View Full Version : Dad Ordered To Pay Legal Costs
Sorry I couldn't see where this was already posted.
(CNN) -- The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face."
"By the court making this decision, they're not only telling me that they're taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families," said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006.
Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."
Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths.
Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration.
"Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement," said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals.
"They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they're going to finance it," she said.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents.
In a motion filed in October, Snyder's lawyer, who is representing him for free, asked the court to dismiss the bill of costs, or, alternatively, reduce the 50-cent fee per page or charge Snyder only for copies that were necessary to make their arguments on appeal.
"We objected based upon ability to pay and the fairness of the situation," Sean Summers said.
The mostly pro-forma ruling is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga that pits privacy rights of grieving families against the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message.
Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.
Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.
"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to address issues of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services" as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased.
The justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.
Both Phelps and Snyder's attorney said they were surprised that the 4th District chose to weigh in on the issue of legal costs when they could have waited until after the Supreme Court hearing.
Phelps believes the ruling bodes well for her side.
"It is a good harbinger of the fact that the Supreme Court will remind this nation that you don't have mob rule. The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That's supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have," she said.
Phelps anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling in the church's favor would be unpopular, but she said Westboro's members viewed the potential outcome in Biblical terms.
"When the Supreme Court unanimously upholds the 4th Circuit, it's going to put this country in a rage, and we will be expelled," she said. "But whenever it was time for an epic event in the Bible, the thing that happened right before is the prophets were removed from the land, and that's what's going to happen to us. ... We're going to sprint to the end of this race."
Snyder claims he is unable to pay any legal costs in the case and is attempting to raise funds on his son's site, http://www.matthewsnyder.org/. He is equally optimistic that he will prevail before the Supreme Court.
"The American people keep my spirits lifted a lot and give me hope. I think most of the country is on my side on this issue," he said. "Too many people have died to protect our rights and freedoms to have them degraded and spit upon like this church does."
I wouldn't of had to worry about paying any legal fees I'd be on death row but there would be alot of protesters not going home that day.:mad:
That is a croc 'o kaka...but if I'm not mistakin' Conan O'Brian is pickin' up the tab...
sneakypete
03-31-2010, 14:12
2010/03/30/id/354287[/url]
It's a crock.
I've been a "floating buffer" for alot of funeral missions... As long as I am above ground, I will continue to be one.
Bring it on WBC.
Tatonka316
03-31-2010, 16:08
When Chris crossed over, we did NOT do any interviews because that nut case was camping out in front of President Bush's ranch protesting, and with the way my heart and my mind was in August 2005, I would have ended up in prison if some dumba$$ from the lamestream media stuck a microphone in my face or if those morons from Kansas were anywhere NEAR Arlington. My heart aches for that father and that fallen heroes family. And for the Patriot Guard and ANYONE that serves to buffer a greaving family from something that they should NEVER have to suffer - thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you do for other Gold Star families --- it truly matters!!!
I was flying somewhere a while ago and saw some members of the Patriot Guard on their way to a funeral. I went up to thank them and buy them a cup of coffee. While we were talking, they told me of the first court ruling against those slime from Kansas, and it made my day!!! I sincerely hope there is a special place in hell for them, because they have taken to making one of the worse days imaginable for a Gold Star family THAT much worse.
I heard that Bill O'Reilly has volunteered to pay the court costs for that family - my hat's off to him for that.
molon labe
I heard that Bill O'Reilly has volunteered to pay the court costs for that family - my hat's off to him for that.
molon labe
I heard the same.
Too bad they don't hear voices commanding them to kill themselves. You know, in sacrifice to their "god". POS bastards.
Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.
May the Westboro church members ROT IN HELL, SLOWLY, OVER A SPIT!!!
There is NO, I repeat NO justification for their actions. They are all losers, liars, and wannabees, and all go crying to their mother leader...how pathetic!!!!:mad:
JMHO,
Holly
might wind up in jail for kicking the crap out of someone that needed it.
These days, that would be a full time job.
I sincerely hope there is a special place in hell for them, because they have taken to making one of the worse days imaginable for a Gold Star family THAT much worse.
First off, my condolences to you and your family. Having both sons deployed at various times, this scenario played in my brain more then a few times, but to live through it... well, I really cannot imagine.
I believe these folks do this on purpose in order to start a ruckus and then file a lawsuit hoping to collect. I believe this is how they make there money. It's an insult against the family, their departed loved one and against everything that is good and right about us as human beings and Americans. It's a testament to our belief in being law abiding citizens that these folks are still stealing oxygen. It's almost beyond comprehension.
