The Rotting Cryptkeeper slapped with $2.9 mil judgment for 'invasion of privacy' at funeral

Not Obama

While I utterly loathe the "I'm not there yet" business re SSM (inc. Clinton and Edwards), Obama's embracing of Donnie McClurkin was truly unnecessary, and the way he handled the criticism was inept and offensive.

---

by: KC @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 16:33:50 PM CDT

My bad!

Meant to post this below with the story on endorsements of Edwards.  Sorry.

---

by: KC @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 16:34:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not all speech is protected in all places.

for example, buffer zones around the entrances to abortion clinics are are apparently constitutional (or at least not yet ruled unconstitutional).  i suppose the details of just what they were doing where will be important in determining if they're covered by the 1st amendment.  i'm sure that they will appeal this as high as they can.  it'll certainly be an interesting case to watch.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 16:43:09 PM CDT

A Crime?

Since when is this a crime worthy of punishment?  If that's the case could sue almost the entire student body of my High School for that.

"intent to inflict emotional distress"

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 16:46:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

missing information

we don't know what laws or ordinances were in place at the time of that funeral, if any.  we also are lacking the same information about the legal landscape while you were in school.  it makes your comparison problematic.

but please don't get me wrong.  i'm not saying that i think people shouldn't be allowed to air their opinions.  i do.  even the phelps cult.  but there are legal limits to free speech.  that is a fact.  are the limits in place concerning the present case constitutional, and did the phelpses exceed them?  one jury thinks so, but they don't have the final word.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:03:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ACLU will appeal

 Anthony Rothert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "The response to speech that is offensive should be more speech explaining why we disagree, not having the police arrest those who take an opposite view. Allowing speech we find offensive in public forums is one cost of the freedom that defines America."

Make alot of noise. Life is short.

---

by: Charley6 @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:51:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hrm

As the giver of that quote, let me say that it was about criminal sanctions on speech related to funerals, not to do with this particular civil case with which the ACLU is not involved.

I would be concerned if this verdict stood.  Could I be sued next time I stand outside a church that claims to be curing homosexuals inside?   Egads.  While it might seem nice to be able to sue churches for being too pushy with their anti-gay rhetoric, it is hard to see where one could draw the line.  I think any group that protests anything (which is everyone sometimes, really) will not think this verdict can stand.

The best way to describe way I have heard to describe the supreme court's view on speech is: Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.  In other words, absent something besides pure speech-- like blocking access to medical care (in the abortion cases) or some independent zoning concern (in the strip club cases)-- there is not room in the First Amendment for allowing damages like this for opinion speech on issues of public debate.  We'll see.

---

by: tony @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 22:01:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

... But ...

The equally valid question to be asked is whether or not the exercise of free speech in this situation unreasonably infringes upon the equally valid rights of others.  No right is an absolute, and it is unreasonable indeed to declare that "freedom of speech" is so absolute that it cannot be limited.

If you will, the question really is one of boundaries - in essence "your right to swing your fist ends precisely at the beginning of my nose".  In this situation, where is the plaintiff's metaphorical nose relative to the Phelps' clan's fist?

---

by: Grog @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:05:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

exactly.

well said.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:19:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And that metaphorical fist's reach

I can't judge without seeing the evidence. Without any idea of what/who/ how, etc, my inclination would be to protect hateful speach, but how can I know what they jury was presented with?

This is why I wish deuling was still legal. Send your seconds around, and after a day or two, at most, one way or another, you're done.  

 

Remember what FDR said, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." Have you written/called a congress-critter today? 8.25, 6.21

---

by: Jacques @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 20:03:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right

And those laws are pretty thinly defended, saying it's about the violence and access of people seeking abortion.  In this case, there was no threat of violence or lack of access to the funeral: it's just about, "I don't like what you're saying over there, and it hurt me."

I detest the Phelps brood, but this ruling troubles me.  Especially because if you can be civilly liable for protest speech, you can be criminally liable, especially when politicians start throwing things like, "national security" around.

