It is about damn time! These creeps finally got what they deserve!
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/ ... TE=DEFAULT

_________________

I totally understand and empathize with the desire to get these guys back, but I do not like the result of this lawsuit, either. I think we're crossing lines of free speech here that I think need to be held firm. $6 million for invasion of privacy? What privacy? $2 million for "emotional distress?" Seems a little crazy to me.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's ok for the jury to award large damages simply because they don't like the message and the people involved (which is what it appears to me), rather than the true damages involved in the incident, as nebulous as they may be.

It reminds me of EQ tbh, and the people who would ninja loot and then say "Sure I did, but I was just rping, I'm an evil character". Like where do we draw the line? When do religious beliefs and the freedom to speak those beliefs stop becoming freedom of speech and start becoming harassment?

_________________
-Rileigh (aka Golliwog)

That's how it works with the current tort system.

In another news, couldn't have happened to a better family.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

When you start infringing on the rights of others.

_________________

I'm actually more than a little amazed that someone finally got past his army of children/grandchildren lawyers. Good for them.

_________________

I'm not totally sure how I feel about the entire subject, but that seems sort of black and white to me. For one thing, is assembling outside someone's funeral infringing upon the rights of the family? Which rights exactly? Do families involved in funerals have the rights to clear the streets around them? Do they have the right not to be yelled at? An honestly interesting question to me.

On the other hand, isn't any sort of assembly infringing on someone's rights, if you want to strictly define them? Say, a sit in. Wouldn't that infringe upon a businessman's right to conduct business? Picketers in the street infringe upon my right to walk to the store, right? Me saying any phrase involving "Jesus on a Stick" infringes upon the right of my uncle's wife to be peacefully whacko, due to the emotional distress I cause.


Now don't get me wrong. I think the Westboro folks are abominable, and on a personal level would have no objection to feeding them to crocodiles in the everglades. That's just a knee jerk reaction of mine though, and when I think about it, I sort of agree with Fribur. I'm a touch uncomfortable with the precedent set in this case, if it's actually a precedent and not status quo. It seems like an awfully extreme punishment for a fairly amorphous crime.

I can preach that "XXX sucks!" but the second I start spray painting it on public/private property belonging to others? There's the possibility I'll pay a fine for that message. It's up to me at that point to decide how important I think delivering the message via that medium is vs. the fine.

_________________

Good read here: http://www.citmedialaw.org/snyder-v-phelps

reading from the complaint they proved defamation, libel and slander from the postings on the WBC sites. They also were having a private funeral in which WBC et al were not an invited party. the docs are a good read.

The entire net worth of the Phelps clan is less than $1M.

_________________

It's more about 'keep the fuck out of Maryland' more than 'money prz!'

I see it as more of using a legal loophole to solve the initial problem.

He cant pay the tab, then he'll get locked up when he sets foot on state soil when he comes back.

It's not about the money. It's about making an out of date legal system with more bandaids on it than a kindergarden class playing king of the hill work the way it is supposed to.

Anybody with at least a little common sense knows this douche gave up his "rights" the moment he began his hate crusade. The Bill of Rights does not protect you, or at least it should not.

There have been legal changes in multiple states due to the Phelps clan, prohibiting protests at funerals or within a certain distance from them.

As far as the Phelps clan goes, well just look at Fred Phelps comments about the judgement, such as 'This will make me important now!' and regarding the media attention he thinks it will win him and his hateful little clan. That's all they care about...attention. And they don't care how they get it. The worst thing you can do to these people is refuse to give it to them.

Though if they showed up at a funeral for someone beloved to me, I'd probably go to jail for attempting to beat the shit out of them. /shrug

_________________

I agree it is not about the money. It is about making the system work. I hope that the legal system goes after these folks and takes every single thing that they own right down to their damn socks. They need to be neutered, all of them, so that they can't produce anymore filth like them. The system needs to make it so hard for them to even live that maybe they will just die. This world has enough bull-crap going on in it without this bunch sprewing their filth.

