"_ 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

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

Unimpeded... except for the State Courts, except for the State
Civil Codes and except for all the State aparatus that supports
being able to sue against another's Free Speech.

Don't move the goalposts by changing the definition of "free" in
"free speech."

Well, you were about to run head-first right into them ...

It means free from criminal or state-initiated action. The
state apparatus that are the civil courts provide a better forum
than ad hoc private action.

Boing! Now that's going to leave a mark.

So as long as the State doesn't initiate the action in the name of
the collective, the State can provided the means, methods, rules,
forum and post-trial enFORCEment of verdicts for citizen v. citizen
actions that would otherwise be barred had the State brought the
action, and not be violative of Constitutional provisions,
enumerated or otherwise, eh?

There are no active provisions of the Constitution that impose
duties on private citizens. It's all about the state. So, the
answer is yes.

You have a point when you cite seditious libel statutes. Stick to
that.

There's more worms in the can you opened, so lets collect them
first.

You've indicated that the Snyders action against Phelps is apropos
because the State didn't _instigate_ the abbrogation of free
speech.

Not quite. I'm saying that by definition, the Snyders action
against Phelps cannot constitute a violation of Phelps' free speech.

So a private citizen could then also bring action abbrogating
someone's or some group's "establishment of religion" or the "free
exercise thereof", if they claim said actions to be "emotionally
disturbing", eh?

It's hard to see how. The exercise of that religion would have to
somehow be directed at a private citizen in such a way that the
practice exceeded all bounds of civilized behavior.

Do I detect a new goal post - "exceeds all bounds of civilized
behavior"

That's part of the definition of the tort. Simply upsetting someone
isn't actionable. Otherwise you'd be in court full time.

Merely taking umbrage at a church service you didn't attend probably
wouldn't do it.

And if their Christmas caroling violates my privacy, causing
emotional duress?

If they're caroling in your living room, it would violate your
privacy. I doubt your emotional distress would rise to the level of
outrage.

Or if their venerated dioramas of the raped Virgin Mary giving
***** birth in a filthy
animal feces encrusted barn cause me gastrointestinal upset?

In that case, get psychiatric help. Someone's private dioramas are
not directed at you.

I like it !

<snip>

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

Who believes what Phelps & Co. says?

to others about the defendants. The facts are not appealable.

So much for actual innocence then.

Pretty much, especially for "judgments" of what a reasonable
person would consider.

So when is a reasonable person unreasonable? Or the converse?

Up to the jury.

A reasonable or unreasonable jury?

There's only one kind, a seated jury.

"pico" <pico.pico.net> wrote in

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

There are no active provisions of the Constitution that impose duties
on private citizens. It's all about the state. So, the answer is
yes.

Just curious - what is an inactive provision of the Constitution?

Oh, c'mon. How hard could this be? Do a little study at

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

You've indicated that the Snyders action against Phelps is apropos
because the State didn't _instigate_ the abbrogation of free speech.

Not quite. I'm saying that by definition, the Snyders action against
Phelps cannot constitute a violation of Phelps' free speech.

The Snyder's action was a civil suit. A lawsuite is not an act for or
against free speech. The outcome does not qualify as prescedent for
law making. In some areas I'm sure one could sue someone for wearing a
loud tie.

1. lawsuit, precedent
2. Civil suits have ended up setting legal precedents.
3. Anyone can bring a suit for anything against anyone.

So a private citizen could then also bring action abbrogating
someone's or some group's "establishment of religion" or the "free
exercise thereof", if they claim said actions to be "emotionally
disturbing", eh?

They have and they do. Some religious activities are required to be
held outside the public view (and hearing range). Peyote related
services are an example of the former, and regarding the later we have
nuisance laws regarding loud parties which keeps the local holy
rollers indoors with the windows closed.

It's hard to see how. The exercise of that religion would have to
somehow be directed at a private citizen in such a way that the
practice exceeded all bounds of civilized behavior. Merely taking
umbrage at a church service you didn't attend probably wouldn't do
it.

See the above.

Your examples are inapt. Religous *practice* must conform to the law,
which must be neutral. E.g., the laws regulating noise and signage must
apply also to non-religious gatherings and organizations.

These laws are
enforced by the state and not private individuals.