---

by: torrentprime @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:46:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

right to privacy

i should have said up top that i'm not a lawer, so i'm just thinking these things through as a trying-to-be-informed citizen.

my first thought was i wonder if in situations like this there is a conflict between right to free speech and right to privacy. 

maybe i should just read the amicus curae from both sides.  anyone have links to those?

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 18:08:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Privacy

The right to privacy, as we think of it constitutionally, is a right-- a liberty-- we have against the government.   That is, the government cannot search your home, seize your property, prevent you from getting an early abortion, or engaging in sodomy.  Talking about a right to privacy as equivalent to the First Amendment right to free speech is like comparable proverbial apples with oranges.  Certainly, there are statutory and common law actions that allow private individuals to protect their privacy to some degree-- just think HIPPA-- but these aren't equal things.

 This is merely a trial court-level decision. No amicus briefs so far.  I bet there will be a ton on appeal.  It will be interesting to see where different groups come down on this.

---

by: tony @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 22:08:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sorry, but not any more

You can thank the 11th circuit court out of florida.  Protesters here after known as "assclowns" can bring their hate, false info, rubber fetus's and bibles right up to private property line. I know this cause just about every saturday my crew.. the Feminist Outlawz does clinic defense in Atlanta.  We've been dealing with the assclowns since 2004. The clinic is located on a public street and has a sidewalk. The patients and their drivers have to run a gauntlet of up to 80 thumpers, harassers and in some cases by a very nasy critter who video tapes them for his site abortion cams.com

So, thats why states had to pass specials laws, we have one in GA. The Phelps crew protested Corretta Scott Kings funeral and a number of others.

Joy, maybe like the skin head creep who lost his farm when the Southern Poverty Law Center sued him puice they will spend more time off the streets and in the courts.

---

by: Juliana @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 18:46:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It gets even better!

Try $11.9 million, which far exceeds their combined net worth!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html

---

by: Phil @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:41:10 PM CDT

"Freedom of Speech" is not absolute...

...and certainly does not give an individual or group the right to disrupt a private ceremony in order to express a point of view. Shame on the ACLU if they fail to realize the difference, and choose to speak in defense of these heartless nutjobs. In the name of decency and good taste, I respectfully suggest that they leave this one alone...

---

by: bogenrim @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:53:52 PM CDT

Disruption

A little research will show you there is no evidence of disruption.

---

by: tony @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 22:09:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe

at least they'll go broke appealing the case.

---

by: Cheryl @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 17:55:45 PM CDT

'Free Speech' refers to whether the government

can use the law to silence or criminalize speech.

 

This was a civil case - there is no finding that a law was broken.

 

It is a dispute between two individulas as to whether or not one has harmed another and owes compensation.

 

Has nothing to do with free speech 

---

by: tiponeill @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 18:07:06 PM CDT

I'd just like to add...

that I've been following this case very closely, and this has never been a question of free speech in the usual sense, and my understanding is that's not how the ACLU approached it.

 The case is about wehter or not the Phelps family can be held liable for negligence in the *use* of their right to free speech.

and, according to the jury, yeah, they can. 

Its sorta like a homophopbe getting canned for using the f word.  They are still free to use it -- but that doesn't mean it was acceptable to do so.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 18:29:37 PM CDT

where can i read up?

is there an article or web page you know of that outlines the legal arguments behind this case?  i'd like to get up to speed.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 18:43:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, There was ...

the page regarding it at the ACLU's site, and the online court documents filed p[ertaining to all those rfunny motion things, lol.

Um, truth is, I'm ashamed to say, I only followed it until it went to trial. I sorta thought it was a forgone conclusion (but the other way -- so a good surprise).

 I did check my hostory -- but it wasnt something I'd be typically prone to book mark and it was over 3 weeks ago that I looked.

I'm *very* sorry, Lurleen. Truly.  Normally I have immediate references to such stuff (becuase I'm always argung about free speech, lol) . I promise to be more responsible in the future.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 03:07:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

The case is about wehter or not the Phelps family can be held liable for negligence in the *use* of their right to free speech.

and, according to the jury, yeah, they can. 

dyssonance, this quote is EXACTLY why this verdict doesn't trouble me AT ALL.  F**k Fred Phelps.  He and his cult have been found negligent by a JURY OF THEIR PEERS.

