouts something in public we find offensive. Fascism is fascism, however well intentioned it may be.

[mondo joe]

40. What about the First Amendment is contrary to a private citizen suing

for damages?

[TexasObserver]

52. The judge is an appointee of George W. Bush

And he doesn't understand the Constitution any better than you do.

I've read your comments, and it's clear that you have no idea what the law is, and trying to explain it to you would be a huge waste of my time. You react emotionally to the substance of the offensive speech, and gauge all your conclusions upon that.

So far, all that has happened is a bad judge has allowed an unmeritorious case to go to trial, and pending the appeal by defendants, he has ordered that the assets of the defendants not be protected on appeal. This case will likely be reversed on appeal on constitutional grounds, because most appointees to the appeals courts understand the law better than this judge, who is a retired military officer, and who served as a US Attorney under George HW Bush.

I've read the plaintiff's pleading, and put simply, the case should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Now you'll repeat some nonsense you read somewhere and claim it's the law.

[mondo joe]

55. So no answer, just insults? *click* for uselessness.

[Richard Steele]

60. Yeah, ain't that SPECIAL?

This guy has racked up 3800 posts in under 3 months,
and NOW he's refusing to explain his position on the grounds
that it "would be a waste of time". :rofl:

[TheUniverse]

71. There suing for damages caused by phelps speech?

If you can be sued for millions for saying the wrong thing, do you have freedom of speech?

[mondo joe]

73. Yes, you have freedom of speech if you can potentially be sued. Anyone

can be sued for anything, if you can manage it. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you won't be challenged.

[TheUniverse]

81. In my opinion freedom of speech says you wont lose your church for saying the wrong thing.

[mondo joe]

86. But you've already said you're fine with suits for slander, so there's already

the potential for lawsuits.

[TheUniverse]

88. Yes but I dont believe they commited slander.

So yeah if they went around saying they saw the soldier molesting children before he died, I would believe a lawsuit would be justified. I dont believe in the 8 million dollar punitive damages which was just absurd. But they didnt say anything like that, they just said there general bullshit about how he is a "fag enabler" and I believe they should have the right to do that.

[mondo joe]

90. I didn't ask you if they committed slander. I';m pointing out you are not the absolutist

you claim, and now seeking to define the principal under which you believe free speech can be curtailed.

What is it about slander that you think makes it a legitimate case for damages?

[TheUniverse]

92. OK you got me.

Im not a 100 percent "absolutist" But I am 99.9 percent. :) Yeah I dont believe you should be allowed to tell a complete lie about someone. (but in grey area cases I believe the speaker should always be given privilege) So yeah thats pretty much it.

[mondo joe]

94. Let's drill down a bit, please. What about telling a lie about someone else

makes it a legitimate limitation on free speech?

I have my own understanding of it, but Ihope you could share yours.

[TheUniverse]

97. I guess it is an error in my thought process.

If you are knowing spreading a 100 percent lie about someone it shouldnt be legal. I know this goes against everything I say I am and makes me look a bit hypocritical but its what I feel should be proper. Its what I feel should be the only limitation on freedom of speech, except for maybe giving out the code for the nuclear football.



And I just read the complaint http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Complaint.pdf and I feel that the closest they came to lying is saying that their parents taught matt to be an adulter. Their justification is that they were catholics and they believe the catholic church teaches adultery. I believe they should be allowed to say that.

[mondo joe]

100. Again, I'm hoping you can drill downto the principle at work there.

"If you are knowing spreading a 100 percent lie about someone it shouldnt be legal."

Why shouldn't it be?

I don't think it's an error in your thought process. Apologies if this sounds patronizing, but I believe you just haven't articulated yet even to yourself the principle behind it.

[SidDithers]

84. Succinct as always...

:applause:

Sid

[Wizard777]

113. Congress shall make no law. If Congress can't legislatively regulate the church.

What are you going to sue over?

[mondo joe]

115. The church is subject to secular law. They can't slander, or murder

or a host of other activities.

The church doesn't have to be regulated for its members and even its corporate entity to be held liable for damages.

[Wizard777]

121. What part of "no law" have you failed to understand?

The use of Marijuana and other drugs violates secular law. Unless it being used as an entheogen (sacrament.) Then It's legal. "Shall make no law."

[mondo joe]

130. What part of an actual record of churches and church members being charged with

crimes as well as civil proceedings do you not understand?

