Fed Judge Orders Liens On Fred Phelps' Church, Law Office
By Logan Murphy Friday Apr 04, 2008 8:36am
Topeka Capital Journal: (h/t J & BillW)
A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday ordered liens on the Westboro Baptist Church building and the Phelps-Chartered Law office.
If the case presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Richard D. Bennett is upheld by an appeals court, the church, at 3701 S.W. 12th, and the office building, at 1414 S.W. Topeka Blvd., could be obtained by the court and sold, with the proceeds being applied toward $5 million in damages Bennett imposed on church members for picketing a military funeral.
The $5 million penalty is the result of a lawsuit filed against three of the church's principals by Albert Snyder, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, whose funeral was picketed by church members. Read on...
It's too early to know how this will be resolved, but I'm hoping the appeals court upholds the ruling and the family of the fallen soldier prevails. These vile people drag their kids along to picket soldier's funerals and spread hatred around the country. For a good laugh check out this brave dude who Rick Roll'd the Phelps clan as they attempted to get their hate on.
Login or Register to post comments.
Despicable.
Hopefully it will be resolved with harsh fines and punishments against Phelps and his despicable followers. These people are the epitome of what's bad about religion - any religion .
What black souls these people must have to be so hateful. Not that I believe in souls, but you get the point. They're just rotten.
more at my blog...
He is crazy and has no taste... but free speech is free speech.... we are supposed to do that whole "i disagree but will fight for your right to speak" thing, right? If the family has legal standing then I suppose that is ok, but it bothers me that we would cheer as someone is punished for speaking out, even if what they say is horrible...
Let me guess now GOD HATES JUDGES !
While I can't think of a more deserving group of people, this is actually a really bad decision that hopefully will be reversed. There is a very good chance that this suit, if allowed to stand, will come back to haunt us in the future.
What the Phelps's did was stand on public property and hold signs communicating their genuine religious convictions. I just can't get behind the idea that the US government can enforce actions to dismantle your church because you expressed your unpopular religious beliefs in public. That don't feel right to me.
BEWARE, the check out this dude link pops up a malware adware pop-up
It's amazing how far some will go to tie unrelated events to their pet cause. I was eating at an Italian restaurant the other day and the Flying Spaghetti Monster stained my good shirt with suace splatters because I support choice. How do I get the abortionists to pay my dry cleaning bill?
Even horrible, monstrous people should be allowed to speak in the U.S., no? If they engage in other things that deny others' rights, that would be different. But peaceful demonstrations are protected by our Constitutional right to free speech. And I think it's great that public speech can inform people about one's views. I remember a full-page ad in the NYT paid for the by the Anti-Defamation League, containing the verbatim hate speech of a Nation of Islam leader, was a perfect way to inform everyone about how hateful and destructive the speaker was. And the speaker was outraged that his hate speech got a bigger audience. It was perfect to use free speech to inform people of the face of hatred.
Rhett @ 3:
I've been watching this group, and yes what they say is hateful and horrible. I don't know how they can possibly call themselves Christian - my Jesus certainly would not be welcomed in their 'church'.
This lawsuit was not so much about free speech but how this group chose to use it, which was picketing the funerals of dead soldiers. They could have spoken their viewpoint in their own church, through the media, or on the internet. They could have written books. No one has ever said they did not have the right to speak their message, hateful or not. But instead they chose to spew their hate in view of grieving families and that is the basis of this lawsuit. Free speech does not give you the right to deliver that message in a way that uses others as tools, especially when those others are the families of soldiers who are in the midst of experiencing an excruciating loss.
Fred Phelps and his Westboro "church" are the MOST dispicable people on the planet... BUT... I believe they have every right to picket any funeral they want. There are no laws against bad taste that I know of. I support their right to express their hate, whenver, wherever they want.
It appears that god hates everrything.
Why did he/she so called create us?
So he/she could bring us back by killing us? Sounds like a great god. I can't believe in this god thing. Seems a bit sick to me.
You can only support free speech by standing up for the right of speech that you don't agree with. In essence, the Phelps gang was fined millions of dollars for protesting at a public location. Why is any progressive applauding huge fines being imposed for protesting in public places? Can no one connect the dots and see how this could be used against you?
