"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message

"„ UltraMan „" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in

Larry wrote:

"„ UltraMan „" <ultra@man.jp> wrote:

Deadrat wrote:

My undestanding is that Phelps posted pictures of the family
and stories about their situation on his web sites.

Stolen pictures or photos the Phelps had or obtained lawfully?
Stories Copyright by Phelps himself ?

Do you think it matters?

Do you think it doesn't?

Hint: it doesn't.

intentional infliction of emotional harm,

There is no right to be free from emotional "harm".

This is true. But under certain circumstances you can hold
someone liable for causing you such harm. Understand yet?

No. Define "emotional _harm_" and tell me how one
reasonably knows exactly what words might trigger such
an emotional reaction in any given person.

Should you ever be on a jury in a civil case with this claim
alleged, the judge would define it for you at the end of the
trial.

So one cannot tell what words constitute the tort until after
their trial, eh?

Of course, not. The jury listens to all the testimony, and they
have to answer several questions: Was there any injury at all?
Was the injury directly connected to the words? Would a
reasonable person interpret the words as injurious? Would a
reasonable person believe the speaker of the words? And so on.

Why do you think they have trials?

And how does that post-facto Jury conclusion aid the citizen on the
street who needs to determine IN ADVANCE which of the words that
they're about to utter might have said deliterious emotional effect
upon any given recipient?

Civil trials are not about providing "aid" to the uninvolved
citizen. They're about determining who has damaged whom and by how
much. The law defines the tort of outrage, which goes beyond mere
deleterious effects. If the law isn't enough, the citizen in the
street has available to him that age-old legal maxim, noli esse
anum.

<snip>

Must be really old then ...

Your search - "noli esse anum" - did not match any documents.

Heed it anyway.

<snip>

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message

"„ UltraMan „" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in

Larry wrote:

"„ UltraMan „" <ultra@man.jp> wrote:

Deadrat wrote:

My undestanding is that Phelps posted pictures of the family
and stories about their situation on his web sites.

Stolen pictures or photos the Phelps had or obtained lawfully?
Stories Copyright by Phelps himself ?

Do you think it matters?

Do you think it doesn't?

Hint: it doesn't.

intentional infliction of emotional harm,

There is no right to be free from emotional "harm".

This is true. But under certain circumstances you can hold
someone liable for causing you such harm. Understand yet?

No. Define "emotional _harm_" and tell me how one
reasonably knows exactly what words might trigger such
an emotional reaction in any given person.

Should you ever be on a jury in a civil case with this claim
alleged, the judge would define it for you at the end of the
trial.

So one cannot tell what words constitute the tort until after
their trial, eh?

Of course, not. The jury listens to all the testimony, and they
have to answer several questions: Was there any injury at all?
Was the injury directly connected to the words? Would a
reasonable person interpret the words as injurious? Would a
reasonable person believe the speaker of the words? And so on.

Why do you think they have trials?

And how does that post-facto Jury conclusion aid the citizen on the
street who needs to determine IN ADVANCE which of the words that
they're about to utter might have said deliterious emotional effect
upon any given recipient?

Civil trials are not about providing "aid" to the uninvolved
citizen. They're about determining who has damaged whom and by how
much. The law defines the tort of outrage, which goes beyond mere
deleterious effects. If the law isn't enough, the citizen in the
street has available to him that age-old legal maxim, noli esse
anum.

<snip>

Must be really old then ...

Your search - "noli esse anum" - did not match any documents.

I don't know what search engine you chose to use, but Google
brought up the following:

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=noli+esse+anum

It doesn't help much, since everything is in Latin :)

„ UltraMan „ wrote:

Deadrat wrote:

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest

Albert Snyder sued after church members demonstrated at his
son's funeral

The church and three of its leaders were found liable for
invasion of privacy

Church believes the Iraq war is a punishment for the nation's
tolerance of gays

A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests

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.

A member of Westboro Baptist Church protests outside a veteran's
hospital in Maywood, Illinois, in April 2006.

Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, sued the Westboro Baptist
Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the
March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who
was killed in Iraq.

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It
returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6
million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2
million for causing emotional distress.

U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the award
for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the
defendants," according to financial statements filed with the
court.

Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel
killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank
God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."
A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests,
and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at
federal cemeteries.

But the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by
the family of a fallen serviceman.
The church and three of its leaders -- the Rev. Fred Phelps and
his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca
Phelps-Davis, 46 -- were found liable for invasion of privacy
and intent to inflict emotional distress.

Snyder claimed the protests intruded upon what should have been
a private ceremony and sullied his memory of the event.

The church members testified they are following their religious
beliefs by spreading the message that the deaths of soldiers are
due to the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Their attorneys argued in closing statements Tuesday that the
burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view
are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom
of speech and religion.

The judge said the church's financial statements, sealed
earlier, could be released to the plaintiffs.

Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the
federal courthouse.
Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your
enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and
carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers."
Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of
"God Bless America."

Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict, while members of the
church greeted the news with tightlipped smiles

As disgusting, repulsive and vile as these unhinged Westboro SOBs
are, I hate to say that they do have a right to free speech.

So they do. And they exercised that right unimpeded by the state.
And that's all free speech buys you.

I don't think
that people have a right to not have their feelings hurt.

In general, they don't. In this case, however, Phelps was done in
by his over-the-top behavior in conjunction with a finding of
defamation against him.

I don't
mean this to minimize my sympathy for the family of the deceased
here.
In cases like this one, I would dearly love to be able shut
these morons up, but I don't think that the decision will or
should be upheld, owing to the principle involved.