Would you like a few names to jog your memory?

[Bake]

39. As I vaguely recall from Con Law,

The First Amendment is not absolute. The state may regulate speech as to time, place and manner (if I recall correctly), so long as the regulation is content neutral. That's why, inter alia, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Here, Phelps' message, i.e., content, may be offensive, but it would have been the time and place (the Marine's funeral) that crossed the line to become actionable.

Bake

[TheUniverse]

61. He stayed on public property

and I dont see how yelling "fire" is a proper comparison to this. The phelps protested their bizarre religious beliefs on public property on the day of the funeral. Yes there views are incredibly offensive, but they are relgious views, and when you start calling religous views libel or slander whats next? They did not step one foot on the graveyard, nor where they within 200 feet of it as the law said. They were basically doing a religous protest on public property and in my view that should be allowed, even if they were saying a soldier was burning in hell whose funeral was 200 feet down the street.

[mondo joe]

65. The Phelps's intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the Snyder family.

They caused damages and were held liable.

The First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to slander, or to inflict damages on private citizens.

[Bake]

106. A cemetery may or may not be public property.

I don't know all the facts of the case. I'm just saying the 1st is not absolute.

Bake

[colinmom71]

148. Most cemeteries are private property actually...

IIRC, the Westboro groups did stick to public walkways and areas right outside the entrance to the cemetery, which meant that the family had to pass through their protest in order to attend their loved one's gravesite service. I believe that's why there were no criminal charges involved since there was no law there against protests on publicly owned areas adjacent to privately owned properties.

But yes, I agree with you in that did not protect the Westboro group from a civil suit filed by the Marine's family. The government did not interrupt or arrest anyone for their protest, and that's what the First Amendment protects - government interference into a civilian's right to protest. But the First Amendment does not protect against private suits for harm by other citizens....

[theboss]

150. Yes, it does

If the First Amendment does not govern in private suits explain why all the landmark free speech cases arise out of private actions?

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Hustler v. Falwell
Gertz v. Robert Welch

[Bake]

164. Two words: PUBLIC FIGURES

Bake

[mondo joe]

165. You ought to look at the decisions. As another poster notes: PUBLIC figures.

[Orsino]

12. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is worth a civil case.

I don't know that it's worth millions, but it's important that the Westies not escape all accountability.

[TheUniverse]

62. They believe they are spreading their religious viewpoints.

In my viewpoint, religous freedom is far more important than protecting against emotional distress.

[mondo joe]

68. No one is allowed to violate another's rights as patr of their religion.

If you believe it's your religious duty to kill promiscuous women or gay men is it permitted? No.

[TheUniverse]

74. I dont see what rights they violated.

they didnt interfere with the funeral. They did not assault the soldiers family. They protested in a public place that was 200 feet away. How the hell can you compare that to killing a gay man? This ruling is a slippery slope and I dont like where its heading. And Im glad that the ACLU and at least a few users here agree with me.

[mondo joe]

75. The intentionally caused emotional distress. Why don't you try getting familiar

with the actual case, the torts and the judgment?

[TheUniverse]

78. I am very familiar with it.

and I strongly disagree with it, and I strongly disagree with any law, or tort which I feel infriges on your right to free speech. And there are a lot them out there (such as FCC regulation) and I disagree with every single on of them. Im a 1st amendment absolutist, and unfortunately there are very few of us. Whenever freedom of speech goes 1 on 1 with "emotional distress" I always give the edge to freedom of speech.

[mondo joe]

79. No, I don't think you are. Not at all, based on your questions.

You don't appear to even know what the church was actually charged with.

And you say you're an absolutist, but you're not - you elsewhere said you do believe in damages for slander. So you're willing to make exceptions.

[TheUniverse]

85. I know what they sued for.

They sued for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" because of their beliefs and to that I say, tough, sometimes freedom fo speech causes emotional beliefs. Yeah I know there are laws that say that can sue for that but I believe those laws are unconstitutional. Yeah I know most judges have upheld those laws, but I believe those judges are just flat out wrong. And about the invasion of privacy thing they were sued for, they never even enter the funeral grounds. That one is the strangest one.

[mondo joe]

87. No, you got it wrong again.

"They sued for 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' because of their beliefs"

Incorrect.

"And about the invasion of privacy thing they were sued for, they never even enter the funeral grounds."