Interesting to note is that the family of the dead soldier was given millions for emotional distress. How much was George W. Bush fined?
just like the oj, peter popoff, the jimmy swaggart, crazy ol' phred will find some way to cheat the justice system outta its due.
"check out this brave dude"
An ad on this link plants a virus on any machine visiting the site. You don't have to click on the ad, it's embedded in the page. Beware.
As someone who believes deeply in freedom of speech, this is a case that really puts the fundamentals of what you believe to the test. You're either defending censorship, or you're defending Fred Phelps. Ugh.
I certainly will shed no tears if this is allowed to stand. But I will feel genuine fear of the path this leads to.
(And I'll repeat the warning from earlier to watch out for the malware pop-up that comes with the linked video clip.)
Nobody's saying they can't picket and their right to free speech is not being taken away. They're simply being held accountable for their actions. When your actions cause physical or emotional harm to others, those who have been harmed have a right to recourse in the courts, and that's what has happened here.
What happened to Freedom of Speech?
It is not a matter of free speech. They can say anything they want UNTIL they infringe on others' rights, harass or inflict harm. As they say, your rights end at your nose. Phelps could stand in the town square & preach all he wants to, and in his church, and be within his rights, but, and here is the point, he chose to harass & picket private people in their moment of grief, knowing full well how emotional they would be at the funeral of their loved one. This is where he crossed the line; no matter how far away he picketed, as long as it was within viewing distance of the funeral event (and it was), he was intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
Phelps is not a Christian. He is the textbook example of what Jesus warned about.
Did I just get rick rolled by Some Brave Dude?
Bobby McGee @ 17:
It's free if I agree with what you say.
You can't rickroll those ignorant fucks. It's like talking to insects. It's strictly for our amusement.
And as far as freedom of speech, when did inbreeding become a form of speech? When you see those "people" on street corners with signs that say "Thank god for IEDs," it says to me someone fucked her mama.
I hate Fred Phelps and his followers more than anything on this planet.
But that said, this ruling is wrong so much it looks republican. There is no way this moron and his flock did $7 milloin worth of damage to anything. They protested. They are misguided idiots, sure. But all they did was hold signs and chant ridiculous sayings.
This ruling is a huge infringement on free speech that anyone with any sense of reality should oppose. Not to mention, to give them this kind of attention is completely counterproductive.
Freedom of speech is not absolute - ie, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Phelps was going to private events, disturbing the peace, and intentionally causing emotional distress. I understand unpopular speech must also be protected, but Phelps has many other avenues to spew his vile.
He was also doing it at funerals of gay people years before he started with soldiers. That didn't get him enough attention though.
Bobby McGee @ 17:
Now you have your argument against it. And as was mentioned before, trespassing on a funeral and interrupting the mourning of grieving relatives isn't "free speech".
..his mama. whatever.
I not only live in Topeka, KS but have offended many commenters on this sight as well. I hate the Phelps and I don't use hate lightly. I certainly agree that 1st amendment rights should not be denied to anybody. It is however illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no such threat, neither should parents driving their children to school would have to witness signs depicting silhouettes having sex. I have driven around town on errands and for pleasure having to endure their ridiculuos hatred. As well having to endure the ridicule of national press that would pigeon hole us into believing the same way , or being creationists, or just stupid senseless hicks. The reason we must allow these ignorance's to continue, is the absurdity of their arguments are easier understood firsthand. That does not excuse Mass Media for absurdly painting, absurd politics in generalizations.
Sorry, but as much as I despise Fred Phelps, this decision should be reversed and most likely will. I must also say that I am a little shaken by the sentiments expressed here that the Phelps clan are open to legal action if they inflict "emotional distress". Pardon my French, but that's bullshit. Nobody has a right not to be offended. If someone says something that distresses you, tough. Live with it and move on like an adult. Just imagine what this country would be like if anyone could be dragged into court for inflicting "emotional distress" on others with their speech. And remember, the "emotional distress" thing has been before the Supremes before, see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell.
