Court to rule in military funeral protest case

Goshin said:

Ya know... I have to hope the Supremes rule that the Phelps can be sued out of existence for this crap.

I'm sorry, that crap just isn't right. Period. It is just flat wrong to hold a sign saying "thank God for dead soldiers" at a soldier's funeral, where his parents and grandparents and siblings and friends can see it. It is just flat ****ing wrong.


Forty years ago, somebody would have "handled" that situation and the cops would have looked the other way... end of problem.

Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned its pretty much the same as flag burning. Some folks say that's just flat ****ing wrong as well. Freedom of speech is freedom to offend. I think it's a worthwhile thing to have.

Panache said:

As far as I'm concerned its pretty much the same as flag burning. Some folks say that's just flat ****ing wrong as well. Freedom of speech is freedom to offend. I think it's a worthwhile thing to have.

Click to expand...

Only when you don't invade the privacy of others when doing it, and that is the difference. Flag burners are scumbags, but the Phelps klan ARE invading the privacy of others, and the law should protect those whose privacy is being invaded. Free speech doesn't give one the right to disrupt a funeral.

American said:

Nope that's hate speech because they are a minority and are immune from protests.

Click to expand...

You're full of **** and you know it.

Here's how the Phelps clan operates:


1) Protest funerals and say whatever it takes to get people mad.

2) Mad people get physical with you.

3) Sue mad people. Profit.

4) Go To Step 1.

These guys know the law. They can stand on public property and quietly hold some signs and there's nothing illegal about it.

Navy Pride said:

How do you feel when some of our friemds on the left burn our soldiers in effigy and nothing is done to them....

Click to expand...

I don't like it... but doing it across the street from a soldier's FUNERAL is just an order of magnitude worse.

I mean good Lord, the family is alreadly burying a son or daughter... the pain and grief of doing that is bad enough. But adding this crap to it?

If someone gunned down the Phelps clan while they were engaged in this crap, and I was sitting on the jury, you'd never get me to vote to convict. That **** is just sorry beyond words.

I can't believe this country as come to defending the right of scum like this vs. parents that made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sorry but this is a no brainer to me.

EnigmaO01 said:

I can't believe this country as come to defending the right of scum like this vs. parents that made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sorry but this is a no brainer to me.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we do not want to be like Europe or Candada where saying something offensive(to or about the protected class) can land you in jail.

Panache said:

As far as I'm concerned its pretty much the same as flag burning. Some folks say that's just flat ****ing wrong as well. Freedom of speech is freedom to offend. I think it's a worthwhile thing to have.

Click to expand...

Burning a flag doesn't have a "victim". There's no one already there in a specific emotional state that would be specifically harmed by the burning of the flag (unless they are doing it at a homecoming for the troops, but then they'd face base rules). To prove emotional harm is in such a case would be tough. To prove that someone was trying to harm you, or that you could assume that someone might be mentally harmed by burning a flag would take a lot.

But to prove that someone might be mentally/emotionally harmed by protesting a loved one's funeral wouldn't be nearly as tough. I'm sure the family's attorneys could easily find a bunch of doctors that would be willing to testify that such a protest could easily harm a person's mental/emotional state. It's easy to see how standing within view/hearing distance of a family trying to grieve for the loss of their loved one and spouting out words of hatred or holding hateful signs about how that person's death was revenge by God could cause emotional harm. When we're talking about a funeral, it's not like just leaving to avoid hearing/seeing the protest would keep the person from being harmed. It is reasonably viewed by most people that a funeral is a way for someone to say goodbye to their lost loved ones. It's about proper closure, that if disrupted, could have serious affects on a person's mental health, especially if the servicemember had small children.

Heck, I'd be willing to bet that if we were talking about a member of the Phelps's family that had died, and there was someone outside their property rejoicing, they'd be the first ones at the courthouse filing a civil suit against those people for emotional distress caused by the people rejoicing the death of their family member.

jamesrage said:

Perhaps we do not want to be like Europe or Candada where saying something offensive(to or about the protected class) can land you in jail.

Click to expand...

