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.
The Phelps have police protection.
I think that protesting a funeral should be considered harassment and not free speech.
Protesting a funeral is just that, an attempt to bother and enrage people and cause them emotional distress.
Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice
On October 6th 2010 the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps | Citizen Media Law Project
---
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 privae 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 Courts protection for families attending a funeral from unwanted remarks or displays by protesters.
kansasprairie.net SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON SNYDER VS PHELPS
Snyder v. Phelps : SCOTUSblog
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Courts 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 members funeral constitutes a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
---
Where do you stand and why?
Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice
On October 6th 2010 the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps | Citizen Media Law Project
---
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 privae 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 Courts protection for families attending a funeral from unwanted remarks or displays by protesters.
kansasprairie.net SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON SNYDER VS PHELPS
Snyder v. Phelps : SCOTUSblog
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Courts 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 members funeral constitutes a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
---
Where do you stand and why?
Much as I despise the WBC and think Phelps should be smacked down, the facts in this case make it the wrong one to pursue.
Remember Snyder lost at the lower court level because he did not personally observe and was not even aware of the WBC protest at the funeral itself, as I recall WBC was given a permit to protest in an area removed from the site. Snyder sought out and viewed coverage of the protest in the media and even on WBC's own website, then used that third party coverage as basis for his suit.
Voluntary exposure does not equal infliction of emotional distress, no matter how nasty the WBC is the principle here is too important to use this case as a vehicle. Nor should the standards for public figures be expanded to apply to private individuals.
Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice
On October 6th 2010 the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps | Citizen Media Law Project
---
Snyder v. Phelps : SCOTUSblog
Issue: (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.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
---
Where do you stand and why?
Much as I despise the WBC and think Phelps should be smacked down, the facts in this case make it the wrong one to pursue.
Remember Snyder lost at the lower court level because he did not personally observe and was not even aware of the WBC protest at the funeral itself, as I recall WBC was given a permit to protest in an area removed from the site. Snyder sought out and viewed coverage of the protest in the media and even on WBC's own website, then used that third party coverage as basis for his suit.
Voluntary exposure does not equal infliction of emotional distress, no matter how nasty the WBC is the principle here is too important to use this case as a vehicle. Nor should the standards for public figures be expanded to apply to private individuals.
They were burying their son. I doubt very much whether they knew what day of the week it was, yet alone who was there. They have a right to privacy and to bury their dead in peace. Equally as important, so do the families who have yet to pay that horrific price. It's not just about the Snyder family.... If these creatures are not stopped, they'll be free to continue inflicting their hatred on the families of others. We owe those people our support to stop this scum from profiting from their abhorrent behavior.
Much as I despise the WBC and think Phelps should be smacked down, the facts in this case make it the wrong one to pursue.
Remember Snyder lost at the lower court level because he did not personally observe and was not even aware of the WBC protest at the funeral itself, as I recall WBC was given a permit to protest in an area removed from the site. Snyder sought out and viewed coverage of the protest in the media and even on WBC's own website, then used that third party coverage as basis for his suit.
Voluntary exposure does not equal infliction of emotional distress, no matter how nasty the WBC is the principle here is too important to use this case as a vehicle. Nor should the standards for public figures be expanded to apply to private individuals.
They were burying their son. I doubt very much whether they knew what day of the week it was, yet alone who was there. They have a right to privacy and to bury their dead in peace. Equally as important, so do the families who have yet to pay that horrific price. It's not just about the Snyder family.... If these creatures are not stopped, they'll be free to continue inflicting their hatred on the families of others. We owe those people our support to stop this scum from profiting from their abhorrent behavior.
The problem is that expanding either the definition of IIEC or expanding standards for public figures to apply to private individuals will not in any sense be confined to Phelps and the WBC. It will become the rule for us all due to the value of precedent.
Would you really want to be potentially liable for things you said or did that the "victim" wasn't even present to see - yet specific intent to harm that person who wasn't even there to see it would be implied? Would you really want your privacy to have only the same protection as a celebrity, politician or any other person who actively seeks out the limelight?
I agree with you 100% on wanting to shut Phelps down, but this is the wrong case to do it with.
They were burying their son. I doubt very much whether they knew what day of the week it was, yet alone who was there. They have a right to privacy and to bury their dead in peace. Equally as important, so do the families who have yet to pay that horrific price. It's not just about the Snyder family.... If these creatures are not stopped, they'll be free to continue inflicting their hatred on the families of others. We owe those people our support to stop this scum from profiting from their abhorrent behavior.
The problem is that expanding either the definition of IIEC or expanding standards for public figures to apply to private individuals will not in any sense be confined to Phelps and the WBC. It will become the rule for us all due to the value of precedent.