_________________

This quote pretty much dooms the states chances:

Since when do they lock people up for civil judgements?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I dunno, I think writing your local newspapers/television stations to request they stop covering the phelps clan might have a greater long term impact

In my opinion this isn't really a freedom of speech issue.

They weren't told you can't say what you want, they were told you have to pay damages to this family for invading their privacy and causing them emotional damage. It's a completely different type of issue.

No where in this judgment does it infringe on their right to speak. (although it might be hard to get his "message" out when he has no money left).

The civil precedence this sets is a bit (but really only a bit) concerning because it could effect other types of protest groups that aren't necessarily as evil as this group is. Then again if you are going to spew hate you should be open to suits from the people you are spewing it at. (imo)

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitut ... 01/19.html

This linked text goes into more detail in how the right to privacy is limited by the first amendment. My question is, which of these four branches of "protected interests" were violated?

1. protection from unreasonable intrusion upon one's seclusion.

This is the first of the branches, and if any of these tenants were violated it would be this one. But looking at this particular case, ask yourself this: would the Westburo Baptist Church be in any kind of trouble if they had shown up but simply quietly looked on during the funeral? They would not have, because while we think of funerals as "private" events, they are in reality thought of as an open invitation for anyone to attend. It is not the so-called intrusion that we don't like, but the message. Hence, the argument can be made that this judgment is a veiled attempt to scquelch free speech, not to protect a "right to privacy." If it were only a "right to privacy," issue, then everyone who is relatively unknown to the surviving members of a funeral would be at risk of being sued for showing up.

2. appropriation of one's name or likeness

I think it's pretty obvious that this doesn't apply.

3. unreasonable publicity given to one's private life

This could possibly be cited, but can it really? Would anyone at the funeral care if a reporter showed up and reported the touching story of a military funeral on the local news that night? I doubt it-- again the point is that it's not the fact that they showed up that everyone is angry about; it's what they were saying. It's a free speech issue, not an invasion of privacy.

4. publicity which unreasonably places one in a false light before the public.

I imagine it's pretty obvious that this one doesn't apply either; I don't think any of us in the public have a false impression of the man who died or anyone attending the funeral due to this event.


As for the "emotional distress," without the underlying reason for the emotional distress I don't think it would hold up. I'm giving some of you minor emotional stress because I disagree with the judgment; should you be able to sue me now?

Obviously the jury disagreed with me. However, if they take this through appeals, my guess is that the judgment will be thrown out or substantially reduced. Of course, I'm no law expert either :p. Let's wait and see!~

Yes!!! I am so going to sue you right now.. and everyone else that has ever disagreed with me.. muwahahhaha I'll be rich!!!

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

for the sake of argument, I'd like to know exactly how you think this judgment squelches free speech. Where in this judgment does it tell them they can not say the things they want to say? From what I see this judgment only tells them they could be sued by the person they are saying it to.

If you were arguing that the laws preventing protest at funerals was squelching free speech that would be different because well that law does effectively kill his freedom of speech, but in this case someone has found a loop hole that doesn't tell them they can't spew their hate.

I agree that the invasion of privacy part of the suit is a stretch but the emotional distress seems valid (although the award was a bit high and will probably be reduced quite a bit).

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

How dare you smile at me like that.... you are creepin me out and causing me emotional distress... SUIT!!

/is bored

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

The reporter must get permission to print/show the story. They did not have permission.

Also the slanderous, defaming statements published about a private family on the WBC's website breached this.

Since when do reporters need permission to print a story? This one is a new one for me.

wrong. reporters need no one's permission to print a story. Granted, it's polite to have it, but there's no law requiring it.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

They do have to have one's permission to be on TV

a reporter can submit all the stories he or she wants, the final cut as to what is printed

is up to the editor.

so yeah in a way the reporter techinally "needs" permission to get a story printed.

They do not. There's no such thing, thankfully, as a debtor's prison. However they do lock people up for contempt of court. Which is why some people are locked up for failure to pay on various things (such as child support). If one has the means to pay but refuses, or refuses to comply with lawful court orders, a judge can toss your ass in jail.