Again, incorrect because invasion of privacy never rested on entering the funeral grounds - there are numerous wayus to invade privacy and no one ever claimed in this case it was related to entering the funeral grounds.

[Winterblues]

21. There is no crime so don't know what you are talking about

There is a Civil suit about mental duress. People sue others all the time for things such as this. It is the american way for common folk to fight back. You don't seem to understand this. Do you think divorce should be allowed? It is the same thing. People sue for divorce under similar grounds, mental cruelty etc. That is what this form of demonstrating was, "Mental Cruelty" and people need to be able to defend themselves from such whether you think so or not..

[theboss]

30. We can still define what mental cruelty is

I just don't like the idea of a one-time event rising to that level.

[mondo joe]

31. Compensatory and punitive damages are nothing new, nor are they

a particular threat to free speech.

[theboss]

36. Using the civil courts as a club against free expression is relatively new

And I think a lot of anti-war organizations should be terrified by this movement.

[mondo joe]

37. Using civil courts to compensate for damages is appropriate.

The church was guilty of harm.

In another famous case, Larry Flynt was not.

[Winterblues]

38. We don't decide that, a court decides, and we accept their decisions.

This particular group makes a habit out of demonstrating at soldier's funerals so it is in no way a one time event. They need to be told in no uncertain terms it is not acceptable.

[theboss]

41. It is a one-time event in regard to the particulart family though

There's a big difference.

[mondo joe]

42. And so that one family sued for damages from that one time event.

If you're liable for damages I don't see why it has to be constant.

[theboss]

47. The problem with this case is that any "moral" jury is going to bankrupt the Phelps

Hell, if given the chance, I would do it.

I don't think this case should ever have gotten to a jury, because I don't think the plaintiffs had a cause of action. Because I believe the action in question is protected speech.

[mondo joe]

48. Although we're on different sides of this, I don't mean to be rude or

hostile, or to parse the thing to death.

But from my stance, free speech has never been a protection against a number of damages - slander, to name one.

I think the church was legitimately charged for damages it caused.

[theboss]

50. I simply don't see any damages

None whatsoever.

[mondo joe]

54. Well, in this case:

Judge Bennett found that there was ample evidence in the record for the jury to have concluded that the conduct on this occasion was sufficiently outrageous to satisfy the requirements of Maryland’s tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as the actions for intrusion upon seclusion and civil conspiracy to commit these torts.

Mr. Snyder provided testimony about the impact upon him of observing news coverageas well as the video on Phelps’ website. Doctors testified about the emotional distress Snyder suffered, as manifested in physical symptoms.

Phelps, for his part, argued that Snyder's obituary notice in the local newspaper made his son a "public figure" for purposes of tort law, and the funeral a "public event".

The judge disagreed, finding the jury could properly have concluded that the funeral was private and the Snyders were not public figures.

[spooky3]

147. there were multiple grounds for the suit; some were dismissed; some were not

The jury made its award based on those that were not and whether those were proved. The typos were in the original from which I'm quoting:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/snyder-v-phelps

"...Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the defendants renewed their motions for summary judgment, and, on October 15, 2007, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the defamation claim and the invasion of privacy claim based on publication of private facts. The court announced its decision in open court, commenting that “These comments — as extreme as they may be — they are taken in terms of religious expression. This is not the type of language that one is going to assume is meant as a statement of fact.” The decision was memorialized in an October 16, 2007 order.

The jury trail comenced on October 22, 2007 to hear the remaining counts of invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On October 31, 2007 the jury handed down a $10.9 million verdict against the defendants. This figure is made up of $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy, and $2 million in punitive damages for causing emotional distress. After the verdict, Fred Phelps indicated his intent to appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The defendants' practice of protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers is infamous, and Congress passed a federal statute on May 29, 2006 that prohibits protests of the sort involved in this case. The Kansas legislature approved a similar prohibition in April 2007.

Update:

February 4, 2008: Judge Bennett granted in part Defendants' motion for remittitur and cut the jury award down to $5 million, Applying both federal constitutional and state common law standards, he left the jury's compensatory damage award of $2.9 million intact but reduced the total punitive damages to $2.1 million."

[TheUniverse]

63. If you have to worry agbout if someone will sue for 10 million dollars...

for emotional distress everytime you speak, than we dont have freedom of speech. We either have the right to not be offended or the right to freedom. We cant have both.

[mondo joe]

69. The First Amendment has never been a shield against being sued.

Never.

