Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder controversy

[Quantum Windbag]

That is the guy who leads that so called church, they protest funerals because "God hates Gays." I thought you said you wanted all the facts, and the fact is that, at heart, this guy is a left winger.

Funny, many left wingers are atheist. Most don't believe in "magical creation". Few want the US to follow "God's Laws".

Can you think of a political party that is opposite all these things?

A political party who wants to teach magical creation in public schools?

A political party that is so anti gay, they want to criminalize gays?

A political party that is nearly all Christian?

However Fred Phelps registered, we know what political party his views mirror most.

Don't deny it or you may become a laughing stock.

Deny that you think he is a Republican simply because of your bias? Why should I do that? The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which version of magical creation and gay bashing they spout, neither party actually supports civil rights.

 

[goldcatt]

okay, we seem to be able to agree that phelps is bent and using twisted false christian values to be an attention-getting blowhard, but mr. phelps has this opinion supporting his right to be offensive:

“As utterly distasteful as these signs are,” Judge Robert B. King wrote for the majority, “they involve matters of public concern, including the issues of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens.”

my feeling was that the snyders erred in pursuing tort litigation rather than turning the other cheek. by suing, phelps is getting all the publicity and then some that he seeks. i also feel like the more advanced critters we know as god and the holy host do a much better job of punishing shit stains like phelps than a court can do.

I disagree with King. While what we, as a society are willing or not to tolerate as a society should not be determined by law.

Further, Phelps has no real argument. God is killing Marines because we allow homosexuals in the military? Phelps has made his name showing up at the funerals of deceased military personnel and disrespecting their ultimate sacrifice with his idiotic political agenda? Fuck him. I'd have NO problem putting my boot up his ass and calling him for the slimy, ground-hugging worm he is.

But .. what makes YOU better? With few exceptions, everyone hears want suits their fancy and try to build castles on sand arguments to support them, no matter how ridiculous. The very fact that Obama holds the Presidency of the US supports THAT. I see little difference between Phelps and Obama. Both or under-qualified mental midgets with about as much foresight as my cocker spaniel.

i think you are getting close to the real 1st amendment issue here and that is: even if obnoxious speech is protected, if those actions result in tortious harm to someone, should they be able to get some compensation for the damage done by the speech?

there must be something to phelps' argument or the high court would never listen to it.

are you game for posting the court documents in here?

this is sport for me.

i like to think that i am a competant and objective journalist but this one offends me in many ways.

not the least of which is that a sociopath like phelps can even gain access to the supreme court when i've buried so many righteous people who were churned under by a system out of control without so much as due process at the local court level.

There is a very real First Amendment issue here, one that made enough Justices think it was worth listening to - or that the lower court screwed it up - that they got at least 4 of them to agree to hear it.

I haven't read the court documents, but I would highly suspect it's the latter. I'm not sure how I feel about that, personally. I'm a huge proponent of free speech on one hand, but the real question is whether speech that intentionally inflicts distress on its audience is protected from State tort litigation. I would tend to say NO, not if the intent is plain - as it is here.

 

[tommywho70x]

the documents are on the mathewsnyder.org link in the first post.

one of the most interesting and relevant questions before the court is whether free speech rights trump th ose of freedom of religion. a ruling on that can set a precedent with a very broad reach into hate speech of all types.

 

[Sheldon]

SCOTUS issued a writ of certiorari to the Fourth Circuit on 5/24.

There are four questions the case addresses:

I. Whether the First Amendment permits Mr.
Snyder, a private figure plaintiff who had no
connection to the “issues” cited by the Phelpses,
to seek judicial recourse for the harm intentionally
inflicted upon him by the Phelpses’ tortious
conduct?

II. Whether Mr. Snyder should not be required to
prove that the Phelpses’ speech could “reasonably
be interpreted as stating actual facts” in order to
recover for intentional infliction of emotional
distress?

III. Whether Mr. Snyder, as a member of a captive
audience mourning the loss of his son at a funeral,
is entitled to a remedy for the Phelpses’ intentional
invasion of his privacy?

IV . Whether Mr. Snyder’s First Amendment rights to
free exercise of religion and peaceable assembly
should outweigh the Phelpses’ First Amendment
right to target hateful speech at him during his
son’s funeral?



A few details in the writ about what went down at the funeral; it's fucking disgusting:

(Vol. VIII at 2156, 2195.) Mr. Snyder knew that the Phelpses would be present; nonetheless, he attempted to put them out of his mind and focus instead on his son’s burial.