However, if they file an appeal and an appeals process occurs (which can happen for a variety of reasons) they can postpone the judgement while awaiting the outcome. Measures can be taken though to prevent people from getting rid of or giving away assets during that time (in their attempt to avoid them being seized if the judgement is upheld). The judge can order items placed in escrow, or assets frozen.

_________________

I'm aware of that, which was my point.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

They don't kill free speech, they tell you to get the fuck away from someone's funeral if you want to protest something.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

"Squelching" might be the wrong word, but infringing certainly fits the bill here. If I, for example, advocate for or against something(let's say the death penalty for something easy) against various cases but it is perfectly within the realm of possibility for someone to sue me and win each time... then I can still speak freely, but my freedom of speech would be infringed upon.

I guess I find myself against laws that punish for "slander" and defamation. While much of it may be complete bullshit, I'd say the purest form to counter bad freedom of speech is with more freedom of speech. That's why I loved it when certain groups gathered in front of the Phelps protests to effectively block them off with their own demonstrations. Slander is a form of speech, and I don't believe the constitution says anything about whether speech has to be true or not.

To that end it's a question of what "rights" people have to "protect" themselves from other peoples' freedom of speech, which seems a bit silly in itself. Certainly I think the right to privacy is real and should be protected - if someone is protesting outside of your house day in and day out that is an intrusion of your right to privacy. But honestly, most cemetaries are outdoors and - if they are not public places that allow demonstrations themselves, certainly the bordering streets and surrounding areas are perfectly public. People should be able to bury their family members in peace, but not everyone is going to respect that - and they have the right to not respect that publicly, as childish and thoughtless it may be.

That's fine, let's go with that. Let them have the right to protest at a funeral, I'll reserve the right to stomp a mudhole in their ass too.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

After reading a bit more about the case here, I am inclined to think that finding the Phelps liable was purely a case of trying to punish someone for being rude.

The jury instructions alone don't sit well with me...

Since when does whether or not something is offensive dictate whether or not your privacy has been invaded? That just doesn't make much sense to me. If that is indeed how the state interprets privacy, something is really wrong with that. If the state doesn't interpret privacy in that way, then the judge overstepped his authority by a great deal, effectively rewriting the law.

As to emotional damage, that's just rediculous imo. The father never once saw signs either entering or leaving the church where the funeral took place, he had no idea that signs were even present until he watched the news. Not to mention the fact that the protest was not anywhere near the funeral itself, church walls and 1000 feet seperated them.

Everything that the Phelps clan is spouting is completely within their rights to say, they haven't advocated violence against anyone as far as I know, though they do celebrate it after the fact (abhorrent, but not illegal).

My viewpoint on this would be totally different if they intruded on a private ceremony, on private property, in order to spout their hate-filled rhetoric, but they haven't.

Perhaps I spoke a bit strongly-- I was only trying to make the point that the "invasion of privacy" being claimed to be the reson for the judgement was not really what anyone cared about; it was what they were saying that was the problem. They were effectively being punished for what they said, and that may be argued to be an infringement on their right to free speech.



I know you are just trying to sound all manly and all, and showing your disapproval for their actions, but their right is protected by the Constitution, while the "right" you are claiming will take you straight to a jail cell.

We all agree that what they are doing is detestable. We get it; you don't like them just like us--don't make silly irrational statements.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Talking about someone is not an invasion of privacy, be it on the internet or otherwise. It may constitute slander, if the guy were still alive, but that is another matter entirely.

I don't see what's so hard to comprehend. The Phelps are the underwear stains of America. No one likes them. Who cares if they get the shaft? Here's a hint on how you don't get sued. Don't be a douchebag at peoples funerals.

If I lived in a country that promised freedom and equality to everyone that isn't the "underwear stain of America" I would completely agree with you.

It would be nice to live in a country where justice was not determined by your amount of TV exposure. Any random yokel doing much of what they get away with would be cited for disturbing the peace or some such. Hell a guy in New York was fined for standing still on the sidewalk last month.

