=> Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka !



 Religions > Atheism > => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka !

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 5 of 5

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "_ Prof. Jonez _"
Date: 31 Oct 2007 08:40:15 PM
Object: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka !
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
.

User: "Deadrat"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 05 Nov 2007 03:50:12 PM
Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194290853.333907.228870@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 2, 4:24 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote
innews:5p1ccoFp1nbaU1@mid.individual.net:







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

"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in

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

"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@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.

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?

and defamation.


What fame did they have prior to Phelps?


The latter included saying that the Snyders had raised their son
"for the devil,"


Millions of people in the world belive that Bu$h is the devil.


Just Hugo Chavez, as far as I know. But that doesn't mean the devil
actually exists.

to commit adultery


Was their son not guilty of this sin, as defined
in the Holey Baable?


Not the question, as their son was not a party to the suit. The
issue was whether his parents raised him to commit adultery.

and idoloatry,


Ibid.


Ibid.

and to support a pedophilic organization (the Catholic Church).


Irrefutable.


Again, the question is not whether the Catholic Church is a pedphilic
organization but whether the Snyders raised their son to condone
such.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you replying to me? It's hard to tell.

Civil law is still a law.

Who has said otherwise?

A Law written by a legislative body,

And probably approved by an executive authority. What's your point?

which still must abide by constitutional principles.

Are you saying that the tort law in question doesn't "abide by
constitutional principles"?

I think you are trying
desperately to split hairs that aren't meant to be split.

Phelps is an *****.

Not a crime or a tort (necessarily).

He wheedles the legislative system

The *legislative system*? How does he do that?

to make a living off of being an *****.

Not a crime or a tort (necessarily).

Yes, I like the fact he is being hurt,

How Christian of you.

but no...it is still overall a bad decision IMNSHO.

Too bad for Phelps that you weren't on the jury. But no one else has
commented on whether it's a bad decision; just whether it comports with
the law. Do you think it doesn't?

Now, if a cop
followed him around, and gave him Disturbing the peace citation every
time he went and protested a funeral, violating noise ordinance every
time his group exceeped certain decibel levels, jaywalking every time
he crossed the street not at a crosswalk, a blocking traffic citation
if he even as so much as narrowed the corridor in which the funeral
procession went....that would be pretty good law.

So you object to the civil action but you would endorse selective
enforcement of criminal law?
Just checking.

Hatter

.
User: "Hatter"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 06 Nov 2007 12:48:10 PM
On Nov 5, 4:50 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:


How Christian of you.

I'm atheist.
.
User: "Deadrat"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 06 Nov 2007 01:32:16 PM
Hatter <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote in news:1194374890.166198.88770
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 5, 4:50 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:


How Christian of you.


I'm atheist.

Check your irony meter. I fear it's become unplugged.
But thanks for sharing.
.



User: "Fester"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 02 Nov 2007 08:45:23 PM
"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:EXHWi.61730$Um6.28634@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472b0102$0$20649$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:kSvWi.52114$RX.14032@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472a7550$0$32546$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net...

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, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and defamation. The
latter included saying that the Snyders had raised their son "for the
devil," to commit adultery and idoloatry, and to support a pedophilic
organization (the Catholic Church).

You're correct about the distinction between civil and criminal penalties,
and the application of the 1st Amendment in that regard.
It remains to be seen, I suppose, if the higher courts uphold the ruling
that their gross remarks about the Catholic Church are actionable. As I
understand it, the Westboros direct their slanders at the Church and the US
government and the US military, of which the honorable deceased was simply a
member. I do feel concerned that an upheld judgment could effect others who
are critical of those entities, even if they are not so vulgar and
inappropriate about it.
.
User: "Deadrat"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 02 Nov 2007 10:27:21 PM
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472bd2b0$0$32480$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:EXHWi.61730$Um6.28634@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472b0102$0$20649$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:kSvWi.52114$RX.14032@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472a7550$0$32546$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net...