Accept this isn't about putting people in jail. This wouldn't make the protests illegal. It would make it so that they would have to pay money to the family for interrupting their grieving.

roguenuke said:

Accept this isn't about putting people in jail. This wouldn't make the protests illegal. It would make it so that they would have to pay money to the family for interrupting their grieving.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a back door fine. Europe and Canada have fines for offending gays and Muslims and perhaps other groups.
Besides wouldn't you open the door for other people to sue for money because another group offended them?

jamesrage said:

Sounds like a back door fine. Europe and Canada have fines for offending gays and Muslims and perhaps other groups.
Besides wouldn't you open the door for other people to sue for money because another group offended them?

Click to expand...

This isn't just about being offended though. We are talking about interrupting a grieving process. It's a highly emotional time to begin with, and they are specifically doing it somewhere that could cause emotional harm in the eyes of a reasonable person to the family.

jamesrage said:

Sounds like a back door fine. Europe and Canada have fines for offending gays and Muslims and perhaps other groups.
Besides wouldn't you open the door for other people to sue for money because another group offended them?

Click to expand...

Pun intended?


:mrgreen:

roguenuke said:

This isn't just about being offended though.

Click to expand...

Many say the same thing about hate speech laws that it is not about being offended its about inciting hatred and violence towards specific groups.

We are talking about interrupting a grieving process.

Click to expand...

Not being interrupted on public property or near public property is not a constitutional right.

It's a highly emotional time to begin with, and they are specifically doing it somewhere that could cause emotional harm in the eyes of a reasonable person to the family.

Click to expand...

Personally I think those douche bags are doing it to provoke people to assult them or perhaps unlawfully have them removed from the premises in order to sue, I have no evidence of this but that is what I think those poeple are going around protesting at various places.

They weren't picketing in the cemetary, but across the street. Freedom of speech should be protected at all costs.

There's nothing to prevent them from being sued though for emotional damages. Lawsuits people... that's how you shut down these creeps, and not by taking away civil rights from everyone. Everyone who has ever been wronged by these freaks should form a class action suit in the tens of millions and shut down the church.

Ah this should actually be a very interesting court ruling.

As you all know there are five categories that are speech but are not protected by the first amendment.

These include:

Obscenity: Material whose predominant appeal is to nudity, sexual activity, or excretion.

Profanity: Irreverence toward sacred things, particularly the name of God.

Libel and Slander: Libels are damages to reputation expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs; slander damages reputation by spoken words.

Fighting Words: Words that are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and cause a "breach of the peace."

Clear and present danger: Expression that creates a clear and present danger of an evil, which legislatures have the power to prohibit

Now going into the case they could argue Libel and Slander and/or fighting words. Considering that what these protesters are doing falls under both of these categories.

If you all are wondering why these five categories are not protected by free speech it can be summed up from (Gitlow v. New York 1925)

These categories are not "essential elements of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interests in order and morality."

Of course this does not mean the Supreme Court won't rule it as free speech just a mere guideline which should be followed by some of them.

Should be interesting to see how this turns out!

jamesrage said:

Not being interrupted on public property or near public property is not a constitutional right.

Click to expand...

People need to realize that the constitution is not a set of laws, but rather a framework for creating laws. There's a million things that laws handle that the constitution is utterly silent on. In fact, treason is the only crime that the constitution mentions. The rest we have to do on our own.

We have the pretty clear precedent in this country that your right to do ____ does not include harm to others. If someone successfully shows that Phelps' protests are causing harm to people, you then have an argument for punishing them.

On general premise, what the Phelps family does is deliberately harmful to others for the sole purpose of making them angry so as to trigger action that allows lawsuits. It's wrong. I just don't know how you can regulate against what they do without curtailing honest free speech.

Personally I think those douche bags are doing it to provoke people to assult them or perhaps unlawfully have them removed from the premises in order to sue, I have no evidence of this but that is what I think those poeple are going around protesting at various places.

Click to expand...

This is quite literally how the Phelps family makes a living.

EnigmaO01 said:

I can't believe this country as come to defending the right of scum like this vs. parents that made the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sorry but this is a no brainer to me.

Click to expand...

The ultimate test of any right is our collective fortitude to uphold it. Unfortunately there will always be scum like the Phelps clan that puts that very fortitude to the test, and will ultimately divide our opinion and will to protect said right.

