Dad Ordered To Pay Legal Costs

[Stras]

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.

[Stras]

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/Westbor...egal_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.../SIN1833v2.pdf

[Stras]

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.

[T-Rock]

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….

[T-Rock]

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...

[Utah Bob]

This "church" consists mostly of Phelps family members. They welcome lawsuits and publicity.

[Utah Bob]

The Phelps clan.

http://www.break.com/index/crazy_phe...y_on_tyra.html

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/508400...g_hate_part_1/

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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.

Yea verily Pastor. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[Stingray]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

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.

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.

[akv]

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/nationwo...47,print.story

[Pete]

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.