To borrow/paraphrase a line from a moive: they were weighed, they were measured, and they were found wanting.  F**k them all.

---

by: SuburbanHomo @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 22:25:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep...

I just heard he got socked for $11,000,000.00 on the radio.  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.  I hope the whole bunch are freezing in the gutter and eating used Alpo this Winter.

---

by: Storm @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 18:36:24 PM CDT

Hate is not a family value, nor a Christian value!

Wow, who would have thought that the Phelps Freaks would have to be pay for their hate!

HATE DOESN'T PAY.   Living it and loving it!

I remember in the 90's a Los Angeles gay rag printed the phone number of the Phelps church.  I called to tell them that it was wrong for them to be picketing gays.  Some woman answered, and boy did she spill out so much hate!  She kept saying "are you a fag, why are you calling you fag, and fag this and fat that". I was flabergasted!  Never in my life had I heard so much hate!

I realized long ago that these "people" are demented and are in serious need of MAJOR pyschological help.  Maybe the guys in the white coats should round  them up now!

---

by: Juan @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 19:12:09 PM CDT

Fred Philps gets sued

 

Fred Phelps and his lovely bunch of Visigoths got slapped around to the tune of almost three million, is God moving in mysterious ways? Well don’t put on your party hats just yet. There is this little thing called the first amendment and free speech that has to be considered.

A quick look at Wikipedia will clue you in on what a despicable lot the denizens of the Westboro Baptist  Church are. There seems to be no limit to the things these so called Christians hate. Anti-Semitic, Anti-Catholic, Anti-Islamic, Anti-Homosexual and oh-by-the-way Anti-American they make the neo-Nazis look like hand-holding, free love hippies. Your group has to way out in la-la land for Jerry “bomb all the Muslims in the name of the Lord” Falwell to brand you as loopy. There is no doubt that Phelps’ lovely little cult is a bunch of deeply disturb haters.

 

But do they deserve to be sued? Is their speech that beyond the pail? This suite has slippery slope written all over it. There are limits to speech, slander laws attest to that; but in the USA slander has a very high bar for proof. Slander does not apply here as the Westboro protesters are putting out the “facts” as they know them. Scary as it is, these folks actually believe the filth they put out.

 

The Westboro protesters are being sued not because they told or published lies; they are being sued because they hurt someone’s feelings. Strip down the legal jargon and that is what this is all about; that is the jist of “emotional distress.” This is not to trivialize the hurt and pain that Phelps’ Zombies may have caused a grieving father. Phelps and friends vile piece of performance art was way beyond the pail. But it seems other solutions beyond the civil suite are a better idea.

 

If the damages from the civil suite are allowed to stand, were will this go? Will General Petraeus be able to sue MoveOn.org because they hurt his four star feelings? As a public figure the good general is expected to have a thicker skin than an ordinary mortal but even the threat of a suite would hamper organizations like MoveOn. This suite smacks of political correctness gone into overdrive.

 

Phelps happy bunch of pirates are not doing anything that “Pro-Life” protesters haven’t done at women’s centers before. The “Pro-Life” crowd is very obnoxious too, very in your face, some would say intimidating. A “solution” of sorts has presented itself with laws and court orders requiring those protesters to keep their distance from clinics. The Westboro cohort has also been limited by such means also. It is a compromise, so nobody is really happy, not the grieving families, nor the civil libertarians, the compromises only good point is it does work to a fashion. Fred Phelps gets to scream and rant and act like a total jerk, but he has to do at a far enough distance that normal people can ignore him.

 

It is not surprising that a Jury decided to back-slap Phelps and crew into the middle of next week. The Westboro Wackos invite revulsion, their over-the-top and overheated rhetoric pleads for a quick trip to the woodshed. They beg to beaten like  red-headed stepchildren. Small problem so did the “don’t tase me bro” kid. He was fairly obnoxious actor too. There are several quantum leaps between Andrew Myer and Phelps’ fanatics in obnoxiousness this is true. But, and there is always a but, they do share a commonality in their pushing the outer limits of acceptable behavior.

 

Maybe the Phelps gang does need to be put out of action; there really are limits to the hate you can spew. That is why many states recognize that certain words are “fighting words” and beyond the pail. You can get fined or jailed for a potty-mouth in some states in some situations. More seriously there are laws against sedition and inciting a riot. The government has a right to protect itself against those who would destroy it, it has a right to protect life, liberty and property against fomenters of violence. This is elucidated in the Supremes dictum of “clear and present danger.”

 

Somehow the Westboro Baptist Church does not appear to rise to the level of a grave threat to the republic. The suite is a sledgehammer aimed at a gnat, it will do grave damage to the pesky insect but at the cost of doing even more damage to one of the pillars of our democracy. It is best for all that this suite gets knocked down on appeal. There are better ways of pushing Phelps and crew into the obscurity they richly deserve.

 

---

by: spincitysd @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 20:35:48 PM CDT

I am as secular as you get, but...

I can accept that disrupting a funeral is just not acceptable behavior. The Phelps morons are not in reality expressing any opinion or engaging anyone in a debate, they are simply hurting others for self aggrandizement.

It's totally different than their appearances at pride parades, or abortion protests - in both of those instances some reasonable argument can be made that the time and place of the protest has some free speech point that may be appropriate to try and make some point (however I may disagree with that point.)

But making a fuss at a funeral is just not an acceptable time nor place. Period. Just not an acceptable behavior in any civilized society.  

 

---

by: ellipse @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 20:36:12 PM CDT

Exacty.

"making a fuss at a funeral is just not an acceptable time nor place."

That's why when these wingnuts came to my town, I did not enage in a counter-protest. (ThoughI heard there was gong to be one.) Regardless of what the asshats are saying and/or my feelings about them,  a funeral is for recognizing the dead.  The grieving family has enough stress on their plate without having to deal with protesters of any stripe.  I fear the limiting of their speech, because it would also limit mine . . . but some things should be out of bounds.

---

by: gayjaybird @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 22:37:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When that depraved old goat finally croaks...

I would like to see a same-sex kiss-in all across America, and especially within view of his grave, as he's lowered into it.  It wouid serve him right.   (I'd also like to kick kitty litter over his grave, too, but I'm sure I'd be arrested)

Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 23:07:41 PM CDT

Let's dig him up

And place his body in Oscar Wilde's tomb.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 00:01:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It won't stop me from making a pilgrimage

It won't stop me from making a pilgrimage to his grave to pour a bottle of piss on his tombstone.

<3 Sam

---

by: Samie D @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 01:18:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

All in the details

If the Phelps clan specifically targeted Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder and his family, they went beyond free speech.

I've seen the flyers and signs they've used in other cases. If you force a grieving mother to see a sign or flyer that specifically states God killed her son, and mentions him by name, it is obvious that they intended to cause the family emotional distress.

This could have been the deciding factor. We need more details to know for sure.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 23:58:47 PM CDT

I am not a fan...

of these excessive "emotional distress" awards.  I'm also not a fan of the Phelps cult.  But don't you just know that they are going to use this ruling to prop up their own rhetoric and fundraising engine?  This only proves them right in their own eyes and gives them more of a martyr complex.

BTW: Have you noticed their hypocrisy in re: the First Ammendment?  They hate America and its government and reject what America's government does because God hates them, yet they immediately claim governmental protection of their speech and actions.  If they reject the laws of America, should they be denied the protections afforded by America's constitution?

---

by: jtperkin @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 00:29:07 AM CDT

Clear and present danger?

I am all for the whole free speech thing being protected whether I agree with the message or not. However, it does seem reasonable to me for the state to take action against people like this on the grounds of the common good.

Why? 

i have watched these wackjobs for years and (while I certainly don't advocate any such thing) I am astounded that some distraught family member or Iraq vet has not gone apeshit and started mowing them down like grass. Bear in mind that should such an event take place many innocent folks may be harmed. 

 

---

by: Carbonchild @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:42:09 PM CDT