I'm reading all the folks who disagree with the decision, and they definitely have a good point there. The suit was for causing distress and invading privacy--no doubt they did cause distress, but probably everyone who boo'd George Bush the other day caused him distress; can he sue them? He'd probably like to. As for the privacy, I guess it would depend on where they picketed. Did they trespass on private property to do it? Then have them arrested for trespassing. I am not a legal scholar, but I just can't figure out how what they did isn't protected by the first amendment, as despicable as it is. I'm all for pranking them, insulting them, or just ignoring them (probably the most effective route--attention is what they're after), but I think if this decision should be overturned, and if it isn't, it could be a very bad precedent...
Could we encourage Hugo Chavez to sue Pat Robertson for advocating his murder?
Handing over Robertson's cult cash might shut him up.
EliteLemming @ 26:
hoap thas a bit butter
Religious freedom is a crock. It simply means having the right to be ignorantly superstitious. Tell me how religion in ANY FORM is good for society OVERALL? Granted this "church" is extremely backward, but in some form or another they all teach ignorance (starting with believing in god in the first place). Persecute these assholes into oblivion.
Chris @ 5:
Phelps and his congregation do not have the right to say whatever they want with impunity, even in a public area. You intentionally downplay their actual actions, which in reality were truly un-Christian, repulsive, and reprehensible, to put it mildly.
Phelps has stepped over the line by negligently using his "church" to promote a blantantly political and hateful message and philosophy. Anyone who does this in the name of "spirituality" is a fraud and must be stopped. The decision here was right and an important message to radicals like Phelps to act in a respectful and responsible manner when in the public realm.
I just would like to say that the debate that has occurred on this thread gave me more cause for pride in being an American than anything over the last 10 years.
I mean that with every fiber of my being.
The easy way out would be to say something on the lines of "they got what they had coming to them."
Instead, I've read an honest and intelligent debate over the constitutionality of this issue.
You all have given a starving man, a bite to eat. Thanks.
Watch what you wish for! There may come a time when wingnuts get the courts to inflict civil charges totaling millions against Liberal War protesters! I can see a suit being formulated against Code pink in somee wingnut antithink tank right now. Now don't get me wrong I detest the Phelps crowd as much as I detest the Bush crowd but Free speech is supposed to be Free! All I can say is Watch what you wish for!
Free speech is more important than a funeral.
We have to accept that people will conduct insane, obnoxious protests - and let them go forward - even when it's Fred Phelps interrupting a funeral.
He and his type must be endured - it's one of the prices of living in a free country.
Otherwise, our democracy is fucked.
This only proves my point that Christianity needs a new Torquemada to root out heretics and idiots masquerading as Christians.
/sarcasm.
If Fred Phelps were pulling this shit down here, in the middle of "love the sinner hate the sin"-land, he'd get murdered, and not just due to the soldier funeral protests, either. Even the would-be gay-bashers don't like him, and would kill him if he was around their gay acquaintances. So, don't stereotype the heartland, not everyone even in the anti-gay right down here is a Fred Phelps clone, even the Neopente Assemblies nuts.
However, I consider Fred Phelps as Christian as I do Christopher Hitchens an atheist.
Let's see what happens if we change a few words:
"Richard Dawkins does not have the right to say whatever he wants with impunity, even in a public area. You intentionally downplay his actions, which in reality were truly un-Christian, repulsive, and reprehensible, to put it mildly.
Dawkins has stepped over the line by negligently using science to promote a blantantly heretical and hateful message and philosophy. Anyone who does this in the name of “secularism” is a fraud and must be stopped. The decision here was right and an important message to radicals like Dawkins to act in a respectful and responsible manner when in the public realm."
I highly doubt anyone here would agree that statement in the hypothetical situation that Richard Dawkins had been sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress because of public comments denigrating Christianity and religion in general. It sure is funny, though, how things change when the person being sued is someone we despise and says things we really don't like. If you support free speech, then you must support it in all cases, especially for those viewpoints that offend you to your core.
Bravo for the judge. I find all this free speech talk, kinda funny. Free speech in america, depends on who you are talking to. Call a cop a "f****t", and see how much free speech you have. Stand in front of the whitehouse, and use the same signs, and see how much free speech you have. This man and his cult, are nothing but domestic terrorists. I remind folks, that the worst act of terrorism, before 9/11 was home grown.