Sarissa Candyangel

Because if the protests at the funeral weren't any indication "THIS GUY DIED BECAUSE GOD HATES FAGS" and who knows what other shit and/or details was probably posted on the site.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

To show recorded film of them sure. Otherwise the story can still run without film.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I guess that depends on the circumstances of how it's filmed, because they don't seem to have issue with not blurring people out who probably didn't consent to having the video shown. It's all about whether or not they think they're likely to get sued, I'm sure there's a more detailed policy about it but that's the basic idea.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

It's a shame there isn't some loophole where they could be brought up on charges of treason.

It is not an invasion of privacy for someone to say that someone else died because a fictional character was pissed at him or her or the country that they fight for. I also don't think it is an invasion of privacy for open conjecture regarding someone else's upbringing (one of the things they did on their website).

For anyone interested (not many, I'm sure) This is WBC's response to Snyder's court victory. If what they're saying is true (which by no means is a sure thing), it could prove interesting.

Honestly, I find the fact that a court and jury would allow this judgement just as disgusting as I find the WBC's actions.

I was curious so I looked around a bit, and from what little I have found it seems as though as long as it is being filmed in public and is not for commercial purposes, you generally don't need people's consent. I would guess that this varies by location though.

I don't think the judgement was about what they said, but WHERE they said it.

Yes, it is an open event, however, if you read funeral things you are ONLY INVITED to pay your respects. So, technically, they were NOT invited to the funeral, since that was never their intention. Their only intention was to cause a disturbance. That, I believe, is the real issue.

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.

I don't trust that family any farther then I can throw them, quite frankly that's probably one of the tamer things that was said on their site, and I'm sure it was there because of the way they do things everywhere else. If I thought this was nothing but a mention of the guy being dead even in a pretty fucked up way I wouldn't be making the point. But do you think that's the only kind of thing they had up there?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

So... we're supposed to be ok with this judgment based on your imagination of what *might* have been on that site?

I can't think of *anything* they could have posted on their site that they would have learned at that funeral that would constitute a breach of privacy.

Well seeing as how my opinion doesn't write law I don't suppose it really matters whether or not they had anything like I could imagine on their site.



Are you sure the privacy element was the *only* reason for the jury's findings?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

No, the family was awarded 2.9 mil in compensatory damages, 6 mil in punitive damages for invasion of privacy, and 2 mil for emotional distress.

Obviously I'm no lawyer, but I don't see a valid reason for any of those awards. I don't think anyone's privacy was invaded based on what I've read. The Phelps clan were well away from the church and hidden by church walls and bikers and the information posted on their website didn't contain any personal information that wasn't already public record as far as I've been able to find. They did post some pretty horrible shit about him and his family, but it was all based on their religious opinions. All I've been able to find as a direct quote has been the following from the site that was linked by someone earlier.


This entire case seems to be based on the belief that it is ok to punish someone solely because you don't like what it is that they're doing and I have little doubt that the Phelps' will easily win an appeal giving them exactly what it is that they've been hoping for, a shit ton of free publicity to get their message out.

The KKK and American Nazi Party are allowed to run around and say all the shit they want and pretty much get left alone for the most part, I'd put them in the same esteem as the Phelps for shit they have to say. But they don't really start showing up at funerals and start a bunch of shit.

This is pretty obviously a "get the fuck out of Maryland we don't want your shit, and stay out."

I just have a hard time caring about the Phelps "struggle."

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Phelps has purposefully raised an entire army of lawyers. Who, for many years now, have been tasked with keeping lawsuits out of arms reach of the clan. They've succeeded til now.

Which tells me that there may be something more to this story as opposed to the thousands of other people Phelps and his clan have mocked the deaths of.

_________________

Yeah this whole thing stinks. People should try and use common sense.

1. Don't go protesting in a hospis for dieing AIDS patients
2. Don't go KKK marching at the million man march
3. Don't go protesting at funerals

Respect is not Stupid.