The principle being upheld here is any easy one to understand and
approve: Don't be an *****.

There's no law against that either.

Of course, not. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean that it
can't get your ***** in legal trouble.

Just look at all the posters on
this news group who haven't been locked up :-)

I realize that you're being, er, cute: I love an emoticon as much
as the next poster, so if I'm belaboring a point, excuse me. No
one is accusing Phelps (or the clowns on this news group) of
violating any criminal laws, so they're in no danger of being
"locked up." Which is also why the First Amendment won't help
Phelps.

The award may well be reduced, but the decision won't be easy to
overturn. The jury determined the facts in this case: Phelps
made false and believable statements to others about the
defendants. The facts are not appealable.

I feel ill defending the rights of people who have abused them so
badly,

Two things. First, you should not feel ill defending the rights of
people you don't like; you should rejoince in the activity. It's
the essence of our system. Second, Phelps did not abuse any of his
rights; he damaged another person and he's been held liable for the
damage.

but would you please tell me what the facts are? Specifically
how did they defame the defendants?

The plaintiffs (the Snyders) successfully sued Phelps for invasion
of privacy,

What "privacy" exactly?

My undestanding is that Phelps posted pictures of the family and
stories about their situation on his web sites.

Stolen pictures or photos the Phelps had or obtained lawfully?
Stories Copyright by Phelps himself ?

intentional infliction of emotional harm,

There is no right to be free from emotional "harm".

This is true. But under certain circumstances you can hold someone
liable for causing you such harm. Understand yet?

No. Define "emotional _harm_" and tell me how one
reasonably knows exactly what words might trigger such
an emotional reaction in any given person.

Here you go. This from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e087.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS - 'Damages for emotional distress have been permitted only
where there is some means for assuring the validity of the claim. (Molien,
supra, 27 Cal.3d at 926-27.) The case law reveals a diversity of circumstances
in which recovery for emotional distress may be had. They are loosely linked
in the sense that in each it could be said that a particular form of mental
suffering naturally ensued from the acts constituting the invasion of another
kind of protected interest. 'The commonest example . . . is probably where the
plaintiff suffers personal injuries in addition to mental distress as a result
of negligent or intentional misconduct by the defendant.' (Crisci, supra, 66
Cal.2d at 433.) Pain and suffering is the natural concomitant of a personal
injury. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 7 Cal.3d 889
[infant's pain and suffering incident to contagious illness].) '[I]n the case
of many torts, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, and defamation,
mental suffering will frequently constitute the principal element of damages.'
(State Rubbish, etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff, supra, 38 Cal.2d at 338; see also
Deevy v. Tassi, supra, 21 Cal.2d 109 [assault and battery].) Molien, supra, 27
Cal.3d 916, found sufficient assurance of the validity of a claim of emotional
distress in the nature of the cause of action for negligent misdiagnosis,
predicated as it was upon a false imputation of syphilis, which by statute
constitutes slander per se, an intentional tort. (Id., at pp. 930-31.)

In torts involving extreme and outrageous intentional invasions of mental and
emotional tranquillity, the outrageous conduct affords the necessary assurance
of the validity of the claim. (Id. at 927.) Recovery also has been sanctioned
for emotional distress which could be said naturally to ensue from an act
which invaded an interest protected by an established tort. (See, Sloane v.
Southern Cal. Ry. Co., supra, 111 Cal. 668 [humiliation from wrongful ejection
from train]; State Rubbish, etc. Assoc. v. Siliznoff, supra, 38 Cal.2d 330
[intentional infliction of emotional distress]; Crisci v. Security Ins. Co.,
supra, 66 Cal.2d 425 [physical injuries and psychosis resulting from fall
through opening]; see also Acadia, California, Ltd. v. Herbert (1960) 54
Cal.2d 328, 337 [mental suffering occasioned for fear for safety of family
caused by trespass]; Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 265,
271 [discomfort and annoyance caused by nuisance]; Herzog v. Grosso (1953) 41
Cal.2d 219, 225 [annoyance ensuing from trespass].)' (Merenda v. Superior
Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9 [no emotional distress damages for negligent
legal malpractice]; see also discussion of limitations on emotional distress
damages in Branch v. Homefed Bank (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 793, 800.)

Not all mental anguish is compensable: '[E]motional distress is but 'part of
the human condition.' Fuentes v. Perez (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 163, 169. Loss by
anyone of property or money, and certainly loss of expected wages, will
normally produce mental anguish. 'Complete emotional tranquillity is seldom
attainable in this world . . .' (6 Cal.App.4th at 801.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, since you probably lack the will, attention span or intestinal fortitude
to read through that, I will excerpt from it for your benefit:

In torts involving extreme and outrageous intentional invasions of mental and
emotional tranquillity, the outrageous conduct affords the necessary assurance
of the validity of the claim.

It continues:
Recovery also has been sanctioned for emotional distress which could be said
naturally to ensue from an act which invaded an interest protected by an
established tort.

So, the Westboro Baptist bigots violated the right to privacy of several
individuals in order to perpetrate outrageous acts. Doing so inflicted
emotional distress, for which they sued, and won.

Their inappropriate, insensitive, outrageous bid for publicity at the expense
of innocent, grieving individuals with a right to privacy inflicted emotional
distress upon them. Those ghouls got what they deserve, and I hope that the
judgment is enforced vigorously enough to keep them from ever intruding on the
lives of others.

<snip>