Larry Lamborghini @ 31:
One of the points of this country is the ability to worship as you feel right, and not according to anybody else's beliefs or non-beliefs. Which makes you just as wrong as they are... even though I totally hate them... and am probably goin' to hell fer it... But, maybe not...
I don't know...
Coorperate welfare sucks, I know that...
Treating the aggressively bigoted "religious" like the virus that they are is not fascist.,,it's common sense. You wouldn't let other dangerous criminals parade like this freely. Put them in prison, where they belong, for encouraging their societal ignorance. At least there, they will finally get to witness (hopefully in person) they joys of forced homosexuality. LOL
Tim in Japan @ 33:
Mushi, Mushi, sushi?
king of mean @ 10:
In a way you are correct but they do not have the right to inflect more pain and suffering on the families of these solders and marines. They also insinuate that god killed them because there are gays in the military. If god did this than he's not a god that I could pray to .
One of the points of this country is the ability to worship as you feel right, and not according to anybody else's beliefs or non-beliefs. Which makes you just as wrong as they are... even though I totally hate them... and am probably goin' to hell fer it... But, maybe not...
I don't know...
WELL.... I do know. They are a cancer on the fabric of this nation. I don't mind if they worship ( I suppose), but let's treat religion like what it is, a pestilence. Being involved in this thick headed superstition that morons call FAITH is worthy of all the prestige attached to believing in UNICORNS.
And just cause this may be the only time...
Philosophy aside, Cristopher Hitchens is a dick...
"Richard Dawkins does not have the right to say whatever he wants with impunity, even in a public area. You intentionally downplay his actions, which in reality were truly un-Christian, repulsive, and reprehensible, to put it mildly.
Except for the glowingly obvious fact that Dawkins is correct, you idiot.
Check out the amazing documentary "For The Bible Tells Me So"...
turk96 @ 22:
Tell us that when somebody does something similar to you.I'm a Viet Nam vet and if they had done this to one of mine buds ,I would end up spending time in jail but it would be worth it to defend their honor.
Larry Lamborghini @ 31:
Oh, yes, because state atheism made the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Romania, Mongolia, Angola, and Mexico such paragons of human kindness and sunshine and rainbows....
Please, like making any ideology or belief system sanctified by the state is going to end well....
And, no atheism is not inherently evil. In the hands of Communist governments in the Warsaw Pact and the Sinosphere, OTOH....
Bobby McGee@17
"What happened to freedom of speech?"
Where were you when Rev.Wright got destroyed?
gerlach @ 37:
Thanks for using my words, but you overlook one important fact. From a legal perspective this is a civil action for damages, not a First Amendment issue. That is what these tort protections were designed to do as nobody, even Richard Dawkins, has the right to speak their mind with impunity.
If you disagree with this premise call your congressperson and ask him/her to reform tort laws. In that respect you will have something in common with Republicans who have advocated restricting tort law for years to protect their corporate masters from being sued.
Larry Lamborghini @ 44:
Again, remind me how state atheism was somehow creating paradises in the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, and the Sinosphere?
"Except for the glowingly obvious fact that Dawkins is correct, you idiot."
Larry, I think you need to word on your reading comprehension skills. The statement that quoted about Dawkins was a parody of a different statement made earlier in thread. I used it as a hypothetical to show that those supporting the decision against the Phelps' are guilty of viewpoint discrimination. I think you might need to check out some decaf.
Again, remind me how state atheism was somehow creating paradises in the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, and the Sinosphere?
Who is advocating state atheism? You can have religion just keep it PRIVATE.
gerlach @ 51:
He needs to "word" on it, you say? So, how does one "word" on reading comprehension skills when their grammar is uncorrect? ;)
14All @ 28:
Bush is a politician ,not a good one but a politician and so being is open to public citizens . This is a win for public decency.
"Larry, I think you need to word on your reading comprehension skills"
Is this English, I'm sorry? NOT guilty on discrimination because the PHELPs "opinion" is not a valid one. It's just bigotry. I don't drink coffee, but thanks for the tip.
I think the RNC should sue left wing protestors for emotional harm done during the convention in New York City.