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, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and defamation.
The latter included saying that the Snyders had raised their son "for
the devil," to commit adultery and idoloatry, and to support a
pedophilic organization (the Catholic Church).


You're correct about the distinction between civil and criminal
penalties, and the application of the 1st Amendment in that regard.

It remains to be seen, I suppose, if the higher courts uphold the
ruling that their gross remarks about the Catholic Church are
actionable.

The remarks might be actionable or they might not. But no higher court
will be ruling on the matter, since the suit was not brought by the
Catholic Church, and no claim of defamation was alleged against the
Catholic Chruch.

As I understand it, the Westboros direct their slanders
at the Church and the US government and the US military, of which the
honorable deceased was simply a member.

That's the problem. You don't seem to understand much about the case.
It is probably not possible to slander (in the legal sense) the US
government or by extension, the US military. In any case, the deceased,
no matter his honorable qualities, could not be slandered either. The
parents of the deceased brought the suit for defamation of their
character.

I do feel concerned that an
upheld judgment could effect others who are critical of those
entities, even if they are not so vulgar and inappropriate about it.

Your concern is proportional to your ignorance. The suit was brought by
the parents of the deceased. The defamation was alleged for remarks
about them, not about "those entities."
.
User: "Fester"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 03 Nov 2007 06:23:45 AM
"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:tURWi.61777$Um6.23339@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472bd2b0$0$32480$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:EXHWi.61730$Um6.28634@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472b0102$0$20649$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:kSvWi.52114$RX.14032@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472a7550$0$32546$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net...

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, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and defamation.
The latter included saying that the Snyders had raised their son "for
the devil," to commit adultery and idoloatry, and to support a
pedophilic organization (the Catholic Church).


You're correct about the distinction between civil and criminal
penalties, and the application of the 1st Amendment in that regard.

It remains to be seen, I suppose, if the higher courts uphold the
ruling that their gross remarks about the Catholic Church are
actionable.


The remarks might be actionable or they might not. But no higher court
will be ruling on the matter, since the suit was not brought by the
Catholic Church, and no claim of defamation was alleged against the
Catholic Chruch.

As I understand it, the Westboros direct their slanders
at the Church and the US government and the US military, of which the
honorable deceased was simply a member.


That's the problem. You don't seem to understand much about the case.
It is probably not possible to slander (in the legal sense) the US
government or by extension, the US military. In any case, the deceased,
no matter his honorable qualities, could not be slandered either. The
parents of the deceased brought the suit for defamation of their
character.

I do feel concerned that an
upheld judgment could effect others who are critical of those
entities, even if they are not so vulgar and inappropriate about it.


Your concern is proportional to your ignorance. The suit was brought by
the parents of the deceased. The defamation was alleged for remarks
about them, not about "those entities."

Perhaps it is just ignorance of the facts on my part. I'm going only by
what I've heard from news reports, which are admittedly not reliable.
However, as you've presented it, I can still see cause for concern. The
scumbags harangued the parents for instructing their son in the traditions
and teachings of their church and for teaching him to be a patriotic
American. I'm not convinced that such a harangue can be called defamation.
.
User: "Deadrat"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 03 Nov 2007 12:30:04 PM
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472c5a43$0$20617$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:tURWi.61777$Um6.23339@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:472bd2b0$0$32480$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

<snip>

As I understand it, the Westboros direct their slanders
at the Church and the US government and the US military, of which
the honorable deceased was simply a member.


That's the problem. You don't seem to understand much about the
case. It is probably not possible to slander (in the legal sense) the
US government or by extension, the US military. In any case, the
deceased, no matter his honorable qualities, could not be slandered
either. The parents of the deceased brought the suit for defamation
of their character.

I do feel concerned that an
upheld judgment could effect others who are critical of those
entities, even if they are not so vulgar and inappropriate about it.


Your concern is proportional to your ignorance. The suit was brought
by the parents of the deceased. The defamation was alleged for
remarks about them, not about "those entities."


Perhaps it is just ignorance of the facts on my part.

There's no perhaps about it.

I'm going only
by what I've heard from news reports, which are admittedly not
reliable.

And you're not troubled by that admission?

However, as you've presented it, I can still see cause for concern.
The scumbags harangued the parents for instructing their son
in the traditions and teachings of their church and for teaching him
to be a patriotic American.

Perhaps they did. But that's not what I "presented," as it's not what
was alleged as defamation

I'm not convinced that such a harangue can be called defamation.

It probably can't.
.




User: "Michael Ejercito"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 03 Nov 2007 03:44:50 PM
On Nov 2, 2:50 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:

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

news:kSvWi.52114$RX.14032@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...



"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in
news:472a7550$0$32546$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net...

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

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

One of the findings of fact is that the church claimed Albert
Snyder raised his son for the Devil.
The finding of liability for invasion of privacy may be thrown out
if the Phelps were indeed on public property, as they claim. The case
for defamation is clear.
Michael
.
User: "Deadrat"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 03 Nov 2007 04:06:57 PM
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1194122690.157207.258060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Nov 2, 2:50 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:

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

news:kSvWi.52114$RX.14032@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...



"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in
news:472a7550$0$32546$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net...

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

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


One of the findings of fact is that the church claimed Albert
Snyder raised his son for the Devil.

The finding of liability for invasion of privacy may be thrown out
if the Phelps were indeed on public property, as they claim.

On appeal? How do you figure this? If Phelps was on public property,
then he had a chance to demonstrate this at trial. He evdiently failed
to convince the jury. This is a determination of fact and won't be
considered on appeal.
Note that the invasion of privacy is also based on postings to Phelps'
web sites.

The case for defamation is clear.


Michael


.
User: "¥ UltraMan ¥"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 03 Nov 2007 06:10:28 PM
Deadrat wrote:

Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in

On Nov 2, 2:50 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:

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

"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@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. Just look at all the posters on
this news group who haven't been locked up :-)

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


One of the findings of fact is that the church claimed Albert
Snyder raised his son for the Devil.

The finding of liability for invasion of privacy may be thrown out
if the Phelps were indeed on public property, as they claim.


On appeal? How do you figure this? If Phelps was on public property,
then he had a chance to demonstrate this at trial. He evdiently
failed to convince the jury. This is a determination of fact and
won't be considered on appeal.

A fact that perhaps an "emotional" jury decided to ignore, eh?
Westboro Baptist lawyer Jonathan L. KatzMr.said.
"They used very harsh words and they used very harsh signs,
but they stood 1,000 feet away from the funeral.
Anyone who wants to go out and protest should be
very afraid now."


Note that the invasion of privacy is also based on postings to Phelps'
web sites.

So how does posting a photo of someone, <legally obained and possessed as to
copyright>
invade the privacy of the person(s) in the photo?
Surely news media are guilty of this tort 1000s times per day, eh?

The case for defamation is clear.

It sounds as if The Devil himself was the one being defamed.
.
User: "Deadrat"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 03 Nov 2007 07:00:47 PM
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in
news:5p4df5Fp3mpfU1@mid.individual.net:

Deadrat wrote:

Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in

On Nov 2, 2:50 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:

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

"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@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. Just look at all the posters
on this news group who haven't been locked up :-)

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


One of the findings of fact is that the church claimed Albert
Snyder raised his son for the Devil.

The finding of liability for invasion of privacy may be thrown
out
if the Phelps were indeed on public property, as they claim.


On appeal? How do you figure this? If Phelps was on public
property, then he had a chance to demonstrate this at trial. He
evdiently failed to convince the jury. This is a determination of
fact and won't be considered on appeal.


A fact that perhaps an "emotional" jury decided to ignore, eh?

Could be. Or it could be that Phelps or his cohorts weren't 1000 feet
away. What's your point?

Westboro Baptist lawyer Jonathan L. KatzMr.said.
"They used very harsh words and they used very harsh signs,
but they stood 1,000 feet away from the funeral.
Anyone who wants to go out and protest should be
very afraid now."

Oh, well. If the defendants' lawyer said so.

Note that the invasion of privacy is also based on postings to
Phelps' web sites.


So how does posting a photo of someone, <legally obained and possessed
as to copyright>
invade the privacy of the person(s) in the photo?

Look up the definition of the tort. That'll tell you.

Surely news media are guilty of this tort 1000s times per day, eh?

The news media are guilty of lots of things, but they generally don't
print information about the private lives of private individuals who are
of no interest to the public. Who would care? Who would buy the papers?
Inquiring minds want Britney Spears.

The case for defamation is clear.


It sounds as if The Devil himself was the one being defamed.

Maybe. All I know is that he will not be mocked.
.
User: "_ Prof. Jonez _"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 04 Nov 2007 12:21:11 AM
"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:PY7Xi.41091$eY.5938@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ultra@man.jp> wrote in
news:5p4df5Fp3mpfU1@mid.individual.net:

Deadrat wrote:

Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote in

On Nov 2, 2:50 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:

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

"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@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. Just look at all the posters
on this news group who haven't been locked up :-)

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


One of the findings of fact is that the church claimed Albert
Snyder raised his son for the Devil.

The finding of liability for invasion of privacy may be thrown
out
if the Phelps were indeed on public property, as they claim.


On appeal? How do you figure this? If Phelps was on public
property, then he had a chance to demonstrate this at trial. He
evdiently failed to convince the jury. This is a determination of
fact and won't be considered on appeal.


A fact that perhaps an "emotional" jury decided to ignore, eh?


Could be. Or it could be that Phelps or his cohorts weren't 1000 feet
away. What's your point?

Westboro Baptist lawyer Jonathan L. KatzMr.said.
"They used very harsh words and they used very harsh signs,
but they stood 1,000 feet away from the funeral.
Anyone who wants to go out and protest should be
very afraid now."


Oh, well. If the defendants' lawyer said so.

Note that the invasion of privacy is also based on postings to
Phelps' web sites.


So how does posting a photo of someone, <legally obained and possessed
as to copyright>
invade the privacy of the person(s) in the photo?


Look up the definition of the tort. That'll tell you.

Surely news media are guilty of this tort 1000s times per day, eh?


The news media are guilty of lots of things, but they generally don't
print information about the private lives of private individuals who are
of no interest to the public. Who would care? Who would buy the papers?
Inquiring minds want Britney Spears.

The case for defamation is clear.


It sounds as if The Devil himself was the one being defamed.


Maybe. All I know is that he will not be mocked.

Mock, Mock.
.




User: "¥ UltraMan ¥"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 03 Nov 2007 06:04:59 PM
Michael Ejercito wrote:

On Nov 2, 2:50 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:

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

news:kSvWi.52114$RX.14032@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...



"Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote in
news:472a7550$0$32546$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net...

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

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


One of the findings of fact is that the church claimed Albert
Snyder raised his son for the Devil.

The finding of liability for invasion of privacy may be thrown out
if the Phelps were indeed on public property, as they claim. The case
for defamation is clear.

Which "devil" in particular ?
The one in the red dress, or the one in blue suede shoes?
.


User: "Free Lunch"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 01 Nov 2007 08:29:40 PM
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:54:43 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
<472a7550$0$32546$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:


"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net...

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.

Yes, they do. They don't have the right to be disruptive.

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

.

User: "Larry"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 31 Oct 2007 08:52:20 PM
In article <5osp4fFo30caU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest

Yes, Preisdent Bush had something to do with this CIVIL lawsuit between
two PRIVATE parties in which "free speech" is irrelevant.
You're dumb.
.
User: "_ Prof. Jonez _"

Title: Re: => Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest <= No FREE SPEECH in Bu$h's Amerikkka ! 31 Oct 2007 08:58:22 PM
"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-AFD826.21522031102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

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

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest


Yes, Preisdent Bush had something to do with this CIVIL lawsuit between
two PRIVATE parties in which "free speech" is irrelevant.

You're dumb.

Sez the imbecile who implies the 1st only enjoins to "Preisdent" Bu$h.
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the idiot
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the lying legal stooge
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at