When my oldest came back from Iraq after having lost many friends during the deployment, he passed a car on the freeway which had a support the troops sticker with the red circle around it and a line running through it. He tossed an object at the car's windshield to let the driver know his feelings on the subject. I cautioned him on this kind of action, but I really don't believe he cared much for my advice. Some things run too deep.
craigepo
03-31-2010, 17:30
Kind of interesting that an appellate court threw out a $5 million award against this church. Also interesting issues that the Supreme Court is going to hear.
Snyder v. Phelps
Case Information
General Information about the case
Docket Number
09-751
Date Granted
03/08/2010
Appealed From
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAttorneys
Attorney information for this case
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Sean E. Summers
Barley Snyder LLC
(717) 846-8888
Counsel of Record
100 East Market Street
P.O. Box 15012
York, PA 17405-7012
Party name: Albert Snyder
Attorneys for Respondents:
Margie J. Phelps
3734 SW 12th Street
(785) 408-4598
Counsel of Record
Topeka, KS 66604
Party name: Fred W. Phelps, Sr., et al.
Court takes funeral protest case (March 8, 2010)
Case Reference:
Snyder v. Phelps
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the First Amendment protects picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in combat.
The case concerns a lawsuit filed by the family of a Marine, Matthew Snyder, after members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed his funeral.
The family accused the Westboro Baptist Church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but a three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the judgment violated the First Amendment's protections on religious expression. The church members' speech is protected, "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words," according to the court.
On March 8, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Question presented: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter; (2) whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and (3) whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication
http://onthedocket.org/cases/2009/snyder-v-phelps
Notice that the Phelps organization is represented by an attorney named -- surprise -- Phelps. Old man Phelps may be an asshole, but he is a smart asshole. Most of his children are lawyers, some on the public payroll.
craigepo
03-31-2010, 22:35
Here's a link to the 4th Circuit's opinion. The language used by the church in this case is maddening.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf
Question for you lawyers. Would it not be legal to use the same tactics against Fred's church? People picketing and chanting outside while they are having church services? Maybe carrying signs saying "God hates incest" and such? Make even more scurrilous claims than fred and all do?
Question for you lawyers. Would it not be legal to use the same tactics against Fred's church? People picketing and chanting outside while they are having church services? Maybe carrying signs saying "God hates incest" and such? Make even more scurrilous claims than fred and all do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8I-UnRnao&feature=related
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm surprised that the church wasn't firebombed again or repeatedly..
Yeah, someone burned it down a couple of years ago...
I'm sure that WBC would turn any protest against their church into an Anti-Religion theme and then sue for hindering the right to practice religion..
Much in the same way they have politicalized their rights over the rights of others.
As far as I'm concerned, they fall into a certain oath that I've sworn in the past.
"Against all enemies foreign and domestic"
greenberetTFS
04-01-2010, 11:05
I'm surprised that the church wasn't firebombed again or repeatedly..
Yeah, someone burned it down a couple of years ago...
I'm sure that WBC would turn any protest against their church into an Anti-Religion theme and then sue for hindering the right to practice religion..
Much in the same way they have politicalized their rights over the rights of others.
As far as I'm concerned, they fall into a certain oath that I've sworn in the past.
"Against all enemies foreign and domestic"
Stras is right on target,that oath is what we've taken and we should follow it!!!!!.......:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
I did submit a request to God that he use the WBC to fill the Muslim request for the 100 virgins in heaven. :D
I'm not in a rush to get up there and see if my request was approved or not.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 deals with the assessment of costs (which do NOT include attorney's fees) involved making an appeal. See generally here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rules.html
Under Rule 39, subsection (a)(3), "if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee." Every competent lawyer knows this and advises his client accordingly when an appeal is filed. It should not come as a surprise to any party at this stage that costs are taxable.
Under subsection (d), a party who wants costs taxed must—within 14 days after entry of judgment—file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs. The other side has 10 days after service of the bill of costs to file objections.