Logan, are you out of your mind? Do you have a tri-cornered mouth?
Do you object to the politicization of justice or just their politicization? Wait, you dont consider this politcization at all - do you.
When Ralph Nader is right - we are doomed.
Larry Lamborghini @ 52:
Your smear on religion is related to what it would, and always does no matter the creed, do as a state ideology. "Persecute these assholes into oblivion," is a startingly Soviet concept of religious freedom.
Before anyone raises Nazi Germany, yes, I consider the Nazis religious nuts and what happens when you put 2,000 years of Christian anti-semitism + undemocratic society + inability to accept defeat in a war + Lunatic with a silver tongue.
In a democracy, these voices are allowed. Or, are we going to head in the direction of increasing autocracy from our side as opposed to the Republicans?
HEY, JESUS HATED POTATOES!
"Thanks for using my words, but you overlook one important fact. From a legal perspective this is a civil action for damages, not a First Amendment issue. That is what these tort protections were designed to do as nobody, even Richard Dawkins, has the right to speak their mind with impunity."
You're right, there are limits to free speech. I agree that libelous and slanderous speech are not protected. I also agree that so-called "fighting words" are not protected. That said, I think you are treading on dangerous ground when you say that people cannot speak their mind "with impunity." What exactly does that mean? If you are suggesting that people should not say things that might offend others, then I have to strongly disagree. Even if I agree, hypothetically, and say that speech that offends others or causes "emotional distress" is not protected, how do we enforce that. Offense or distress are the easiest things to claim and the hardest to prove. Such limits on speech essentially allow any speech that someone may disagree with to be silenced on the basis that it caused offense or emotional distress.
As far as the comment about agreeing with Republicans, well I'm not sure what to say. I don't see the relevance making such a statement, other than as a red herring to tar and feather me as a sympathizer for the Republican cause.
EliteLemming @ 58:
Lol. Just when I thought my fellow religious people came up with the stupid. Jesus couldn't hate potatoes, He never saw one, as they were at that time an Andean staple. The potato didn't come over to Afreurasia until after the Europeans had started killing Indians for their land in 1492.
/incurable pedantistry.
"He needs to “word” on it, you say? So, how does one “word” on reading comprehension skills when their grammar is uncorrect? ;)"
Yes, I made a typo. Tell me, how is it living in a world where typographical errors never occur?
General_Rennenkampf @ 60:
And I accept this rose and bow to you sir... Thank you...
Terry740 @ 54:
Should be public criticizing not citizens, soory.
gerlach @ 61:
It is reilly grate! ;)
looking up pedantistry as you read...
bmw H. 528 @ 49:
The fact that this was a civil action does not preclude a First Amendment issue. A state cannot impose tort liability on people who exercise their constitutional rights, as I believe the Phelps are doing.
In fact, the general principle is that, in America, people can speak their minds with impunity. There are classes of speech that aren't protected by the First Amendment, but they're VERY narrow and I don't think the Phelps' speech fits any of them.
The fact is, the Phelps are engaging in one of the most carefully-protected classes of speech - political speech (viz., the Iraq war is God's punishment on America for tolerating homosexuals). And they're doing it in public places, as is their right.
Let me put it another way: if this somehow ISN'T constitutionally-protected speech, then there is no intelligible principle that you could use to claim that ordinary anti-war protestors - think the Quakers on the corner in most bigger cities - is either.
Your smear on religion is related to what it would, and always does no matter the creed, do as a state ideology. "Persecute these assholes into oblivion," is a startingly Soviet concept of religious freedom.
In a democracy, these voices are allowed. Or, are we going to head in the direction of increasing autocracy from our side as opposed to the Republicans?
I respect your opinion on this , but i can't say I agree. You do not let CHILD RAPISTS have a rally do you? Yet religions (ie The Catholic Church) provide support for pedophiles (priests) and fight legal action and fines (against the victims).If DEMOCRACY allows these "voices", than sadly democracy is FUCKED UP.Liberal people in general need to realize that TOLERANCE of ignorance is just giving it a pass. I still say, screw PHELPs and all his hateful superstitious morons brethren.