This being said, I'd like to add a couple of things.
1) Thank god for those vets, Freedom Guard I think, who ride around the funerals to block the Phelps cult from further harming these families.
2) There could be a way to prosecute the protesters under a few very circumstantial charges, such as disturbing the peace, fighting words, incitement to riot, or harassment, but an arresting authority and prosecution team has ONE hell of a case in front of them.

Orion said:

They weren't picketing in the cemetary, but across the street. Freedom of speech should be protected at all costs.

There's nothing to prevent them from being sued though for emotional damages. Lawsuits people... that's how you shut down these creeps, and not by taking away civil rights from everyone. Everyone who has ever been wronged by these freaks should form a class action suit in the tens of millions and shut down the church.

Click to expand...

The Phelps people weren't arrested. They were sued for causing mental anguish to the father of a marine whose funeral they protested at, and they lost. Then it was appealed on the basis of their civil rights being violated, and they won that. The SC will decide if they should have to pay the $5M to the father or not.

Goshin said:

I don't like it... but doing it across the street from a soldier's FUNERAL is just an order of magnitude worse.

I mean good Lord, the family is alreadly burying a son or daughter... the pain and grief of doing that is bad enough. But adding this crap to it?

If someone gunned down the Phelps clan while they were engaged in this crap, and I was sitting on the jury, you'd never get me to vote to convict. That **** is just sorry beyond words.

Click to expand...

The ultimate irony?
The US D.O.D sues them for slander.

Goshin said:

Ya know... I have to hope the Supremes rule that the Phelps can be sued out of existence for this crap.

I'm sorry, that crap just isn't right. Period. It is just flat wrong to hold a sign saying "thank God for dead soldiers" at a soldier's funeral, where his parents and grandparents and siblings and friends can see it. It is just flat ****ing wrong.


Forty years ago, somebody would have "handled" that situation and the cops would have looked the other way... end of problem.

Click to expand...

I don't. We're sue happy already and it's ****ing things up. I don't want people thinking that they're going to get sued every time they exercise their rights to association, protest, and speech unless they do so within some well defined construct of "moral". Free speech is protected, and needs to be protected. We'll have to take the good and take the bad with it. But because we find something repugnant doesn't mean we can just go and squash it.

Ikari said:

Free speech is protected, and needs to be protected. We'll have to take the good and take the bad with it. But because we find something repugnant doesn't mean we can just go and squash it.

Click to expand...

Really? So vulgar language cannot be oppressed for example? Can you walk into a restaurant and bleep away at the crowded room? Is there any greater or more honorable peace to disturb than a grieving family burying a son or daughter who has died for their country?

You cannot walk around DC with a sign that says I hate "fill in the blank." It's called responsibility and the law should shackle your arse and remove you from the scene. We don't allow atrocious racism with n word signs or signs I've seen in the South as a child depicting black men hanging from trees.

We find it offensive for anyone to fly the rebel flag of the Confederacy, we protect our flags....we need to protect the honor of our fighting men and women and allow them to bury their children. If there ain't already a law, there should be one, free speech is one thing, yelling fire in a crowded church quite another.

The issues in this case are being really misconstrued. Points of clarification:

1) This is a civil suit by a father against the Phelps clan. He sued, alleging that the Phelps speech caused him emotional distress, and won a $5m verdict in the trial court. The 4th Circuit reversed, saying that the district court erroneously allowed the jury to decide whether this was protected speech, while that should have been handled by the court.

2) The mere fact that someone's actions hurt you does not mean that you can sue them. Although the Constitution operates as a restriction on government, you cannot be found liable in tort for something that is otherwise protected activity. Thus, even if I say something that would normally constitute a tort and that hurts you terribly, if it falls within the protections of the first amendment, I can't be found liable for that no matter how much injury it caused you.

3) This case did not involve libel or slander, because Phelps and his crew did not make any demonstrably false claims specific to the guy in question.

RightinNYC said:

The issues in this case are being really misconstrued. Points of clarification:

1) This is a civil suit by a father against the Phelps clan. He sued, alleging that the Phelps speech caused him emotional distress, and won a $5m verdict in the trial court. The 4th Circuit reversed, saying that the district court erroneously allowed the jury to decide whether this was protected speech, while that should have been handled by the court.