On the day of the funeral, the Phelpses placed themselves at the main entrance of St. John’s Catholic Church property to ensure that Mr. Snyder and his family would encounter them. In response, Matthew Snyder’s funeral procession was re-directed to an alternate entrance.

(Vol. VIII at 2244.) Even after readjusting their route, the Snyders were only 200–300 feet from the Phelpses during the funeral procession. (Vol. VII at 2079, 2141.) On the way from the viewing to the funeral, as Mr. Snyder was trying to focus on the memory of his son, he looked at his daughters and saw the Phelpses’ signs behind them.

(Vol. VIII at 2144.) Unsurprisingly, the Phelpses’ presence turned Matthew Snyder’s funeral into a circus. (Vol. VII at 2082.) Even according to the Phelpses’ expert, they were a “petty irritant.” (Vol. X at 2571.) The Phelpses staged their protest directly in front of the St. John’s Catholic elementary school and across the street from a public school.

(Vol. VIII at 2242, 2249.) To mitigate the harm the Phelpses’ presence and activities would have on the school children, the school mandated that all blinds be closed, covered doors and windows facing the Phelpses with paper, and offered “excused absences” to children whose parents chose to keep them out that day.

(Vol. VIII at 2249–2250.) According to the testimony of Father Leo Patalinghug, the associate pastor at St. John’s, the Phelpses’ presence eliminated the “peaceful experience for our school or the community.”

(Vol. VIII at 2251.) The Phelpses brought various signs with them to Westminster, Maryland, as part of their protest of Matthew’s funeral. One of the signs read, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” Mr. Snyder testified that he took the sign to mean that the Phelpses were “thanking God [his] son was dead.” (Vol. VIII at 2113.) Additionally, the Phelpses attacked Mr. Snyder’s religion at a time when he was particularly vulnerable: one of the Phelpses’ signs read, “Priests Rape Boys.”

(Vol. VIII at 2115.) Several other signs included phrases directed specifically at Mr. Snyder’s deceased son: “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You.” These signs made Mr. Snyder “sick” because his son “was the only dead person there,” and the signs “were definitely directed
at” him. (Vol. VIII at 2119, 2121.) Though Matthew Snyder was not homosexual, at least two signs used a homophobic epithet (Vol. VIII at 2120, 2196) while another included a picture of two males performing anal sexual intercourse.2

Fred Phelps, Sr., candidly explained that his motive behind protesting military funerals was to seek revenge. According to Phelps, approximately three years before trial, members of the WBC were assaulted by Marines.

(Vol. VIII at 2226.) In retaliation, WBC members began protesting military funerals and have continually terrorized grieving military families since the alleged assault. For example, the Phelpses created “Sign Movies” that replicated their protest of Matthew Snyder’s funeral. (Vol. VIII at 2216.) Further, it was the Phelpses’ stated goal to “place a little bug in” in Mr. Snyder’s head. (Vol. VIII at 2111–2112.)

It's 67 pages long.


I think Snyder's First Amendment claim outweighs Phelpses'. The WBC, and Phelps specifically, stated their intentions to cause emotional distress, and used defamation to do so.

Several signs used the second person "you" and referred to soldiers, and the Snyders were the only military funeral--only funeral, period--there that day, and the WBC picketed the entrance the procession was supposed to go through. So take that in conjunction with Phelps' stated intention, and I think there's a solid case for hate speech.

Generally, I think if speech can be demonstrated as hateful with the intention to cause damage, and damages as a result of that speech can be proven, then legal recourse and awards should be allowed. That's kinda broad. It'll be interesting to see what the Court drags up about this, and how widely they rule.

I think the Fourth Circuit decision should be overturned and the original jury verdict should stand. But I'm not very dispassionate about this.

Okay, done playing pretend Justice for the day!

 

[tommywho70x]

good work. thanks for saving me the trouble of doing the whack and cut job.

this also clears up the most important question i had which was are these snyders blowing nothing into something to advance some peculiar agenda of their own? clearly that's not the case.

just a catholic family getting wailed on by a deranged evangelical whacko.

perhaps some might still call their complaint trivial and frivolous, especially at this level. nobody was physically injured --- no property was damaged.

so this truly comes down to an important first amendment question. whose rights have been tortiously infringed?

does anybody know of related cases? the only one in my experience that comes close was the village of skokie vs. frank colin and his NSWPPA (National Socialist White People's Party of America) that i had the pleasure of being smack dab on the fringe of during my JDL days.

i'm pretty sure that was resolved in the district court. i'll see what's out there on it.