[Wizard777]

116. Absolutely it is! Pope Benedict XVI could not even be compelled to appear in court.

To respond to a law suite filed against the RCC. The settlement are voluntary on behalf of the church. It appears that different chuches get different respect. That again is a violation of the first amendment.

[mondo joe]

117. Absolutely wrong. The pope has immunity, per the justice department, as a head of state.

Not as a religious leader.

[Wizard777]

124. SNAP! That's the bear trap. You shouldn't have went there.

In keeping with diplomatic law. He can exercise diplomatic immunity. But if he does he gets deported and may not enter the United States. Any of the registered agents of Vatican City that participated in the molesting or their cover up are also to be deported to Vatican City. You can still exercise diplomatic immunity. But you cannot stay here or come back if you do. The Pope is now touring the US In violation of diplomatic law. Also as representing themselves as a sovereign government instead of a church. The forfeit their first amendment protections.

[mondo joe]

127. Again, wrong. Charges against the Pope were dismissed from the case.

:hi:

[Wizard777]

134. Actually he wasn't charged with anything. Then Cardinal Ratzenberger was subpoenaed as a witness.

But the law on diplomatic immunity is clear and being violated.

[mondo joe]

135. *Sigh*. The Pope was accused on conspiring to cover up the molestation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/national/21vatican.html

The Pope was later dismissed from the case.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E4DD1530F930A15751C1A9639C8B63

[Wizard777]

136. I was referring to a California case. Not Texas. But the decision was the same.

Which brings diplomatic law into play. Any diplomat refusing to stand trial in our courts is to be expelled and denied reentry.

[mondo joe]

138. Did he refuse to stand trial or was he not actually asked to because the Justice

Department intervened?

[Wizard777]

140. He refused to appear. Much like Bolton and Miers. The State Department came to his rescue.

The RCC's insurance company required them to make a claim of first amendment protection before they would pay any settlements. But I would think that would require the RCC to claim child molesting as a rite of the church before protection could even be considered.

[mondo joe]

155. Source please for the California case. NT

[loser_user]

51. Time, Place, and Manner

The First Amendment is not absolute. This is how the Supreme Court has decided several cases in the past with this test. Try this:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. The 1st Amendment Doesn't Apply Here. Please Read It.

[readmoreoften]

101. Oh, free speech zones are okay, but an asshole screaming at a funeral isn't?

Yeah, THIS is really the problem with free speech in America. This is the deathknell...:eyes:

[Matariki]

103. Interesting point. It seems equivalent to anti-abortion protesters outside doctor's homes

Seems to cross the 1st Amendment issue into harassment of individuals. Not sure what constitutional law says about that - but it looks like Westboro Church is putting it to the test in the courts...

[hyphenate]

157. I would not give Phelps any points for

violating the rights of a family trying to grieve over their son killed in Iraq. I would, too, consider it a violation of my privacy, as it should be. Are there not limits to the 1st amendment rights in terms of hate crimes? This ranks right up there as a hate crime as the spraypainting of a swastika on a Jewish temple, for example, or painting other such offensive epithets where there is no doubt the intent behind them.

Fred Phelps could stand at a street corner in the middle of Provincetown and quote from the bible as how all homosexuals are going to hell, or speeches about how all non-white folks are evil, and while it wouldn't be advisable, it wouldn't be the same as going to a soldier's funeral and directing verbal assaults at the grievers.

Perhaps it's not in the same class as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, it is still provocative in a similar fashion, because one of the primary conditions is met--the incident cannot necessarily be avoided, like someone can avoid an idiot on a street corner, or turn a channel on a television show, or some other method for getting around the action.

No, this is one of Freddy boy's mistakes, and hopefully, for all of us, it will be the big one that shuts him and his family up finally.

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. :D

can't wait to find out who is funding them...

The church’s finances have raised questions of how members can afford to travel the country to protest hundreds of funerals each year,
but only have a few hundred dollars in their bank accounts.

[melm00se]

3. Does it really matter?

Does the source of their $$$ for travel and protesting invalidate their 1st amendment rights?

[Clovis Sangrail]

9. Yes, it does matter

If somebody is secretly funding them I think that somebody deserves to be ridiculed and ostracized by society for promoting hate speech.
It would amuse me greatly. :D

Regarding Westboro's 1st amendment rights being violated... that was debated in court.
I realize courts aren't always right, but I also realize that the right to free speech isn't absolute.

