Father of slain Marine wins case against funeral protesters

That is less a free speech issue than it is a breach of contract issue. One has a contractual right to enjoy the show without being disturbed by someone yelling "Fire!" when there is no fire.

 

Thank God for Fred Phelps

http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-40497.html

 

I agree, the jury shouldn't have convicted them. How much longer until the government will allow other frivolous cases like this pass?

If he can't speak his mind against sin then soon they will tell other preacher what they can and can't say.

Even if I don't agree with what he says 100% this is supposed to be a free country. Well, somewhat free.

Giving up freedoms for a false sense of security is ludicrous.

 

//The photo shows the 'protesters' standing
on a public sidewalk, on a public street.
I saw the video, as well, on the web site.
I did not see any physical confrontation
or harassment of any sort, aside from
the placards. And I have seen much more
offensive protests, in my lifetime. That's good enough for me.//

A couple of years ago I saw a Christian Bikers' sight.
There were 6 Phelps there, in a public space.
There were 60 cops there, in a public space,
spending public money to protect the 6 Phelps folk
from the:.
120 Christian Bikers there, in a public space.
There were 200 maybe 250 attendees of a
Hero's Funeral IN A PRIVATE CHURCH.
(that was the physical order they were in:
Phelp-ites, cops, Bikers, Funeral attenees.

Oklahoma has a law that seperates the
Memorial Service, burial place and the route
between from such demonstrations by
2 hours or 2 miles. Even the Phelps of Kansas
have honored that law*. In fact, they don't
even go through Oklahoma any more to get to
Texas. [sick humor] The only law in Texas
on the matter is that you cannot shoot the
same protester with more than five bullets
(per gun, per day). [/sick humor]

* note: Last protest in Norman, OK the Church
was located South of the OU (University of
Oklahoma) Campus -- the protest was
North of OU.

 

What is the connection is there between a particular sin and protesting this soldier's funeral?

This soldier was not a public figure. His family and friends have a right to bury him in peace.

 

Do you ever read the messages and "flowers" on findagrave.com? Can the relatives of those for whom ugly and vile messages are left now sue for infliction of emtional distress? There are several I know of who have had the message feature turned off because "it was being continually misused"-- Richard Nixon, Joseph McCarthy, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Joseph Kennedy, Jefferson Davis, et al; and Jerry Falwell's was turned off almost immediately after his notice was put there.

 

Interesting site.

They deleted all the comments to Falwell.

Jerry Falwell (1933 - 2007) - Find A Grave Memorial

They should have just left it on and reported people to their ISP.

 

There is no First Amendment case involved here. IF the government was taking Phelps to court for criminal charges, then the First Amendment issues would apply. However, this is a CIVIL matter, not criminal. Even though you have the right to free speech, you can be sued in civil court for defamation of character, inflicting emotional distress, etc.

Many on the board seem to be confusing criminal liability with civil liability, which are two very different things, with different standards of proof. No one is attempting to jail Phelps, or to supress his speech through State Action, at least not in this particular lawsuit. He committed a tort by intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the Plantiff.A tort (civil) can be committed, without a crime(legal) being committed.

Again, First Amendment issues would only apply if the governement was trying to put Phelps in jail for his speech.

 

In that case, then when Jerry Falwell tried suing Larry Flynt for printing a cartoon and saying he (Falwell) had sex with his mother in an outhouse, the 1st Amendment does not apply because neither Falwell nor governing authorities were trying to put Flynt in jail. But it was ruled in Flynt's favor on 1st Amendment grounds.

 

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]A key difference is that Falwell was considered a Public Figure, seeking to recover damages for the publication of a caricature and as such must meet the "actual malice" standard.

The plaintiff in the Phelps case is a private citizen seeking to recover damages for disrupting his son's funeral. The case was brought in a different jurisdiction. Different evidence is needed, and different legal standards apply.
[/FONT]

 

What is the definition of a "public figure?" Falwell held not government position, while the marine obviously did.

 

One does not have to be a government official to be considered a public figure. Below is the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]legal syllabus for Hustler v. Falwell:


Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]Hustler made political speech directed rather pointedly at a public figure, and thus triggered First Amendment scrutiny. Phelps may be making a political point, but he injured an innocent bystander.

There's also a distinction between publication in a national magazine and protesting at the funeral of private citizen's son. If Phelps had just run his website, or published articles stating his views in other media, he'd have avoided this lawsuit entirely. Phelps was found liable, by a civil court, because he spoke at the wrong time, in the wrong place.
[/FONT]

 

What Hustler did to Falwell was defamation of character. He had a valid claim.

 

This thread has reached or passed page three. It will be closed sometime after 9.00 am EST today

 

He had a valid claim, until the courts ruled otherwise.

 

Closed at 10.15 AM EST