Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Father of slain Marine wins case against funeral protesters
Pa. man awarded nearly $11 million in compensatory and punitive damages
By Matthew Dolan
Sun reporter
5:54 PM EDT, October 31, 2007
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.
Over the past week, the civil trial in U.S. District Court in Baltimore turned into a constitutional debate over how far the First Amendment should extend to protect the most extreme forms of expression. The groundbreaking verdict is believed to be the first time the fundamental Christian church from Topeka that is composed mainly of family members has been successfully sued for its shock funeral protests.
One legal expert worried that the initial size of the compensatory judgment, which was awarded first, could be a setback for those who believe in broad free-speech protections.
"The award -- $2.9 million -- is an awful lot of money for compensatory damages," University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber said today. "This was in a public space. While the actions are reprehensible, the First Amendment protects a lot that's reprehensible."
U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett, who had sealed the church's financial documents, said from the bench that the compensatory damage award would already eclipse Westboro's assets...
The award surpasses their assets, good deal!
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,4193323,print.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout
Will never survive appeal.
If free speech means anything, it must mean protection for speech that isn't liked. Otherwise, it's meaningless. If you don't like Fred Phelps, protest HIM.
Yeah! This wont put a damper on free speech. People are still free to speak on sidewalks and meeting rooms. They can even hold marches. They can buy radio and TV time. They can buy ads in newspapers. They can even create their own flyers. Yet, to hoot and holler and wave offensive pickets at a private funeral is just asking too much. Id say the same about abortion clinic protestors. People can disagree without being so disagreeable.
Will never survive appeal.
If free speech means anything, it must mean protection for speech that isn't liked. Otherwise, it's meaningless. If you don't like Fred Phelps, protest HIM.
Will never survive appeal.
If free speech means anything, it must mean protection for speech that isn't liked. Otherwise, it's meaningless. If you don't like Fred Phelps, protest HIM.
You seem like an absolutist so let me test your resolve when it comes to free speech. Im allowed to scream at the top of my lungs 1 foot from the front door, at women as they enter clinics that, among other things, provide abortions. Yes-or-no? Atheists are allowed to parade in front of churches while carrying offensive signs and shout curse words while people enter the church. Im allowed to go down a dark alley in Harlem, New York at 2 oclock in the morning screaming God Hates ******* with a bullhorn and not get arrested. I am speaking, arent I? Isnt there a law against disturbing the peace or inciting a riot?
Will never survive appeal.
If free speech means anything, it must mean protection for speech that isn't liked. Otherwise, it's meaningless. If you don't like Fred Phelps, protest HIM.
You seem like an absolutist so let me test your resolve when it comes to free speech. Im allowed to scream at the top of my lungs 1 foot from the front door, at women as they enter clinics that, among other things, provide abortions. Yes-or-no? Atheists are allowed to parade in front of churches while carrying offensive signs and shout curse words while people enter the church. Im allowed to go down a dark alley in Harlem, New York at 2 oclock in the morning screaming God Hates ******* with a bullhorn and not get arrested. I am speaking, arent I? Isnt there a law against disturbing the peace or inciting a riot?
The first amendment applies to the government's obligation not to interfere with freedom of speech. If you do it on my property or at a private family function, you're tresspassing.
You'd probably get killed doing that in Harlem. Haven't you ever seen Die Hard With a Vengeance?
Okay. So as long as I shout from a public sidewalk in front of a church, abortion clinic, or downtown Harlem square there is no legal problem. Thanks.
I'm sorry. Where did I say that? Your argument about incitement was simply irrelevant to the issue of the loonies at the funerals, IMO.
And if you want to get your butt kicked for saying something stupid someplace you shouldn't say it, well, more power to ya.
Where do taunting on a sidewalk (free speech) end and harassment, creating a public disturbance, disorderly conduct, and inciting a riot begin?
Where do taunting on a sidewalk (free speech) end and harassment, creating a public disturbance, disorderly conduct, and inciting a riot begin?
The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969)[1], the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". Similarly, in Cohen v. California (1971), the fact that Cohen had been arrested for wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets."
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the court overturned a statute prohibiting cross-burning on the grounds that the specific statute was overbroad; ie., that it risked proscribing lawful conduct. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
btw ... happy birthday, matts ....
You seem like an absolutist so let me test your resolve when it comes to free speech. Im allowed to scream at the top of my lungs 1 foot from the front door, at women as they enter clinics that, among other things, provide abortions. Yes-or-no? Atheists are allowed to parade in front of churches while carrying offensive signs and shout curse words while people enter the church. Im allowed to go down a dark alley in Harlem, New York at 2 oclock in the morning screaming God Hates ******* with a bullhorn and not get arrested. I am speaking, arent I? Isnt there a law against disturbing the peace or inciting a riot?