It's an interesting case.
Not nearly as cut and dry as some people would like to make it.

[yardwork]

13. What about my constitutional rights? (The few I have, as a gay person in the US)

Do I have a right to be protected from the death threats that the Phelps's make against me, my partner, and every other gay person in the U.S.?

[theboss]

17. Have the Phelps ever made a death threat?

The Phelps are disgusting, but there are 20 attorneys in that family. They know what they can and can't get away with.

[yardwork]

18. LOL! Their entire premise is that the U.S. is going down because we tolerate gays!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the Phelps's are encouraging the U.S. to kill queers.

[theboss]

20. Where is the "draw your own conclusions" escape clause to the First Amendment?

I think the US is going down because of 8 years of Bush-Cheney. Am I advocating violence?

I recongize that this is an emotional issue and that the Phelps are horrible horrible people. But I just don't know what the difference is between them and the guy on Massachusetts Ave calling all Catholic Priests pedophiles.

[Dhalgren]

22. I agree. That is the "bottom-line" of the Phelps message.

"Kill queers!" I think that these cretins are guilty of infringing on the rights of others and should be taken down. Their right to free speech does not trump everyone else's rights.

[theboss]

23. I don't think they've ever said that directly

And even if they did say it directly, it's still protected speech unless you can prove a immediate threat to violence on behalf of themselve or their listeners (if there are, in fact, any).

I recognize I'm a bit of an absolutist on this, but I firmly believe that the only reason to limit speech is if there is an immediate, tangible threat of violence associated with it.

I see a big difference between, "It would be better if the US exterminated all queers" and "Let's all go kill a queer right now."

[Dhalgren]

25. Only protected from government suppression, not from civil

action. People are always crossing each other's rights - and civil suits are brought to determine whose rights have been violated and whose haven't. The Phelps intensionally violated people's right to privacy, they inflicted emotional duress and disturbed and impeded the freedoms of others. This is an entirely appropriate cause for redress and the court has decided - there are no 1st Amendment issues in this...

[theboss]

27. There are certainly first amendment issues at stake in civil actions

This is why Larry Flynt had a movie made about him.

[mondo joe]

64. On the topic of Larry Flynt, BTW, the majority opinion states:

(boldface mine)

In New York Times, the Court held that the First Amendment gives speakers immunity from sanction with respect to their speech concerning public figures unless their speech is both false and made with the knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. Although false statements lack inherent value, the "breathing space" that freedom of expression requires in order to flourish must tolerate occasional false statements, lest there be an intolerable chilling effect on speech that does have constitutional value.

To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events -- an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.

Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.

Clearly, Falwell was a public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing actual facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.

[yardwork]

57. I respect your point of view. I hope that you apply it consistently.

[mondo joe]

32. No, but it does impact their ability to pay their penalty.

:-)

[Richard Steele]

4. Same here. They have a nationwide network of supporters who stay hidden...

I think those folks should have some sunlight shone upon them.

[Dhalgren]

7. Yeah. Since these cretins do not respect anyone else's

privacy, I think that all of their funders should be made public. Turn over that rock and let's see what is crawling around under there...

[melm00se]

8. remember these comments

and opinions when the feds want to "turn over the rocks" on progressive organizations doing works with which you agree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[yardwork]

14. Progressive organizations are required by law to reveal their funding.

Why shouldn't the Phelp's be required by law to reveal their funding? What your afraid will happen if we find out who is funding the Phelps's?

[Wizard777]

137. But Churches aren't. The only thing the tax exempt status does is make contributions deductable.

[Dhalgren]

15. I would not be part of an organization that behaved the way these

cretins behave. Also, the government already does these things to leftist groups and have for fifty years or more. So, if they want to give a little "sauce to the goose", well it is only fair because the "gander" has had the sauce poured over its head since the 1950s. You live in a dream world if you think leftist groups haven't been oppressed and suppressed for decades - nice try though...

[sutz12]

16. Pure BS...They are already doing this!

Agent Mike is on your trail. :)

[mondo joe]

35. If those "progressive" orgs owed money and feigned inability to pay, it's

reasonable to turn rocks.