The order on appeal was filed on Sept. 24, 2009. On October 6, Phelps filed an itemized bill of costs (costs.pdf below). The main component of the costs was copying fees for the appendix which accompanied a brief on appeal. As required by the Rules, the court's clerk ordered Snyder to pay them on October 16 (order costs. pdf below) because Snyder did not file objections on time. On October 23, Snyder (untimely) filed objections. On October 27, the Court directed Phelps to file a reply to Snyder's objections (see reply.pdf below)
Snyder advanced three grounds for objecting to the costs: first, that he had no money to pay them; second, that the duplication costs ($.50/page) were too high; and third, that the costs included duplicating extraneous and irrelevant material (see brief, pdf, objection.pdf, and declaration.pdf below). In my opinion, the third grounds (irrelevant material) in theory provided the best basis to reduce the costs, but Snyder failed to fully explain to the court which material was irrelevant and which was not. When making such an argument, it is incumbent upon the objector to specify what should have rightly been included in the appendix, and what irrelevant. But Snyder didn't do that. He left it for the court (or the clerk) to figure it out. Neither the court nor the clerk have any obligation to pore over the record to figure out what Snyder didn't bother to do. Phelps pointed all of this out in the Reply, and also fairly met the substance of the other objections.
In sum, the untimeliness of the filing combined with its sloppiness (there is at least one wrong citation, by the way) probably doomed the objections.
One last point. It took over five months for the Court to rule on the objections. That's five free months that Snyder received. Also, the Court denied the objections without referencing the delay in filing. Given that the delay is potentially malpractice, it also threw Snyder's lawyer a bone, in my opinion.
armymom1228
04-02-2010, 07:52
I was in a the gym yesterday when this came up on ABC Evening News. The manager suddenly turned ALL 6 TVs to this piece, turned the obnoxious hiphop music down and the sound up for everyone to hear. When I left there was a jar with a note on the front to donate to help this guy. It was full of dollar bills, I added my own.
I understand this church as nasty as it might be, has a 1st amendment right to freedom of speech..but morally, this is wrong. How can they call themselves Christian and do things like this? This is a classic examply of how people can turn and twist religion into something vile and nasty for thier own political adgenda.
AM
I'm surprised that the church wasn't firebombed again or repeatedly..
Yeah, someone burned it down a couple of years ago...
I'm sure that WBC would turn any protest against their church into an Anti-Religion theme and then sue for hindering the right to practice religion..
Much in the same way they have politicalized their rights over the rights of others.
As far as I'm concerned, they fall into a certain oath that I've sworn in the past.
"Against all enemies foreign and domestic"
Excellant point.... wish this place was a little closer to home...
I understand this church as nasty as it might be, has a 1st amendment right to freedom of speech.
AM
Just as we have the freedom and 1st amendment right to drown them the hell out.
I hope your gym manager is truly sending the money to the family.
greenberetTFS
04-02-2010, 11:48
Fox news last night said O'reilly is going to pick up the entire cost that the father is facing...........:D:D:D
Big Teddy :munchin
Masochist
04-02-2010, 14:25
How can they call themselves Christian and do things like this? This is a classic examply of how people can turn and twist religion into something vile and nasty for thier own political adgenda.
AM
Anything to an extreme can be dangerous - even lethal. Even something as "harmless" as water, the thing we all need for life, can cause death if consumed too much. Religion has the same effect.
Utah Bob
04-02-2010, 15:05
I guess I have to take back all the bad stuff I've said about O'Reilly.
Well, perhaps not all of it.;)
Well, perhaps not all of it.;)
I spoke to a VN Vet today, and told him I had read the westboro chruch had been burned down a couple years ago, and he said he was surprised it was not burning as we speak!!!
Oxagen theives!!!!!!!:mad:
Holly
craigepo
04-02-2010, 20:44
Craigpo, I wonder what you think their chances are to having the appeals court overturned?
Predicting an outcome on an appellate case is like reading tea leaves. There could well be $1,000,000 spent on appellate briefs in this case.
When the US Supreme Court accepts a case, you can rest assured that there are some serious issues in the case that need to be resolved. Off hand, I can't think of any cases with similar facts upon which the supreme court might base a decision.
It seems like the trial judge did everything correctly that he could. He had a jury decide the important fact issues, including determining the amount of damages. That a jury awarded the Plaintiff a mult-million dollar verdict is not a trivial issue.
The questions presented are attached below. The case is scheduled for oral arguments in October 2010. You'll be able to find the merits briefs here, when they are filed:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/home.html
Here is how one constitutional analyst framed the case:
"The funeral picketing case (Snyder v. Phelps, et al., 09-751) focuses on a significant question of First Amendment law: the degree of constitutional protection given to remarks that a private person made about another private person, occurring outside the site of a private event. The family of the dead soldier had won a verdict before a jury, but that was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court, finding that the signs displayed at the funeral in western Maryland and later comments on an anti-gay website were protected speech. The petition for review seeks the Court’s protection for families attending a funeral from “unwanted” remarks or displays by protesters.
In March four years ago, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder was killed while serving in Iraq. His family arranged for a private funeral, with Christian burial, at St. John’s Catholic Church in Westminster, Md. When word of the planned funeral appeared in the newspapers, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Sr., pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., who has gained notoriety in recent years by staging protests at military funerals, decided to stage a demonstration at the Maryland funeral. In response to such protests, some 40 states have passed laws to regulate funeral demonstrations.
The Rev. Phelps’ church preaches a strongly anti-gay message, contending that God hates America because it tolerates homosexuality, particularly in the military services. The church also spreads its views through an online site, www.godhatesfags.com. When the Snyder funeral occurred, the Rev. Phelps, two of his daughters and four grandchildren staged a protest nearby. They carried signs with such messages as “God Hates the USA,” “America is doomed,” “Pope in hell,” “Semper fi fags,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The demonstration violated no local laws, and was kept at police orders a distance from the church. After the funeral, the Rev. Phelps continued his protest over the Snyder funeral on his church’s website, accusing the Snyder family of having taught their son irreligious beliefs.
The soldier’s father, Albert Snyder, sued the Rev. Phelps, his daughters and the Westboro Church under Maryland state law, and won a $5 million verdict based on three claims: intrusion into a secluded event, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. (The verdict included $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $2.1 million for punitive damages; the punitive award had been reduced from $8 million by the trial judge.) The Fourth Circuit Court overturned the verdict, concluding that the protesters’ speech was protected by the First Amendment because it was only a form of hyperbole, not an assertion of actual facts about the soldier or his family. While finding that the Phelps’ remarks were “utterly distasteful,” the Circuit Court said they involved matters of public concern, including the issue of homosexuality in the military and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens.
In Albert Snyder’s appeal, his lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s protection of speech about public issues, especially the Justices’ 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, does not apply “to private individuals versus private individuals.” If it does apply, the petition said, “the victimized private individual is left without recourse.” The Circuit Court decision, it added, encourages private individuals to use hyperbolic language to gain constitutional protection “even if that language is targeted at another private individual at a private, religious funeral.”
Even if the Hustler decision does apply to the kind of remarks at issue, the petition asserted, the case also raises the issue of whether those who attend a funeral are like a “captive audience” and thus need protection against intruders who were not invited."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/court-to-rule-on-funeral-pickets/
Good points. Are those briefs available online -- does anyone know? I might actually give myself some homework-- maybe feel like a "real" lawyer again. ;)
Not sure if those are online.
There are a couple of links here to the state policies in regards to the Rights of the Mourning Families.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/topic.aspx?topic=funeral_protests
and the act signed by President Bush which applies to the National Cemeteries.
Attached is the NC Statute for Disorderly conduct (para a 8).
That is a croc 'o kaka...but if I'm not mistakin' Conan O'Brian is pickin' up the tab...
It is Bill O'Reilly from Fox News that is paying the $16,500.
Disregard, missed where this had already been posted.
Not really anything we haven't already heard....
YORK, Pa. – Some nights Albert Snyder wakes up at 3 a.m. Other nights he doesn't sleep at all, tormented by thoughts of the hateful signs carried by a fundamentalist church outside his Marine son's funeral.
"Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
"You're Going to Hell."
"Semper Fi Fags."
Hundreds of grieving families have been targeted by the Westboro Baptist Church, which believes military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality.
Most mourners try to ignore the taunts. But Snyder couldn't let it go. He became the first to sue the church to halt the demonstrations, and he's pursued the group farther than anyone else.
Now, more than four years after his son died in a Humvee accident in Iraq, Snyder's legal battle is headed to the Supreme Court. And his tireless efforts have drawn support from across the country, including a wave of donations after he was ordered to pay the church's court costs — a $16,500 judgment that the congregation plans to use for more protests.
Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, 20, was not gay. But for the Westboro church, any dead soldier is fair game. Pastor Fred Phelps oversees a congregation of 70 to 80 members — mostly his children and grandchildren. They consider themselves prophets, and they insist the nation is doomed.
As Snyder sees it, Westboro isn't engaging in constitutionally protected speech when it pickets funerals. He argues that Phelps and his followers are disrupting private assemblies and harassing people at their most vulnerable — behavior that's an incitement to violence.
"This is more than free speech. This is like yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Somebody's going to get hurt," Snyder said, his voice rising and eyes welling with tears.
Snyder's lawsuit accuses the Topeka, Kan., church of invading his privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He has the backing of his ex-wife and his two daughters, but Snyder insisted on being the only plaintiff.
Except for the 40 hours per week he works selling industrial equipment, the case takes up nearly all his time. He says it's more stressful than a second full-time job.
Snyder, who lives in York, about 85 miles west of Philadelphia, is soft-spoken and polite. But anger and sadness flare up quickly, with little warning. The litigation has forced him to relive the anguish of his son's death, and his grief is still raw.
"It's still very emotional," Snyder said in an interview at his attorney's office. "It's like I constantly relive this every day, and I just wonder sometimes, when this is all over, what I'm going to do with that void. Will the grieving process begin?"
The fight has taken its toll on Snyder's health. The broad-chested 54-year-old has struggled with clinical depression and diabetes.
Snyder fought back against the church in part because he felt Westboro paid special attention to his son. Several weeks after the funeral, the pastor's daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, wrote in an online diatribe that Snyder and his ex-wife taught their son "to defy his creator."
Westboro also protests nonmilitary events, such as the 2007 funeral of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and the deaths of 29 miners last week in West Virginia. The group first grabbed widespread notice in 1998, when members appeared outside the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student whose murder drew national attention.
Lawyers Sean E. Summers and Craig T. Trebilcock, both military veterans, agreed to take Snyder's case pro bono. They warned him about the emotional toll of a long legal dispute.
Snyder won the first round decisively, when a jury in federal court in Baltimore awarded him $10.9 million in damages in October 2007. A judge later reduced the award to $5 million.
Last September, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the verdict, ruling Westboro's protest was constitutionally protected speech.
The Supreme Court agreed last month to consider whether the protesters' actions, no matter how provocative and upsetting, are protected by the First Amendment. The case will be argued in the fall.
Then something unexpected happened: The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay Westboro $16,510 in court costs. While it's not unusual for the losing party in a civil case to be required to pay some costs, it rarely happens when an individual sues a private entity, especially when the case is still active, experts say.
Margie Jean Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' daughters and an attorney, will argue the case before the Supreme Court. She has said the church plans to use the money from Snyder to stage more protests. That's what's so upsetting to Snyder, who says he would drop the matter if the church stopped picketing funerals.
Snyder has received plenty of publicity since filing the lawsuit, but interest intensified after the court-ordered payment.
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly pledged to pay the entire $16,510, and the American Legion has raised more than $20,000. Every day, hundreds of envelopes arrive at Summers' office. Snyder plans to use the money for other court fees and to donate what's left over to veterans.
Not everyone is on Snyder's side, even if they find Westboro's protests loathsome.
They point to the undisputed facts of the case. Westboro contacted police before its protest, which was conducted in a designated area on public land — 1,000 feet from the church where the Mass was held in Westminster, Md.
The protesters — Phelps and six family members — broke no laws. Snyder knew they were present, but he did not see their signs or hear their statements until he turned on the news at his son's wake.
Jonathan M. Turley, a George Washington University law professor, asked his constitutional law class to grapple with the case. At first, the entire class was sympathetic to Snyder. But after they dug deeper, they concluded that Westboro's speech was protected by the First Amendment.
"Once you get down to trying to draw the line between privacy and free speech, it becomes clear that a ruling against Westboro could create the danger of a slippery slope for future courts," Turley said.
Turley, who studies the Supreme Court closely, said it's difficult to predict how the justices will rule.
Phelps-Roper has no doubt the court will favor Westboro. "If that case can prevail, there is no First Amendment left," she said.
Some military families see no reason why such protests cannot be restricted.
"I don't think these people should be allowed to come in and disrupt a family's grief," said Diane Salyers of Sims, Ark., whose son's funeral was picketed by Westboro in 2007. Snyder "speaks for all of us who've been affected by these people."
Where do you draw the Line?
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees certain individual rights to include the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and the Freedom of Religion. It provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances(1.).” There are privileges given to organizations, but the amendment is rather vague in how it applies to multiple individuals expressing their rights at the same time in the same location. Does Mister Brown’s right to Free Speech outweigh the Wilson Family’s right to mourn the loss of their loved one?
At which point does a religious organization cease to be protected under the Freedom of Religion and prosecuted as a Hate Group? The Westboro Baptist Church (“WBC”) is currently being monitored by the Anti-Defamation League and has been classified as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Never heard of the WBC? If you have attended a military funeral since 2004, you may very well have been exposed to them. The church is led by Pastor Fred Phelps, a disbarred lawyer and his two daughters Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebecca Phelps-Davis, who are also lawyers, with a congregation of 71 members, 60 of which are related by blood to Phelps. It appears that the church’s greatest income is through lawsuits based on infringement of their First Amendment Rights. The church runs several websites such as Godhatesfags.com, Godhatesamerica.com, and many others.
The WBC espouses a hateful message through verbal, physical, and written means in their sermons, internet web sites, and physical demonstrations, which is anti-homosexual and has led to multiple confrontations over the last ten years. Phelps and his followers frequently picket various events, especially military funerals, gay pride gatherings, and high-profile political gatherings, arguing it is their sacred duty to warn others of God’s anger. In 2004, they started protesting at military funerals carrying signs with “God hates Fags”, “Thank God for Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)” and many other hateful slogans. Are they expressing their rights to Free Speech under the First Amendment? One could argue yes, in the same manner as the Neo Nazi groups and the Klu Klux Klan with their messages of hate and violence. When criticized, Phelps’ followers claim protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. For those unfamiliar with the United States Constitution, the first ten Amendments were written and signed in 1791, also known as the Bill of Rights, quantified that these rights could not be infringed on by the Federal Government. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, but it was not until the United States Supreme Court ruling on Gitlow vs New York in 1925 which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state(2.).
When Marine Lance Corporal Mathew Snyder was killed in Iraq in 2006, the WBC protested at Mathew’s funeral service, and went so far as to publicly spread propaganda verbally and on the internet that Mathew’s parents has raised a child for the devil, and taught him to defy his Creator, to divorce and commit adultery. The Snyder Family sued the WBC for Defamation of Character, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. In Snyder vs. Phelps (2007), the judge’s instructions to the jury stated that the “First Amendment has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements and that the jury must decide whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection." The jury decided in favor of the Snyder family and awarded them over $10 million dollars. This was reduced to $5 million dollars in 2007 when the WBC appealed the previous verdict(3.).
As of yet, no member of the WBC has been charged with Inciting a Riot, though many have been charged with Disturbing the Peace. In November 2007, Shirley Phelps-Roper was charged with Desecration of a Flag, and Delinquency of a Minor for allowing her ten-year old son trample the US Flag in Nebraska. Desecration of the Flag is a subject which was still being discussed by Congress in the fall of 2008 and has not been passed into law. Several states have their own Desecration of Flag laws, several of which are currently undergoing constitutional review. At the very least this group should be punished for Defamation, and Endangerment of Minors.
The First Amendment has never given an absolute right to people to say whatever they want whenever they want. In Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942), the United States Supreme Court stated that “there are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” These include: the lewd and obscene; the profane; the libelous; and the insulting or “fighting words”—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace(4.).
In Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, certain personal slurs and obscene utterances by an individual were found unworthy of First Amendment protections due to the potential for violence resulting from their utterance. The speech at issue in Chaplinsky came to be known as “fighting words” and was defined by the United States Supreme Court as those words “which are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” Subsequent cases limited Chaplinsky’s application to words that “have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark was addressed(5.).” This has been used in cases against the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood and I believe this line of reasoning would certainly apply to the WBC as well because they are actively provoking a confrontation with their actions.
continued.
Having seen this group in action at over twenty funerals in Colorado, Texas, and North Carolina, I feel nothing but contempt for them. How dare they intrude and spread their filth when all the grieving family wants to do is mourn for their loved one and say good-bye. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trampling on their First Amendment Rights. They can preach all the crap they want to on the other side of town, as long as they properly file the paperwork with the local authorities for their planned protest. This would permit WBC’s speech to be heard by passersby, but it would not incite a breach of the peace at the funeral where the family of a slain Soldier is burying their loved one. It is the same rational used in the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, and that is what WBC preaches. However, in my opinion, when the WBC gets in the face of grieving relatives with hateful/inflammatory language, that’s when their speech loses the protections afforded by the First Amendment because it crosses from political to personal, from words of opposition to fighting words. It is times like this when the saying: “if you are unwilling to stand behind our Troops, feel free to stand in front of them on the front lines” bears special meaning to me.
The Respect for Fallen Heroes Act, signed into law on 29 May 2006 by Congress prohibits protests within 300 feet (100 meters) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration (a division of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs) from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment. This act was voted on by roll call in the House with a majority of 408 – 3, and unanimously by the Senate. In May 2006, President Bush signed the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act in response to Phelps’ protests at military funerals. In Dec 2006, an amendment was made to the federal criminal code making it unlawful for any person to engage in an activity within 60 minutes before and after, and within a specified distance of, a funeral of a member or former member of the Armed Forces at a cemetery other than a national cemetery that intentionally disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such funeral or impedes access to such funeral(6.). The Fallen Heroes Act does not provide protections for the grieving family at the church, funeral home, or the family’s private residence where the memorial service could be taking place. In April 2007, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius signed into law a bill banning the protest of funerals. North Carolina rewrote their Disorderly Conduct Statute in 2006; the bill sponsored by Senator Jacumin went into effect 01 Dec 2006. In addition, several States have drafted laws which outlaw funeral protests and protect the rights of families mourning the loss of a loved one. These include but are not limited to felony charges to protest within 500 feet (approximately 150 meters) of a funeral, a prison term and/or a substantial fine. Currently there are funeral protest laws in 38 states. At least three states are currently pending court rulings on the constitutionality of their laws.
In United States vs. Grace (1983), the Supreme Court held that the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in public forums (streets, parks, sidewalks, etc.) only if the restrictions are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. The government can prohibit a particular type of expression only if the prohibition is narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling state interest(7.). I mention this because if the WBC is protesting on a public forum, then the Government can still regulate it if (1) the restrictions are content-neutral (meaning it doesn’t single out any one point of view on an issue); (2) are narrowly tailored to serve a government interest (the government interest here is to let mourners have time to grieve and prevent chaos/fighting); and (3) leave open ample alternative channels of communication (your “across town” approach and the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act provides in that the WBC can still say what they want but they must do so as not to interfere with a real religious service.
The First Amendment should not be re-written. It was written in such a manner as to provide the maximum protection with the least restrictions for unpopular speech.
It does not matter what your political views are, politics should never be involved in a funeral service for anyone. Let the family mourn their loved one in peace. A mourning family’s rights are every bit as important as an individual’s right to Freedom of Speech.
Additional Information:
(8.)
NC Statute § 14 288.4. Disorderly conduct. (a)
(8) Engages in conduct with the intent to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with the orderly administration of any funeral, memorial service, or family processional to the funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral, service, or family processional, or with the normal activities and functions occurring in the facilities or buildings where a funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral or memorial service, is taking place. Any of the following conduct that occurs within one hour preceding, during, or within one hour after a funeral or memorial service shall constitute disorderly conduct under this subdivision:
a. Displaying, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, any visual image that conveys fighting words or actual or imminent threats of harm directed to any person or property associated with the funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
b. Uttering, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial service, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, loud, threatening, or abusive language or singing, chanting, whistling, or yelling with or without noise amplification in a manner that would tend to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with a funeral, memorial service, or processional route.
c. Attempting to block or blocking pedestrian or vehicular access to the ceremonial site or location being used for a funeral or memorial.
As used in this section the term "building or facility" includes the surrounding grounds and premises of any building or facility used in connection with the operation or functioning of such building or facility.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, any person who willfully engages in disorderly conduct is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(c) A person who commits a violation of subdivision (8) of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of:
(1) A Class 2 misdemeanor for a first offense.
(2) A Class 1 misdemeanor for a second offense.
(3) A Class I felony for a third or subsequent offense. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1971, c. 668, s. 1; 1973, c. 1347; 1975, c. 19, s. 4; 1983, c. 39, s. 5; 1987, c. 671, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 189; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001 26, s. 2; 2006 169, s. 1.)
References:
(1.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page xlvii
(2.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 36
(3.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Other_legal_responses
(4.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 83
(5.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 83
(6.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Heroes_Act
(7.) The First Amendment, Geoffrey R. Stone… [et al.]. – 2nd ed. page 298
(8.) http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2005/FiscalNotes/Senate/PDF/SIN1833v2.pdf
Well, we'll see if they show up today. They said that they are coming to the mission on post today.
I don't think that they will be well received by "joe" if they stand around with their "Thank God for IEDs" sign.
I don't think that they will be well received by "joe" if they stand around with their "Thank God for IEDs" sign.
If it were up to me, the following would be SOP every time they protested a soldiers funeral
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGKx2pTBQc
But I’m not in charge….:D
Interesting that the Westboro people seemed to be enjoying themselves almost in that video? That's really sick and frightening.
Anyone that takes pleasure in the death of fallen heroes with an in your face assitude towards the families and loved ones of those fallen patriots deserves what’s coming……my .02... :mad:
Utah Bob
04-15-2010, 07:47
This "church" consists mostly of Phelps family members. They welcome lawsuits and publicity.
Utah Bob
04-15-2010, 08:46
The Phelps clan.
http://www.break.com/index/crazy_phelps_family_on_tyra.html
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/508400/phelps_family_preaching_hate_part_1/
Utah Bob
04-15-2010, 09:23
Makes you wonder though...MRFL and I were discussing this last night...the hate is such overkill that you have to wonder if Pastor Phelps might have a spiked leather dog collar complete with O-ring hidden somewhere in his PJ drawer. :D
Yea verily Pastor. Methinks thou dost protest too much.:rolleyes:
Stingray
04-15-2010, 11:17
Makes you wonder though...MRFL and I were discussing this last night...the hate is such overkill that you have to wonder if Pastor Phelps might have a spiked leather dog collar complete with O-ring hidden somewhere in his PJ drawer. :D
I believe one of the oldest sons is gay. He is obviously estranged from the family now. He moved from Topeka, KS when his dad lost his mind and started protesting.
Justices appear set to limit funeral protests
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
11:37 AM PDT, October 6, 2010
In a case testing the boundaries of free speech, the Supreme Court hears arguments in the matter of a dead Marine's family that was targeted by protesters. Justice Breyer says the court's ruling will have an impact on the Internet, since it tests whether personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.
Washington — The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments Wednesday in a funeral protest case, sounded as though they are inclined to set a limit to the free-speech rule to permit lawsuits against those who target ordinary citizens with especially personal and hurtful attacks.
The First Amendment says the government may not infringe the freedom of speech, but it is less clear whether it also shields speakers from private lawsuits.
At issue Wednesday was whether the Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq could sue a Kansas family which protested near his funeral. The Phelps family not only held signs that said "Thank God for IEDs," but they also put on their website a message that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son "to defy the Creator" and "serve the devil."
A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was thrown out on free-speech grounds.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, usual defenders of the First Amendment, said they thought people could be sued for outrageous personal attacks.
Kennedy said "certain harassing conduct" was not always protected as free speech. "Torts and crimes are committed with words all the time," he said, referring to legal wrongs that result in lawsuits. "The First Amendment doesn't stop state tort law in appropriate circumstances," Breyer commented later.
Though the case is about funeral protests, Breyer said the court's ruling will have an impact on the Internet, since it tests whether personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.
Snyder sued the Phelps family under a common provision of state law that permits claims for an intentional infliction of emotional distress.
During Wednesday's argument, the justices seemed to agree that a general protest sign, such as "Stop the War" or even "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" would be protected as free speech. The Phelps family crossed the line when they made clear they were targeting the dead Marine's father with their protest, argued Sean E. Summers, a lawyer for Snyder. "We have personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family," he said.
New Justice Elena Kagan drew the attention of her colleagues with her opening question to Margie J. Phelps. The Kansas lawyer who was defending her family began by saying their protests were intended to provoke "public discussion" about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Kagan quickly pressed her. Would it be permissible, she asked, for the protesters to pick out "a wounded soldier and follow him around," holding "offensive and outrageous signs" near his home and calling him a "war criminal?" In such a case, "does he have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?" Kagan said.
Phelps hesitated, but then said no. "My answer, Justice Kagan, is: No, I don't believe that person should have a cause of action."
That answer appeared to turn the argument against Phelps and the funeral protesters. Later, Justice Samuel A. Alito pressed her with another such example.
Suppose protesters stopped a grandmother whose son had been killed in the war, and they "speak to her in the most vile terms" and say they were "happy" he was killed. Is this protected free speech? Alito asked.
Phelps responded calmly, but avoided a direct answer. It might be illegal "stalking" or "fighting words."
Alito dismissed the "fighting words" defense. "It's an elderly person. She's really not in a position to punch this person in the nose," he said.
Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the free-speech side throughout the argument. She noted that protesters were kept away from the funeral in this case, and they were being sued only because of their troubling message.
Breyer and several others said they were looking for a middle ground that would allow the Snyders to win, but not threaten wide-open public debate. "What I'm trying to accomplish is to allow this tort to exist, but not allow it to interfere with an important public message," he said.
It will be several months before the court rules in Snyder vs. Phelps.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1006-court-funerals-web-20101006,0,7606447,print.story
I hate to come down on the side of the nuts but this ruling could have hate speech all over it.
If the SC comes down on the side of the family look for an all out assault on individuals, news outlets and web sites that have "hate speech".
And what will constitute "hate speech"?. Anything you can find a judge to agree with you on.