Via the Baltimore Sun: Man wins case against funeral protesters:
A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family’s privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.
It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as “Thank God for dead soldiers.”
They contend that the deaths are punishment for America’s tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military.
[…]
The jury found the defendants liable for violating the Snyder family’s expectation of privacy at the funeral and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
There is no doubt that Phelps and his “church” are obnoxious, hateful, reprehensible little people whose views are equally hideous. I shed no tears for these people and in many ways cheer as a result of the fact that they may be out of business.
Still, my first reaction to the verdict is that it seems odd. First, I am not a big fan of huge court awards unless there is actual damages commensurate with the award. As awful as having Phelps’ group protest in this fashion near the funeral, did they really engage in $11 million worth of damage? I am no expert in these matter, but my sense is that wrongful death claims are frequently far less than that.
Second, there is a legitimate First Amendment issue here. Interestingly, the Sun got the same basic response from two different law profs on different portions of the ideological spectrum, the right-libertarian Eugene Volokh and the liberal Mark Graber (a professor of law and government who frequently blogs at Balkinization, and for whom I was a grader many years ago when he was a professor at the University of Texas
Snyder’s lawsuit spurred a constitutional debate over how far the First Amendment should extend to protect the most extreme forms of expression.
Some legal experts said the judgment could be a setback for those who believe in broad free-speech protections.
“I think when speech is a matter of public concern it still has to be protected, even when by social standards it is extraordinarily rude and outrageous,” said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.
University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber said the size of award, which included $8 million in punitive damages, could have a chilling effect on speech.
“This was in a public space,” Graber said “While the actions are reprehensible, the First Amendment protects a lot that’s reprehensible.” After the verdict, Phelps and his two daughters named in Snyder’s lawsuit said they believed that it was really their religious beliefs that were on trial.
Ultimately, do we really want a situation wherein plaintiff A can utterly silence defendant B because defendant B highly offended plaintiff A? I would think not.
Sphere: Related Content
I have discussed Westboro and what they are doing several times. I have witnessed them as they appeared at a local soldier’s funeral near my home town.
I really don’t think this is an issue of freedom of speech. They have a website promoting their “cause”. They have the right to speak their issues any time they wish. Anywhere. However, one has to question why they choose to do it at funerals of deceased soldiers. There has to be an intent to do it in the presence of the people they know they are going to offend. Because they make it an issue to do it in the most personally emotionally hurtful manner they can, I would make the argument, if I were the Snyder’s lawyer, that this is not public discourse, but assault. If they made their points in Topeka, no personal emotional harm is done. They have every right to do so there. The difference would be they would not be inflicting intentional emotional harm on individuals affected by the death.
Shouting fire in a theater is not allowed. Twenty-two states have placed restrictions on funerals. There is legal precedent that Phelps chose to ignore. Although the argument for Freedom of Speech is a broad one, it does have limitations that protect the general welfare. I think this is going to be one of them.
Comment by Moonage — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 9:12 am
The “public space” / First Amendment argument is a total canard. There was no prior restraint and no criminal penalty in this litigation.
And besides, most of the lawsuit concerned statements and images about the plaintiffs made by WBC on its website, not about the protest per se.
In any case, I may have a right to swing my fist “in a public space.” That does not mean I have a right to punch you in the nose “in a public space.”
Comment by KipEsquire — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 9:47 am
Fred Phelps And Family Go Down HARD — Jury Awards $11M To Father Of Slain Marine
My first reaction to the breaking news of the jury’s award against the disgusting Westboro Baptist crew who goes around to the funerals of our fallen troops, protesting during the personal, private, heartbroken moment when the families and friend…
Trackback by The Gun Toting Liberal™ — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 10:35 am
I suppose the real question is the appropriate remedy. I don’t see how you stop groups like this form protesting without abridging the First Amendment. And regardless of anything else, monetary damages like this have the effect of stopping to speech (and makes other protesters think twice about protesting). As such, the chilling effect issue is quite relevant.
I can see seeing parameters as to how close to a funeral one can protest.
However, what if this was anti-abortion protesters outside a clinic? Or political protesters outside of a political event/
If people are really, really offensive, is that sufficient justification to curtail their speech and if so, what constitutes offensive and who gets to decide?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 11:01 am
[…] (I left a for of this as a comment at the post below, but thought it should be on the main page, so as to clarify my [position): […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » The Issue at Hand in the Phelps Case — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 11:05 am
[…] (I left a for of this as a comment at the post below, but thought it should be on the main page, so as to clarify my [position): […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » The Issue at Hand in the Phelps Case — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 11:05 am
“what constitutes offensive and who gets to decide”
Um, a jury? Just as a jury decides what is and is not “reasonable” conduct in a negligence lawsuit.
Comment by KipEsquire — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 12:07 pm
Oddly enough, I recognize that fact insofar as I understand how this works. I still find it problematic.
Of course, if this is overturned by an appeals court, does that make that decision ok for you (since it is the appeals court job to makes such determinations)?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 12:42 pm
I just hate the fact that we are at this point where someone in good conscience can say such awful things in the name of God. I guess as long as they are on public property they can protest all they want, but hopefully there will be people out there that out number these sad demented folks. No mother or father putting their child to rest should witness such a sight.
Comment by Angry Guy — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 3:17 pm
Sadly, saving vile things in the name of God is nothing new.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, November 1, 2024 @ 4:50 pm