[struggle4progress]

160. It's not a Fed action: it's a private civil suit

[bean fidhleir]

24. The court case that forced anti-Choice protesters away from clinics

later forced our protesters into the "free speech zones" far from the political action. Any time we use the law to assault someone else's freedom, we assault our own.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." – Thomas Paine

[Dhalgren]

26. This is not a case of the government suppressing citizen rights.

This is a case of citizens have conflicting rights. In such cases the courts are the avenue for redress. This is not a case of government suppression, but of sorting out conflicting rights...

[bean fidhleir]

43. I'm merely suggesting that the tools we use now against sickening behavior

will later be used against our reasonable behavior. It's a pattern. I might be wrong in this case, of course, but history isn't encouraging.

[mondo joe]

46. So no one should sue for legitimate damages because someone might someday

illegitimately sue for damages?

[bean fidhleir]

82. It depends on how.

I'm sure the people who sued to force clinic protesters away never imagined that their precedent would in future be used to keep them from protesting political criminals.

[mondo joe]

89. I would suggest that the latter decision was a corruption of the first,

and is not legitimate.

As it is not legitimate - IMO - it's not really tied to the first. The Bush thugs would have simply used some other illegal ruse.

You can't not take legitimate actions because someone might bastardize them later. If that were your guide, you couldn't do a damn thing.

[bean fidhleir]

93. Sure it's a corruption - that's the point. That's how they do it.

As to it being legitimate, that hardly matters to the victims. The Nazis' laws weren't legitimate but what comfort is that to the millions they killed or their families?

It's a lot smarter never to let them get a foot in the door. Prevention is better than cure.

Oh, and as for not taking "legitimate actions" - there is generally an array of possible actions one can take. The ones that restrict one's opponents' rights are the wrong ones to choose. They might fuel self-righteous and triumphalist feelings at the time, but that doesn't mean they're not stupid choices. Oppression is never legitimate or smart.

[mondo joe]

96. But since it's a corruption, it isn't really about the precedent.

By yourreasoning you could never do anything because it could be corrupted.

Company causes your wrongful death? Don't sue them - someone might bastardize the precedent some day.

Government infringes on your privacy? Don't go to court - someone might misuse the rightful judgment in the future!

Sorry but that's just wrong headed.

[bean fidhleir]

99. You seem to have some tunnel vision at work here

Take the clinic case. The problem was the emotional (hardly ever physical) assault on the women who wanted to use the clinic.

The smart solution would have been to protect the women from having to hear the assaults, not shut down the shouters. Nobody could have corruptly created a precedent for shutting down political speech from the act of protecting the listeners. Protecting listeners doesn't do anything new, doesn't create new theories about how our rights are still fine even though they can't be exercized.

People always misquote the "fire in a crowded theater" statement as though it justified the kind of prior restraint visited on various people since. It didn't and doesn't. What it really says is that if your speech causes harm, you can't claim First Amendment protection from paying for that harm. That's why the Pentagon Papers were published - the judge in that case understood that limiting speech is unconstitutional as well as being a damned bad idea.

[mondo joe]

102. Okay, let's, as you say, take the clinic case.

"The smart solution would have been to protect the women from having to hear the assaults, not shut down the shouters. Nobody could have corruptly created a precedent for shutting down political speech from the act of protecting the listeners. Protecting listeners doesn't do anything new, doesn't create new theories about how our rights are still fine even though they can't be exercized."

No one was shut down. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) makes it an offense to use intimidation or physical force — such as forming a blockade — in order to prevent a person from entering a facility which provides reproductive healthcare or a place of worship.

That's a good finding. People shouldn't be prevented from accessing medical care,.

And there's nothing wrong with having done that.

"People always misquote the "fire in a crowded theater" statement as though it justified the kind of prior restraint visited on various people since. It didn't and doesn't. What it really says is that if your speech causes harm, you can't claim First Amendment protection from paying for that harm."

Right. And in the Phelps case, their speech was found to have caused harm. So now they are not protected from paying for it. :-)

[bean fidhleir]

123. So this wasn't the case that let BushCo criminalize protests at military funerals?

"President Bush has signed into a law an amendment to U.S. law protecting military funerals from protests like those staged by a controversial Kansas church that characterizes soldiers' deaths as divine punishment for homosexuality.

The new amendment prohibits protestors from demonstrating within 150 feet of a funeral and within an hour of the memorial service. It provides a year in jail and/or an undetermined fine for violators.

The rule applies to funerals at non-federal cemeteries, joining legislation passed in May 2006 that bans demonstrations at national cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington, D.C.

The prohibition will primarily affect the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), a small congregation from Topeka, Kan., that pickets at military funerals because it says homosexuals are taking over the U.S. armed forces and the nation."

[theboss]

131. This may sound crazy, but - to me - that is the scariest law signed by Bush

At least the Patriot Act has caused widespread concern and resistance and law suits. I feel that eventually that most of the Patriot Act and other anti-terror laws will be overturned legislatively.

This law formally outlaws a form of protest and met widespread applause.

[bean fidhleir]

161. "widespread applause"

One might almost be forgiven for thinking that the "protesters" are actually paid provocateurs, doing outrageous things to generate support for stripping away our rights.

[mondo joe]

133. What let Bushdo that was a corruption of a legitimate conclusion.

And I don't think people should stop pursuing legitimate cases because some con will try to exploit it in the future.

[Wizard777]

139. That can be overturned if it conflicts with the first amendment.

[mondo joe]

33. You're confusing government infringement with civil lawsuits.

It would be better if you understood the difference.

[bean fidhleir]

56. It's not I that doesn't understand the difference

We used lawsuits to punish and restrict anti-Choicers' freedom of speech. The state wasn't the plaintiff in those clinic speech cases.

Since then we've had our freedom of speech punished and restricted, even by the Democratic Party, using the pro-Choice rulings as precedent.

The precedent was that speech was deemed to be still free even when excluded by injunction from the place where the action is, and even when confined to a small area far away. It's the same fascist reasoning FDR used to deny Coughlin the right to mail his ugly newsletter. There are a lot of Democrats whose commitment to democracy and equal rights is only skin deep. And it's damned thin skin, too.

[opihimoimoi]

44. Great...thats gonna reduce them spoilin peeps private affairs...

they get to lose their church and 500K??? I love it....

[Vidar]

45. Applauding the judge!

[JackDragna]

95. This isn't a case of conflicting rights.

Individuals do not have a right to have their feelings spared, assuming what someone else says isn't slanderous. If the state is going to permit the Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals, then the church should be allowed to state whatever opinions they choose, even if those opinions are unpopular, or even hurtful emotionally.

On edit: I found this quote from the Snyders' attorney:

"But Sean Summers, Snyder’s attorney, argued the law protects only speech that is not offensive to a reasonable person. The nearly 70 Westboro members are not reasonable, he said."

When the state decides what is reasonable political speech and what is not, then we're all in trouble.

[TexasObserver]

104. Here's a guy who has read the first amendment AND understands it.

It's a simple concept, but not understood by those who let their thin skin dictate their devotion, or lack thereof, to the concept.

Of course, arguing with those so inclined is not likely to alter their opinion. Devotees of fascism seldom think THEIR excesses are fascist.

[mondo joe]

105. The state didn't decide what was reasonable or unreasonable.

The church was found guilty of infliction of emotional distress.

They were not found guilty of being offensive or distasteful.

[theboss]

108. First of all, they weren't found "guilty" of anything...it was a tort case

Secondly, the number of IED cases that win are exceedingly rare. I'm sure there are some but this is the first one I think I have ever heard of winning. The elements of the cause of action are incredibly difficult to prove.

IED is really just an add-on tort most of the time - just one more thing for the defendant to deal with.

The fact that the claim actually won is simply remarkable to me. And it makes me suspect severe bias on the part of the jury.

[mondo joe]

110. Good catch on "guilt" - you are correct.

:-)

[theboss]

111. In all honesty, have you EVER heard of an IED case succeeding?

I would like to find one to study.

[mondo joe]

114. I'm not in a position to know aboyt frequency of success.

A quick google search turns up at least a couple.

[theboss]

109. Here are the elements (as I found them) in Maryland

"An action for intentional infliction of mental distress must contain (1) intentional or reckless conduct, (2) extreme and outrageous conduct, (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the distress, and (4) severe distress that goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

One and two I can see being met. Three is always difficult. Four, I simply don't believe is possible in this instance.

[Wizard777]

118. I can't say protesting is extreme and outrageous conduct.

It's not like they dragged the corpse out of it's coffin. They didn't dig up the grave so the person wouldn't be intered on hallowed ground. Anything can pass for extreme and outragous. Until you put it into context with real extreme and outragous behavior.

[theboss]

120. That's why this tort so rarely succeeds

When you start thinking of "extreme and outrageous," you almost have to reach the point of committing a physical act. And that point, you have another (easier to prove) tort to choose from.

I mean, let's say I call a neighbor the c-word during an argument. Is that extreme and outrageous? Probably. But it is extreme and outrageous to the point of being actionable in court? Few juries want to make that leap because most jury memebers will pause and think "There but for the grace of God, go I."

[Wizard777]

126. That is untrue. Only criminal speech is not protected. Offensive speech is protected.

You have the right to give the President the finger. It's offensive to some. But SCOTUS has ruled it to be protected speech.

[Ganja Ninja]

112. I could see this turning into another Waco. n/t

[Wizard777]

141. About the infliction of emotional distress. The statement can only cause emotional distress if

the statements are believed to be true. If you tell a child that there is a monster in their closet that will get them. That can be emotionally distressing to the child. That is because they believe it to be true. Yet if you tell that to an adult or child that doesn't believe it to be true. It does not inflict the emotional distress. It's the same with going to hell or God hating something. It can only cause emotional distress if you believe it to be true.

[mondo joe]

142. Source please.

Thanks.

[Wizard777]

143. Common sence please. It's like Orson Welles broadcast of war of the worlds.

That caused some people emotional distress. Emotional distress to the point they went outside and started shooting at the sky. But these people actually believed that we were being invaded by Martians. Those who didn't believe it to be true simply enjoyed a good radio show. Something cannot be emotionally distressing to you unless you believe it to have a truthful basis in reality.

[mondo joe]

144. I'll take a legal source over "common sence" for the purpose of understanding the tort,

thanks. :-)

[Wizard777]

151. How about this one. Sticks and stones can break your bones. But names will never hurt you.

This is a relatively new area of civil law. Suing for emotional distress without a physical injury being involved. Now they are allowing suites for emotional distress due to libel or slander. I have several problems with this. Truth is a defense to slander. But because the statements involves GOD. They can't be proved as true. They also cannot be proved as false. Also the statement were made about the dead soldier. The law holds that the dead cannot be harmed. They cannot be libeled, slandered, or defamed. So they have no slander or libel to base the suite on.

[mondo joe]

153. You can just say you can't provide a source, or that you don't understand the case.

Thanks.

[theboss]

149. The third element of the tort addresses the "belief" aspect

(1) intentional or reckless conduct, (2) extreme and outrageous conduct, (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the distress, and (4) severe distress that goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

You to prove "the distress" and you have to prove that the conduct caused the distress.

My argument would be that the loss of a family member to war would cause such a severe case of emotional distress that it would next to impossible to determine the impact (if any) of any other factors.

[Wizard777]

152. Also that the statements were made about the dead soldier.

The law holds that the dead cannot be harmed. They cannot be libeled, slandered, or defamed. So they have no basis for the suite.

[mondo joe]

154. Since there was no claim that the dead were harmed, that is not relevant in the least.

:hi:

[mondo joe]

156. There certainly must be a causal connection between the conduct and the distress.

It does not follow that something must be said that is believed true to cause distress.

Even untrue claims, or simply untrue accusations, can cause distress.

"My argument would be that the loss of a family member to war would cause such a severe case of emotional distress that it would next to impossible to determine the impact (if any) of any other factors."

In the face of strangers broadcasting fabrications and outrageous allegations about that lost family members and survivors... good luck with that.

:-)

[Quantess]

146. Common sense prevails!

This is the happiest news of the day.

[hyphenate]

162. This is not a first amendment issue!

This is a hate crime. It is therefore handled differently from a first amendment issue. Shit, ACLU would most likely get on Phelps' side if they thought it was an attempt to stifle free speech. They might hold their collective nose if that were the case, but they would do it.

This falls primarily under a hate crime:

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.

Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes

A hate crime might involve some speech component, but it is not the same thing. And Phelps' group constantly assails anyone and everyone with their one pitched theme of anti-homosexuality. It's hate--pure, pervasive and toxic. There is no pretense of free speech--he might want to preach his vitriol from his parish pulpit, but once it's at private funerals and other private ceremonies, he can no longer claim it's a speech issue. Stick him with a fork--he's done. We hope.


Edited to add: This is from the above Wiki link as well, but particularly relevant in this case: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.<24>

[mondo joe]

163. It's not a First Amendment issue - but it's not a hate crime either.

It's a civil suit. Phelps was not charged with a hate crime.

There was no other criminal charge that a penalty enhancement could be applied to.