Would you really want to be potentially liable for things you said or did that the "victim" wasn't even present to see - yet specific intent to harm that person who wasn't even there to see it would be implied? Would you really want your privacy to have only the same protection as a celebrity, politician or any other person who actively seeks out the limelight?
I agree with you 100% on wanting to shut Phelps down, but this is the wrong case to do it with.
I don't want to shut Phelps down. I would rather have these people out in the open where we can see them than to force them underground.... however, the Snyder family - along with every other American has the right to go about their business in peace. What the Phelps family are doing is harrassment, pure and simple. Personally, I find it very hard not to wish them long and painful deaths but I do try to keep that emotion under control. The rights of one individual or group do not outweigh the rights of others.
I support the right of the Phelps to behave like the moronic heathens that they are.... But, I also support the right of others not to have that behavior inflicted on them.
I support the right of the Phelps to behave like the moronic heathens that they are.... But, I also support the right of others not to have that behavior inflicted on them.
I agree
Much as I despise the WBC and think Phelps should be smacked down, the facts in this case make it the wrong one to pursue.
Remember Snyder lost at the lower court level because he did not personally observe and was not even aware of the WBC protest at the funeral itself, as I recall WBC was given a permit to protest in an area removed from the site. Snyder sought out and viewed coverage of the protest in the media and even on WBC's own website, then used that third party coverage as basis for his suit.
Voluntary exposure does not equal infliction of emotional distress, no matter how nasty the WBC is the principle here is too important to use this case as a vehicle. Nor should the standards for public figures be expanded to apply to private individuals.
They were burying their son. I doubt very much whether they knew what day of the week it was, yet alone who was there. They have a right to privacy and to bury their dead in peace. Equally as important, so do the families who have yet to pay that horrific price. It's not just about the Snyder family.... If these creatures are not stopped, they'll be free to continue inflicting their hatred on the families of others. We owe those people our support to stop this scum from profiting from their abhorrent behavior.
The problem is that expanding either the definition of IIEC or expanding standards for public figures to apply to private individuals will not in any sense be confined to Phelps and the WBC. It will become the rule for us all due to the value of precedent.
Would you really want to be potentially liable for things you said or did that the "victim" wasn't even present to see - yet specific intent to harm that person who wasn't even there to see it would be implied? Would you really want your privacy to have only the same protection as a celebrity, politician or any other person who actively seeks out the limelight?
I agree with you 100% on wanting to shut Phelps down, but this is the wrong case to do it with.
I think it really comes down to...Is the spirit of "free speech" really infringed upon by prohibiting certain "speech" from the vicinity of private events...? I think not.
I think it really comes down to...Is the spirit of "free speech" really infringed upon by prohibiting certain "speech" from the vicinity of private events...? I think not.
Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice
On October 6th 2010 the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps | Citizen Media Law Project
---
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 privae 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 Courts protection for families attending a funeral from unwanted remarks or displays by protesters.
kansasprairie.net SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON SNYDER VS PHELPS
Snyder v. Phelps : SCOTUSblog
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Courts 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 members funeral constitutes a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
---
Where do you stand and why?
Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice
On October 6th 2010 the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps | Citizen Media Law Project
---
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 privae 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 Courts protection for families attending a funeral from unwanted remarks or displays by protesters.
kansasprairie.net SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON SNYDER VS PHELPS
Snyder v. Phelps : SCOTUSblog
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Courts 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 members funeral constitutes a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
---
Where do you stand and why?
free speech is what it is in this context, even to protect the obnoxious and stupid. This will be a 9-0 decision I suspect.
Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice
On October 6th 2010 the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps | Citizen Media Law Project
---
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 privae 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 Courts protection for families attending a funeral from unwanted remarks or displays by protesters.
kansasprairie.net SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON SNYDER VS PHELPS
Snyder v. Phelps : SCOTUSblog
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Courts 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 members funeral constitutes a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
---
Where do you stand and why?
free speech is what it is in this context, even to protect the obnoxious and stupid. This will be a 9-0 decision I suspect.
Snyder vs Phelps: Freedom - Liberty - Justice
On October 6th 2010 the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Snyder v Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps | Citizen Media Law Project
---
Snyder v. Phelps : SCOTUSblog
Issue: (1) Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Courts 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 members funeral constitutes a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.
Plain English Issue: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
---
Where do you stand and why?
free speech is what it is in this context, even to protect the obnoxious and stupid. This will be a 9-0 decision I suspect.
I think so. Especially considering the core of the case wasn't these assholes getting in the family's face, but Mr. Snyder seeking out and watching the video of it on WBC's website.
Have you read the 4th Circuit decision being appealed? It's enlightening.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf
