[RagingTireFire]

I do think it's kind of a shame that we're passing laws against protesting at funerals, though. Because Phelps is 77 years old and I'd expect it won't be too very long before he kicks off.

Will they protest that funeral, too? Just curious.

[belcherboy]

I do think it's kind of a shame that we're passing laws against protesting at funerals, though. Because Phelps is 77 years old and I'd expect it won't be too very long before he kicks off.

Will they protest that funeral, too? Just curious.

The sad part is that I truly believe this man is going to hell. I cannot believe he knows Jesus Christ as his Savior. I see too much evidence that contradicts that this man has a relationship with God.

[justagirl]

I have nothing but disgust for Westboro and Phelps. I would like nothing less than them to be publicly humiliated (over and over again), but I'm not sure if I am comfortable seeing people sue others for their feelings being hurt. I know little to nothing about law, but if someone can win millions of dollars because they didn't like someone sharing their opinion of them or their family, couldn't this thing cause even more petty lawsuits in the future? I'm really unsure of my opinion on this, so please help me on the road to enlightenment in this matter. (These type of cases and judgements probably happen all the time anyway)

by the way, I hope they bury that church, but I think we all know that it isn't going to happen.

I understand the petty lawsuit thing: but at the same time I think people deserve COMMON DECENCY and RESPECT. Imagine that was your son's funeral...yes I feel people are entitled to their beliefs (even if they are retarded), But is someone's funeral, obviously the most emotionally trying thing in a dad's life, the place to share this opinion publically? I think the suit has so many more angles and reasons than hurt feelings. I just can't believe people can be so heartless. Its unfortunate. What idiots.

I'm right on board with you in terms of Fred Phelps, but where do you draw the line? If a women coming out of an abortion clinic is offended by a group of church members who are protesting the clinic with a sign that says "abortion is murder", is she eligible for millions of dollars? An abortion can be argued as "the most emotionally trying thing" in a womens life.

Well I guess, although I DO NOT take light of abortion as the most "emotionally trying thing" in a woman's life..she CHOSE that. whereas this man did not choose for his son to die in the war. PLEASE don't misinterpet me, i think it is crazy for christians to be outside the abortion clinic as well, but as far as a woman winning that lawsuit, i think its a stretch for an emotional damage suit. She decided on that. although its trying she puts herself through it. make sense?

[belcherboy]

I understand the petty lawsuit thing: but at the same time I think people deserve COMMON DECENCY and RESPECT. Imagine that was your son's funeral...yes I feel people are entitled to their beliefs (even if they are retarded), But is someone's funeral, obviously the most emotionally trying thing in a dad's life, the place to share this opinion publically? I think the suit has so many more angles and reasons than hurt feelings. I just can't believe people can be so heartless. Its unfortunate. What idiots.

I'm right on board with you in terms of Fred Phelps, but where do you draw the line? If a women coming out of an abortion clinic is offended by a group of church members who are protesting the clinic with a sign that says "abortion is murder", is she eligible for millions of dollars? An abortion can be argued as "the most emotionally trying thing" in a womens life.

Well I guess, although I DO NOT take light of abortion as the most "emotionally trying thing" in a woman's life..she CHOSE that. whereas this man did not choose for his son to die in the war. PLEASE don't misinterpet me, i think it is crazy for christians to be outside the abortion clinic as well, but as far as a woman winning that lawsuit, i think its a stretch for an emotional damage suit. She decided on that. although its trying she puts herself through it. make sense?

It makes total sense to me and you. To a jury, maybe not. If someone (or a church) feels strongly enough about abortion that they want to "legally" protest it, I have no problem with it. I choose not to do it myself. I just would rather not see that church slapped with an $11 million lawsuit because some girl was "emotionally traumatized" by a group of protestors. This type of victory could open a can of worms. The more I talk with people, the more unlikely this seems though.

[belcherboy]

Here's a story about clinic protesters in my area. Although I'm not a proponent of protesting abortion clinics, the local churches in my area seemed to have a big part in closing one down in my area. About 3-4 churches got together and basically set up a schedule to have at least one protester "legally" in front of the clinic every hour they were open. Sometimes there would be 3-4, and other times 1. Winter, Summer, Fall, Spring, Rain, Snow, Fog, Cold, Hot, etc. This went on for around 3 years. From what I understood, the lack of business they got, caused them to close down and move. Perhaps there was more to it than that, but they sure were dedicated to protesting that place and I thought I would give them a little credit for its demise.

[Purple Haize]

I am going to say I totally diagree with this judgement. It is freedom of speech and no matter how abhorrent it is. They have EVERY right to protest, just as the bikers, Rolling Thunder, has EVERY right to rev their enginges WHILE they protest!! The "preacher" is right that this will be thrown out in about 15 minutes on appeal.
However, they may have the freedom to say these terrible things, they also have a responsibility to say ACCURATE things. Since they have publicly stated and put in print derogatory things regarding specific individuals, they have a burden of responsibility to PROVE THE STATEMENTS accurate. This they will have a difficult time doing as God's lawyers always take a "No Comment" stance on pending law suits!

[El Scorcho]

I am going to say I totally diagree with this judgement. It is freedom of speech and no matter how abhorrent it is.

I don't think their legal right to say those things was ever questioned in this case, was it? If I'm not mistaken, they're paying for the consequences of their speech, not the speech itself.

It's legal for me to drive a car, but if I kill someone while I'm doing it, I might be brought up on manslaughter charges. In the same way, it's legal for them to say anything they'd like, but if they traumatize someone in the process, they may be culpable. At least, that's how I see it. As I said before, I'm not much on emotional damages, but it's not hard to imagine it being pretty painful to see these bozos protesting at your kid's funeral.

[Purple Haize]

And what harm did their speech cause? Was there any type of physical violence? Proven increased pain and suffering? What provable harm did their speech cause? Annoyance isnt a crime.

[RagingTireFire]

And what harm did their speech cause? Was there any type of physical violence? Proven increased pain and suffering? What provable harm did their speech cause? Annoyance isnt a crime.

I hate to say it but I've got to go with Haize on this one. This verdict won't hold up.

[El Scorcho]

Annoyance isnt a crime.

So you would just be annoyed if someone protested your kid's funeral after he died in war? Just annoyed?

I don't know if the verdict will hold up or not, but I just don't see it as much of a stretch that someone could be psychologically/emotionally damaged from what they did. I don't usually think such suits are justified, but if they ever are, this would be it.

[TDDance234]

Annoyance isnt a crime.

So you would just be annoyed if someone protested your kid's funeral after he died in war? Just annoyed?

I don't know if the verdict will hold up or not, but I just don't see it as much of a stretch that someone could be psychologically/emotionally damaged from what they did. I don't usually think such suits are justified, but if they ever are, this would be it.

Annoyed, enraged, upset.. all of them, yes.

However, if I went around sueing every one every time they stepped on my foot, I'd be a millionaire. I have to agree with Haize as well--they may have the right legally to protest whatever the heck they want. Is it right? Morally, maybe not. Legally, yes.

[El Scorcho]

I have to agree with Haize as well--they may have the right legally to protest whatever the heck they want. Is it right? Morally, maybe not. Legally, yes.

Again, no one said that their protesting was illegal, only that it caused damages. No one ruled that they couldn't protest. The jury simply awarded someone money for emotional damages.

[thepostman]

I am not really down with people getting butt loads of money off of emotional damages....the only reason why I look the other way on this is because I can't stand the group...that doesn't make this ruling right....who can put a numerical value on emotional damages??? One night a few years ago when I was living on campus the fire alarm in my dorm would not stop going off, they couldn't figure it out and we were outside for 4 hours in the middle of the night...this caused me much emotional damage since I was dead tired in all of my classes the next day and got a D on a test because of the lack of sleep....

see how this is a slippery slope??

That is my problem with it....its not because i don't want this group shut down...its because its impossible to put value on emotional damages...it can't be done, and not something that i believe should be done. It ties up our judicial system and is just a waste of time and money...

that is my opinion...take it or leave it

[El Scorcho]

Well, I guess I'm just in the minority on this one. I don't think it sets any kind of a precedent they certainly aren't the first to sue for emotional damages. If they can extract money from them legally, I'm all for it.

[RagingTireFire]

I'm certainly not saying this is happening in this case but I can see this court decision starting some sort of ghoulish funeral racket here.

"Pay me X amount of $ and you can picket/advertise at my (child/spouse/parent)'s funeral. Otherwise, I'll sue you and get X times as much."

There could be agents, commissions, corporate sponsors, etc., There could be some serious money in this.




Then again, maybe I'm just a sick, sick man.

[thepostman]

Well, I guess I'm just in the minority on this one. I don't think it sets any kind of a precedent they certainly aren't the first to sue for emotional damages. If they can extract money from them legally, I'm all for it.

you're right they aren't the first to do so, and they won't be the last to do so...I have always thought they sueing for emotional damages is a very slippery slope and not something our courts should be dealing with.

[Purple Haize]

RAG E you aer CERTAINLY going to hell now!!! You agreing with me? NExt, dogs and cats will be laying together.

I would be ticked if someone did this to me, but it doesnt give me a legal justification to sue. Now if they were saying my friend/child/relative was a drug addicted baby killer and put in print then I would sue their butts off for slander etc. Which is what they should be doing because there is NO WAY for them to prove this war is Punishment From God.

[RubberMallet]

i too agree with haize. while what they are doing is, in my eyes, horrible, they have the right to do it in our country. the precedent this ruling sets is very dangerous. its similar to the guy suing the dry cleaners for millions due to the emotional distress of having his pants lost.

[El Scorcho]

i too agree with haize. while what they are doing is, in my eyes, horrible, they have the right to do it in our country.

Once again, no one is arguing their right to protest.

the precedent this ruling sets is very dangerous.

I keep reading that in this thread, but I have yet to see in any article where this lawsuit establishes a legal precedent.

its similar to the guy suing the dry cleaners for millions due to the emotional distress of having his pants lost.

Pants lost = People protesting your KIA son's funeral because he supposedly deserved to die for his role in "fag enabling"?

[mrmacphisto]

Since when does "fundamentalism" mean crazy?

Some church-related terms seem to have changed in recent years. Fundamentalism is one; I tend to associate it with legalism, as most who call themselves fundamentalist tend to lean that way, but to the secular world it means crazy.

Another word that has changed is Evangelical. The secular world has stretched this to mean most protestant Christians, and this definition has caught on in most of the church, although the term Evangelical really denotes some of the more charismatic branches (those who emphasize speaking in tongues, second blessing, baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc).

[FlameDad]

Westboro does not have a constitutional right to call private citizens fag enablers and worse at a private funeral on private property.
Free speech has limits, eg the usual "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", pornographers cannot take sick pictures of children and call it art and so forth.
freedom of speech is free in the political realm - bush sucks, impeach clinton, out of iraq now, stop abortion, allow abortion, etc.
Slandering/libeling a private citizen is not protected free speech imo.

[Purple Haize]

DAD - THAT is my point. This case was NOT settled or pursued on that tract. We do not know what, if anything, they said ABOUT the private that could be considered libel or slanderous. Knowing those cone heads they probably did and someone needed to get it on tape. Therefore they have the burden of proof to display the accuracy of those comments. THAT is how this case should be pursued NOT as a Free Speech issue

[FlameDad]

[belcherboy]

Westboro does not have a constitutional right to call private citizens fag enablers and worse at a private funeral on private property.
Free speech has limits, eg the usual "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", pornographers cannot take sick pictures of children and call it art and so forth.
freedom of speech is free in the political realm - bush sucks, impeach clinton, out of iraq now, stop abortion, allow abortion, etc.
Slandering/libeling a private citizen is not protected free speech imo.

From what I understand about law (very little mind you), you must prove damage in order to win a lawsuit. What damage have they done that is worth millions of dollars? It is the opinion of the these private citizens (Westboro wackos) that homosexuality is causing God to judge America. They feel that if these soldiers continue to fight for a country that protects and encourages homosexuality, than they deserve whatever judgment God brings on them. They protest at a soldier's funeral like some may protest at a serial killers funeral. It is a crazy opinion, but they do have the right to express that opinion. Now the question is whether they are forcing that opinion on others in a way that causes measurable damage.

As much as I feel that these people couldn't be further from God, this verdict could affect those who are doing good. I'm not sure if this matters at all in terms of legal precedent. Perhaps this case will be laughed out of court on appeal. I just don't like the thought that as a representative of a church, if I (or others with me) tell someone they are wrong and their feelings get hurt, I could put my whole church in jeopardy of a lawsuit. I don't disagree that they were pushing their opinions on these people at a VERY wrong time, but establish laws that will curb this instead of allowing an open ended lawsuit that awards a ridiculous amount of money.

Just my 2 cents. I don't have a background in law (with the exception of CSI, Boston Legal, and a couple other lawyer/police shows I enjoy on tv...although I've about given up on Boston Legal). I am sure that most lawyers and law institutions are laughing at this case it is probably will have NO affect on law as we know it now or in the future.

[FlameDad]

I agree with your points.

I am a staunch defender of freedom of speech - The KKK is n abhorrent organization, but I support their right to march as long as they do not create a dangerous situation for the people in the particular community.
What I am saying is that communities have standards (noise statutes, creating disturbances, etc.) that can and should be enforced without taking away a groups right to speech.

I do not think that they should be awarded millions regardless of the basis of the lawsuit