Larry Lamborghini @ 31:
=====
I understand your anger toward these Westboro people; they're horrible pieces of crap. However, I think the point some people are making here is that on principle it's not right to persecute others just because they protest and some other group doesn't like it. The right to protest is a fundamental and extremely important tool of The People to express their dissatisfaction without bloodshed; what we see here is the GOP's backdoor way of taking the US People's rights to protest away from them by just quoting the Westboro Baptist precedent. We have to be careful at this point not to start behaving like the Republicans who have been in charge for the past 7+ years, because we're supposedly better than that. If you want to persecute the Westboro people, do it for concrete legal reasons. I say they have the right to be horrific assholes, TO A POINT... Our job as a society at this point is to rebuild our basic rules, our busted media and military, and try our best to become a semi-civilized country once again.
Rusty 100 Years in Iraq! Shackleford @ 67:
Thank you, Rusty. Couldn't agree more.
General_Rennenkampf @ 61:
That's true but doesn't being the son of god give inside knowledge of such things as potatoes?
It's nice to see that a significant number of people see how important it is that this decision be reversed. As stupid and hateful as the Phelps clan is, they were exercising
their 1st amendment rights - they were not trespassing, they were on public property. If the people had really wanted a private funeral where they couldn't be bothered, they would
have had it in a larger private venue. People do not have a right not to be offended; in
fact, that is the speech most in need of protection. Christopher Hitchins gave a great talk
which is on YouTube that covers all manner of important points on free speech. I have to
say I was disappointed to see C&L take the anti-constitutional side on this.
Rhett @ 3:
Not so long ago you would have been correct. But Bush has stripped our Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn't exist, so if there is no Habeus Corpus, what is the good of free speech? Olbermann argued that well. And I don't hear any of the presidential candidates complaining about our dictatorship either. Nor do I hear the MSM mention anything about that either. We have no freedoms or liberty so why should vile despicable people like the Phelps be allowed to get away with it ? I spit on them.
Larry Lamborghini @ 68:
Child rapists already have their rally: it's called NAMBLA. You fail.
And dude, hating on a minority religion in America? Not good. Catholics have had a bum rap in this country since 1604. It's unsettling to see atheists joining Jack Chick on the Anti-Catholic bandwagon, particularly since aside from the abortion issue they are one of the most liberal denominations of Americhristianity.
Get that? Most liberal?
I don't like it when atheists and bona-fide Talibaptists (yes, lots of my fellow Baptists in these parts wouldn't necessarily find Mullah Omar a bad dude) can both agree to hate someone or something.
When did things go so crazy? I remember a time when outdoor music was the thing... traveling to nearby towns and cities for annual festivals... all night movie marathons with music at the local Drive-Inn theatre... skating rinks with live bands... boat-races on the river... silly contests like who can throw a cow-chip the farthest, or who made the best chili while wearing a crazy costume... solar-powered outdoor music with free food... amusement parks, rollercoasters, carousels, trains with children waving from the windows laughing around the park in Spring...
Bring it all back, before it's too late and the only topic of conversation becomes Religious Hatred. I for one am taking the kids to the Amusement Park today. We had to relocate three hours from our hometown, but hey it's worth it especially when crazy fundamentalists are so intent on their fucking endtimer game.
I understand your anger toward these Westboro people; they're horrible pieces of crap. However, I think the point some people are making here is that on principle it's not right to persecute others just because they protest and some other group doesn't like it. The right to protest is a fundamental and extremely important tool of The People to express their dissatisfaction without bloodshed; what we see here is the GOP's backdoor way of taking the US People's rights to protest away from them by just quoting the Westboro Baptist precedent. We have to be careful at this point not to start behaving like the Republicans who have been in charge for the past 7+ years, because we're supposedly better than that. If you want to persecute the Westboro people, do it for concrete legal reasons. I say they have the right to be horrific assholes, TO A POINT... Our job as a society at this point is to rebuild our basic rules, our busted media and military, and try our best to become a semi-civilized country once again.
I do not see the value in protecting these morons, sorry. This country would be a better place without them, and their activities deserve persecution . They have NO VALUE to modern society at large and belong in another primitive era. Simply put, there is nothing mankind can gain from them.
Terry740 @ 71: