Tammy Bruce: Fallen Marine's Father Wins Lawsuit; Homophobe Phelps Ordered to Pay Up

Fallen Marine's Father Wins Lawsuit; Homophobe Phelps Ordered to Pay Up

A jury in Kansas just reminded people everywhere, to the tune of an $11 million dollar judgment, that anti-gay bigotry and attacks on this nation and our heroes will not be tolerated. Not only is this verdict a statement against lunatics like Phelps, it is a message from the heartland of our nation that tolerance and genuine compassion is at our core; not the sick fanaticism of a few disturbed malcontents. I am so proud of us.

Father of slain Marine wins case against funeral protesters

The brokenhearted father of a Marine killed in Iraq won a long-shot legal fight today after a federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against members of a Kansas church who hoisted anti-gay placards at his son's Westminster funeral.

The jury's announcement 24 hours after deliberations first began was met with tears and hugs from the family and supporters of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, whose March 2006 funeral was protested by members of the Westboro Baptist Church with signs including "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Snyder's father, Albert, won on every count of his complaint, as well as $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages...

The Marine's father from York, Pa., sued the church and three of its members for intentionally invading his privacy because his deceased son did not have that right any longer. For the claim to be successful, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later, in a posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.

Indeed.

Posted by Tammy · October 31, 2007 04:06 PM · Permalink
Gay Issues | Mental Health, Lack Of | Military

Comments

Way to go, Kansas. The Phelps clan is like a noxious Hydra! J

Posted by: jeweytunes at October 31, 2007 04:45 PM

I’m going to stir the pudding here, and admit I have mixed feelings on this one. I understand the Phelps clan is insane (I’m not personally *shocked* by anything they say; to me they are a laughably pitiful study in cult psychology. I also think their efforts are actually helpful to the advancement of gay rights.) and that no family of a fallen serviceman deserves that awful treatment.

I do have a problem with individuals having to pay a multi-million dollar settlements because they yelled slogans and held up signs. Freedom of religion includes the protection of cult worship, and freedom of speech includes protecting people when they make vulgar and blasphemous statements (as long as those statements are not threats or incitements to violence or panic). I think having a standard that speech is not protected if it is “highly offensive to a reasonable person” is a dangerous chipping away of our First Amendment. Who decides the definition of “offensive” or who a “reasonable person” is for that matter? The First Amendment would not be necessary if it was only for the protection of unobjectionable speech. Let the Patriot Guard deal with these sickos, not the legal system.

Posted by: ashleymatt at October 31, 2007 07:30 PM

While I find the Phelps group extremely offensive, and I applaud the 'win' in a way, I can't help but wonder where this is headed. Will the blog, Little Green Footballs now be sued because there are posts that are offensive to Muslims? Will Huffpo be sued everytime someone calls for the death of an elected official? Will Kos be sued for allowing his posters to call the President 'Chimpy'?
We can not fall into the 'offended' class, as classical liberals, or republicans, we must be able to take a few lumps when the other side resorts to name calling.
Now, all that said, can this be chalked up to consequences for speech? Like the Dixie Chicks losing cd sales or Dr. Laura losing the television show. I don't know yet, I guess we will have to wait and see where the judicial end is, and whether we have to be careful of everything we say for fear of being bankrupted by an offended party.

Posted by: Stonemason at October 31, 2007 07:40 PM

The vile Phelps cult didn't just hold up signs and chant slogans, they targeted grieving families and communities specifically to cause problems. Their presence at a funerals of gays was no longer getting the press they lust so they had to find some other obnoxious harassment. This group has used the law for years to harass the grieving families of gays and lesbians.

I hope that this decision holds up on appeal.

I figure the Phelps will be in contempt when it comes to payment, these people only respect the law when they can use it as a club.

Posted by: Skeptic at October 31, 2007 09:04 PM

Phelps is a maggot. He and his blind sheep followers torment families of the fallen with shouts of hatred, laughter & demonstrations during funeral processions. They have performed the exact tactic at the funerals of gays, lesbians, abortionists - any group they can use to get attention. That goes beyond merely saying something horrible. They use their physical presence to intimidate, incite and hurt others, and they do it under the pretense of 'God's work'.

Though I understand where some are coming from regarding the thin line of free speech, be reminded that freedom of speech also means there is responsibility attached. One has the freedom to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when it is not on fire - but they are going to pay for doing so.

And make no mistake: Phelps' actions through the years go well beyond saying horrible things. We're talking about a loud-mouth lunatic invading another's privacy; someone who indeed engages in incitement (and takes a great deal of pleasure in it), stalking, harassing, persecuting and using the pain of others to get attention for himself and his disturbed following. Yes, I recognize that others engage in exploiting, harassing, etc. - and it's wrong no matter who does it!

Not only has Phelps abused the free speech clause to serve himself, but he wishes to deny others their rights in the process.

Frankly, I am glad to see Phelps and his follwers getting what they deserve. They are truly a bunch of miserable f**ks.

Posted by: artgal at October 31, 2007 11:18 PM

Artgal, both you and the 'skeptic' above come the closest to understanding the nature of the offensive behavior of these subhuman inbreds from Kansas: They are NOT excercising their 1st Amendment Rights, as much as they are deliberately inflicting pain and personal mental anguish on the grieving families of each one of these fine, beloved Americans. Thus, the Maryland court verdict. It was NEVER a matter of 'free speech': don't buy into their BS!
Nor was it ever a matter of freedom of Religion, unless they worship the Screaming Mimi Moonbat.
This has always been a ploy by the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas to inflict pain and sorrow, embarrassment and fear into the lives of grieving families and friends. ONLY.
May other families similarily abused by this gang find the courage to file similar lawsuits against them!

These Westboro Baptist vermin seek only to cause pain, don't you see? Otherwise, they'd merely publish newspaper ads, or buy radio spots, at 6 a.m. on Saturday mornings, to spread their brand of filth.

the next 119 paragraphs I've deleted, to keep from sounding like a sermon about a Compassionate and Loving G-D.)

Posted by: localmalcontent at November 1, 2007 01:48 AM

I wish it were twice as much! Snyder showed amazing restraint. Had it been my son those girls were "protesting" against there would be some girls needing dental work!
Again I wish it were twice as much! No wonder Christianity has a bad name! along with Foney Baloney Mahony and Al Sharpie and Jessee Jacksh*t these folk present a wonderful image to the world!

Posted by: Rod at November 1, 2007 04:49 AM

Mr. Snyder's attorney told the jury to pick an amount that says, "Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again." This is being turned into a free speech vs hate speech matter and that is off the mark. It is a matter of common decency at a time of grieving. We used to know better. Disrupting a funeral, anyone's funeral, is despicable and should not be considered a speech issue regardless of what is being shouted or who is doing the shouting.

The Snyders were burying their son and others invaded their privacy. The lawsuit itself cited invasion of privacy. Mr. Snyder said, "Every day in court I would just think of Matt and have him on my mind and know that he was watching out for me." Shame on everyone on all sides for trying to make this about themselves. A family's funeral procession may not be hijacked as someone else's parade. Period.

Posted by: pat_s at November 1, 2007 05:43 AM

It can't be said often enough: The First Amendment gives you no right to effective speech and no right to a particular forum. Only Liberals, ie. collectivist totalitarians think they can say whatever they want, wherever they want,whenever they want, and force people to believe them by drowning out all other speech.

Posted by: St. Thor at November 1, 2007 09:08 AM

ASHLEYMATT-
Allow me to introduce myself, I am "Who decides the definition of “offensive” or who a “reasonable person” is for that matter?
I am the sister of a 19 year old Marine killed in Iraq.
You said "freedom of speech includes protecting people"
I decide, my family decides, my mother decides. What actions would have been appropriate to protect my little brothers memory that day? If that despicable, horrible, vile person would have shown up at my brothers funeral and my family reacted the way I assure you we would have reacted (violence) is there and amendment to protect us???...There is right and wrong in this country, if it is rooted in anything it should be rooted in respect and dignity for all of those who have given their lives for the USA. If we cannot protect dignity and respect for those who gave there lives for freedom, it means NOTHING - NOTHING should come before us protecting them...
Tammy - forgive me for "coming out" but I have to admit I silently stalk your site and believe it to be informative, entertaining, provocative, etc...I am a long time admirer- my mother actually turned me on to you many years ago.
I have NEVER posted on a blog--let's just say this "inspired" me.

Posted by: VirginiaHall!! at November 1, 2007 07:05 PM

"It was NEVER a matter of 'free speech': don't buy into their BS!"

I certainly find Phelps & co. utterly despicable and abhorrent, but nonetheless, it's practically guaranteed to be appealed on free speech grounds. Without knowing the exact details and what in the record each party managed to preserve for appeal, I couldn't give an educated opinion as to what might be likely to happen on appeal.

""Who decides the definition of “offensive” or who a “reasonable person” is for that matter?"

They're subjective standards, but as determinations of ultimate fact in a lawsuit, the answer is the jury, as finders of fact and representatives of the community.

Posted by: Dave J at November 2, 2007 05:26 PM

Welcome aboard, Virginia.

Just for further clarification of my POV, we as a county tolerate demonstrations by the KKK and neo-Nazis, not to mention more cunning groups like the "Socialist Workers Party" who advocate for an ideology that has caused the murder of 100 million people and counting. All of the above groups are evil and responsible for not only severe emotional pain, but outright mass homocide. But we give them a forum in this country, not only because we believe Americans (however demonic) should have the right to speak freely (yes, within limits that we're discussing) but also because if we didn't allow it, we would have no idea how many of these psychopaths exist in our society.

Everyone who's posted on this has made very compelling arguments that have allowed us to examine and refine our own philosophies on what "Free Speech" is versus illegal expression. I felt comfortable posting an unpopular opinion with this group because I know we are people who appreciate one another's [sometimes strident :)] individuality. It's fun to throw out a little chum, just to see what each one of the regular posters (and newbies like Virginia) have to say about it.

Looking forward to the next fiery discussion...

Posted by: ashleymatt at November 3, 2007 10:55 AM

Spraying graffiti on a tombstone is vandalism - but the Phelps clowns would call it free speech wouldn't they? Couldn't desecrating a funeral service be considered the same as desecrating a tombstone?

Posted by: helpunderdog at November 5, 2007 01:22 PM

By Category

By Month

Fallen Marine's Father Wins Lawsuit; Homophobe Phelps Ordered to Pay Up

Comments

Post a comment