<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html</a></p>
<p>BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP) – A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.</p>
<p>FINALLY! I remember when they picketed here at soldiers’ funerals. Now let’s hope the appeal isn’t successful.</p>
<p>This is the best news I’ve heard in a long time… I’ve been waiting for Phelps to be held accountable for his actions. When our high school did the Laramie Project, a local contingent of his group protested. They’re so full of hate.</p>
<p>…WOW.</p>
<p>Ah. I was confused until I saw that they were fundamentalists. </p>
<p>Those people do NOT follow God. At least not my God. I think it’s good that they’re being held accountable. I’m a devout Christian, and I have several very close friends that are homosexual. And I could care less. Those people are sick.</p>
<p>That is not a church, that is one sick sect.</p>
<p>Awful people, but I would be shocked and upset if this verdict and damages survived post-trial motions and an appeal. There is a slightly massive First Amendment issue. Even if a state can prohibit peaceful picketing at a soldier’s funeral – and I sort of hope it can – I am not sure that imposing an institutional death penalty by way of punitive damages could possibly pass First Amendment muster.</p>
<p>I’ve read other things about that “church”, and it seems to run more as a cult, with the Phelps family running it.</p>
<p>JHS, I see your point. The First Amendment lets them do whatever they want (speech-wise), and I’m a little wary of the precedents set by this.</p>
<p>So then what would it take to shut these people up? There has to be a way to prevent them from intruding on a family’s private moments of a funeral.</p>
<p>I think the verdict may hold up–it is for invasion of privacy and deliberate infliction of emotional distress. There are limits on where and when speech is acceptable…and this is probably at the limit.</p>
<p>I doubt that verdict will hold up. Last I checked, freedom of speech is still a constitutional right. As much as I dispise this outrageous behavior, I have to
say they committed no crime (I must say I know very little details other than what I read).</p>
<p>As a little primer in basic First Amendment law: where core issues of political speech or religion are involved (e.g., protesting government policies, like coddling homosexuals), if the government is going to restrict speech (much less the practice of religion), it has to have a compelling interest, and the restriction must be nondiscriminatory as to viewpoint and the least restrictive option feasible to protect the government’s compelling interest.</p>
<p>Let’s assume that protecting the dignity of a soldier’s funeral is a compelling governmental interest. (It may be debatable, but I don’t think you are going to find too many judges who would resolve this case by denigrating the governmental interest here.) So maybe the government can apply its tort law regarding invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress to that end. But imposing massive punitive damages, beyond the ability of any of the defendants actually to pay, probably goes too far. There have to be less restrictive ways to prevent interference with funerals, and other people may silence themselves even when they have a right to speak because they are afraid of such a massive penalty if it turns out they are wrong. Also, I have a slight suspicion that the law is being applied here to stop one particular message, and might not be applied to, for instance, pro-military demonstrations at a funeral. Of course, such demonstrations might be welcomed by the bereaved family, and I think the idea of the privacy law is that they get to make the call within a certain radius of the burial site.</p>
<p>So, yes, this is at the limit of when speech is acceptable, and I think the government ought to be able to restrict it with reasonable “time, place, and manner” rules. But not with open-ended punitive damages.</p>
<p>Some states have enacted laws as a result of these sickos. And from what I know, this “church” seems to involve primarily one extended family.</p>
<p>I have read neither the original complaint nor the verdict. Was this a matter of a government imposed sanction restricting expression? If so, the verdict may not withstand appellate review. If this was a private civil action brought by the father of the deceased, then the aborrent protesters should be forced to pay up for their tortuous verbal assault. Were the protesters charged with tresspass as well?</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, it’s a private tort suit, albeit in federal court (diversity?), for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Presumably under Maryland law. The news stories all say that “several states” have enacted statutes to prohibit the sort of picketing this group does, but it isn’t clear from any of the stories whether Maryland is one of them.</p>
<p>It’s also unclear to me what conduct, exactly, they engaged in. But a BBC story from last spring I read seems to indicate that, although they say perfectly horrible things, and hold up perfectly horrible signs, the people themselves are generally polite and friendly. The stories mostly say they were “picketing”, which doesn’t sound like the kinds of near-assaults and intimidation that sometimes get protesters outside of First Amendment protections.</p>
<p>It matters in some respects doctrinally that this is a private tort suit, but that’s not an absolute principle or a complete First Amendment trump card. It’s still Maryland regulating the group through private remedies applied by judges rather than bureaucrats.</p>
<p>That is a gigantic verdict – much larger than the father would be likely to get if the defendants had killed his son themselves.</p>
<p>I doubt that will hold up. Surely the injury to the survivors here is smaller than the injury of wrongful death.</p>
<p>I consider funerals, weddings, meetings, etc… to be “PRIVATE” gatherings and functions. As such, someone else’s freedom of speech is not protected. Just as a person doesn’t have the right to stand in my front yard and exercise their free speech, neither should they at other private functions. Even at a “Public” location, a private function temporarily reserves that public space for private use. Just as if you “Reserved” or “Leased” a pavillion at the local park for a picnic for your softball team. Your reservation gives your group exclusive use to the pavillion, bar-b-que pits, etc… that were reserved for you. Others aren’t allowed to come in an use it during your reservation. Picketing outside of a church, cemetary, etc… during a private ceremony or event should constitute a crime of trespassing.</p>
<p>Christcorp - while I completely agree with you, I think what Phelps’ organization does is stand across the street. Or stand somewhere where they know the funeral procession will pass. When some of their wannabees protested Laramie Project at our high school, they were not allowed on high school property, but were on the sidewalk just off the property so everyone that entered the parking lot saw them. </p>
<p>This is where some states are enacting laws that prohibit protests within a certain number of feet or yards from the property (funeral home or cemetary), but they will still position themselves somewhere along the route they know the funeral procession will likely take. I don’t know how laws can get around protecting a whole funeral route, some of which can go 20+ miles.</p>
<p>I think the verdict will stand. There is NO absolute right to freedom of speech. There are still restrictions (subject to the rights of others) as to where or when certain things may be said. After all, the Supreme Court held that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater" just because you felt like it. In this case, these church members specifically went to the “crowded theater” in order to create emotional distress in private citizens who were living through a terribly tragic time of their lives. Anyone with any brains knew that this would inflict emotional distress.</p>
<p>God I hope you’re right ejr1.</p>
<p>by the way… if you’d like to learn more about Fred Phelps (I’d advise only those with strong stomachs do so), do a google search on “Addicted to Hate - The Fred Phelps Story”. Several websites have a book online that you can read. I made it through the first three chapters last night and don’t know if I can take anymore. But it’s made me realize that this is a church in name only. It is a cult, and I’m wondering how they can continue to get tax-exempt status.</p>