2) The mere fact that someone's actions hurt you does not mean that you can sue them. Although the Constitution operates as a restriction on government, you cannot be found liable in tort for something that is otherwise protected activity. Thus, even if I say something that would normally constitute a tort and that hurts you terribly, if it falls within the protections of the first amendment, I can't be found liable for that no matter how much injury it caused you.

3) This case did not involve libel or slander, because Phelps and his crew did not make any demonstrably false claims specific to the guy in question.

Click to expand...

Actually it seems like this is what the SCOTUS will be deciding on. They have to decide if the fact that you are hurt by someone's words means that they are responsible for paying reparations for your mental/emotional pain, or that the 1st Amendment protects people from paying reparations for emotional pain, since it is so hard to actually prove. Courts have already limited the 1st Amendment to speech when such words cause or reasonably may cause physical or financial harm. This is why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded place and why magazines that sell based on lies can get sued by people that they lie about as long as it is proven to be a lie.

This decision should set a precedent for whether or not the 1st Amendment actually protects against essentially hurting someone's mental health. It could go either way, but I think that if the SCOTUS does side with the father, then they will have to ensure that they stress that there must be actual proof that harm was or could reasonably be done to someone's mental/emotional health due to such speech.

roguenuke said:

Actually it seems like this is what the SCOTUS will be deciding on. They have to decide if the fact that you are hurt by someone's words means that they are responsible for paying reparations for your mental/emotional pain, or that the 1st Amendment protects people from paying reparations for emotional pain, since it is so hard to actually prove. Courts have already limited the 1st Amendment to speech when such words cause or reasonably may cause physical or financial harm. This is why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded place and why magazines that sell based on lies can get sued by people that they lie about as long as it is proven to be a lie.

This decision should set a precedent for whether or not the 1st Amendment actually protects against essentially hurting someone's mental health. It could go either way, but I think that if the SCOTUS does side with the father, then they will have to ensure that they stress that there must be actual proof that harm was or could reasonably be done to someone's mental/emotional health due to such speech.

Click to expand...

The question of whether speech protected by the 1st amendment can create liability is long-settled, going back to NYT v. Sullivan. The classes of speech that are excepted (libel, etc.) go back even further. The court won't be deciding whether to create a new class of speech to except from the first amendment, but rather whether this particular speech in question falls within one of the already established classes. In reality, it might just be as simple as extending its holding in Hustler v. Falwell (finding the IIED tort unconstitutional as related to speech on matters of public concern about public figures) to this situation.

You know, I just had a thought. If the lawsuit against Phelps is defeated in the Supreme Court, it could be the beginning of an excellent way to pay him and his klan back.

Every time someone in Phelps' church dies, get about 10,000 people to picket the funeral with signs that say "God Hates False Prophets", "God Loves Dead Phelpses", and "This Dead Phelps Douchebag is Going Straight to Hell". Totally outnumber these assholes and shove their own tactics right down their throats. Make sure to televise it too, and let the whole world see what America thinks of these scum.

RightinNYC said:

The question of whether speech protected by the 1st amendment can create liability is long-settled, going back to NYT v. Sullivan. The classes of speech that are excepted (libel, etc.) go back even further. The court won't be deciding whether to create a new class of speech to except from the first amendment, but rather whether this particular speech in question falls within one of the already established classes. In reality, it might just be as simple as extending its holding in Hustler v. Falwell (finding the IIED tort unconstitutional as related to speech on matters of public concern about public figures) to this situation.

Click to expand...

I don't think either of those cases really covers this situation. In both NYT v Sullivan and Hustler v. Falwell, the cases were based on the lies were protected because they didn't maliciously go out to harm the person they were about. Both had to do with something being written about someone that wasn't true, but was not done out of malice, just greed.

There is establishment of IIED and NIED, it just never has fully addressed if the 1st Amendment right to free speech covers this because it is reluctant to open the door to frivolous lawsuits.

Technically there is a good case for IIED or NIED here. It meets all the necessary elements.
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct.