Court Orders Dead Soldier's Father To Pay Westboro Baptist Church's Legal Fees
Al Snyder's son died in Iraq in May of 2006. Members of the rabidly anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church picketed his son Matthew's funeral, causing immense personal, emotional pain for him, his family and their friends.
Snyder won a $5 million civil lawsuit against the church and the Phelps family, but it was recently tossed out of a federal court. To add insult to injury, the court has now ordered Snyder to pay all of the church's legal fees:
BALTIMORE — Lawyers for the father of a Marine who died in Iraq say a court has ordered him to pay legal costs for the anti-gay protesters who picketed his son's funeral.
The protesters are led by Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. Albert Snyder of York, Pa., had won a $5 million verdict against Phelps, but it was thrown out on appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to consider whether the protesters' provocative messages, which include phrases like "Thank God for dead soldiers," are protected by the First Amendment.
Lawyers say Snyder already is struggling to come up with the fees associated with filing the brief with the high court. Read on...
I really hate to waste Mr. Amato's bandwidth on these despicable people, but Mr. Snyder needs our moral support as well as help with legal costs. I hope he doesn't pay one thin dime to these people, but he'll need lawyers to help continue the fight. There is a legal fund set up for him, if you'd like to show him some love, you can do so by clicking here.
the overturning judges are bush appointees.
Some stuff you can't make up!
I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.
It only makes sense.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Does any one have a bio on this crackpot judge?
... than the reasoning behind the ruling.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081...
We can hate it all we want but the reality is, no matter how vulgar, this is a free speech issue, even repugnant thought has freedom to express itself as it should be because that's the only way it can be marginalized as it should be, by showing it the light of day./ Sure Phelps and his ilk are the worst we have to offer but that doesn't stop them from having the right to act as A-holes. Best we can do is set up a fund and help him pay the lawyers and make sure EVERY American knows what the Phelps of the world are like until they are forced into retreat to whatever cave the SOB's came out of
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson
I've been an ACLU member for more than 20 years, and believe in the free speech rights of everyone, no matter how loathsome their opinions. But free speech rights don't cover all expression in all forums (e.g., in schools - I also have doubts about unlimited spending on expression being a component of free speech such as for corporations). These folks with their signs and hatred are not just expressing themselves, they are intending to disrupt funerals and hurt the grieving families. Perhaps there could be legislation barring protestors from getting within some distance of funerals (like keeping anti-choicers sufficiently far away from clinics that the clinics can continue to operate).
SCOTUS granted cert for the Snyder case based on 3 questions. (link is to pdf file)
1. Does Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell apply to a private person versus another private person concerning a private matter?
2. Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech tenet trump the First Amendment's freedom of religion and peaceful assembly?
3. Does an individual attending a family member's funeral constitute a captive audience who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication?
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
I don't recall any violent outburst while they were protesting the family's funeral. You claimed that they were attempting to "hurt" the family. I certainly agree that the picketing hurt the family emotionally with their rather forceful and ridiculous opinions, but unless they were physically attacking the family or breaking some policy of the memorial ground they were well within their rights.
It does indeed suck, but we do have the legal right to be douches.
2 appointed by W. 1 appointed by Clinton.
The family web site has links to the court documents. The one opinion they link to which supports overturning the district court verdict largely on 1st Amendment grounds was written by Judge King, the Clinton appointee.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
The first amendment is pretty clear and Bush is not responsible for everything ill in the world. Judges overturn each other all the time and it has nothing to do with Bush. That's called the legal system and it's been around a lot longer than Overlord Bush and his corruption machine.
That being said, this whole thing worries me. The last thing we need is more restrictions on the average citizen's right to speak his mind. However, we also can't have a bunch of asshats showing up at people's funerals. Eventually there's going to be a match to the powderkeg and someone is going to end up dead... and dead assholes generally result in more restrictions on those of us who are not assholes.
What needs to happen is a SCOTUS ruling that basically says that, while you may protest and speak however you wish your right to speak does not trump the rights of others to also speak and express themselves. This is a ruling that has need to come for a long time, in truth. For example, anti-abortion assholes harassing women on the way to a clinic - in some areas they must stand back at least X feet. Perhaps the best solution to this is to merely restrict the -location- rather than the content. Hell as much as I hate to use Bush as an example, he did it with his bullshit free speech zones.
As much as these Westboro people disgust me they have a right as Americans (which is not given to them by some sky faerie but by the sacrifices of their fellow Americans) to be as big a bunch of assholes as they want. That is what our country was founded upon and free speech isn't just for the speech we like and agree with. The antidote for speech you don't like is more speech, not less or restricted speech.
So as usual when these troglodytes show up i say, there needs to be a 24/7 protest outside the WBC wherein dozens of ****s on bikes and marines and gay pride paraders and anyone else who wants to come shows up and blasts heavy metal at the church, ESPECIALLY when they're having their services. Because really, their protests are exactly the same thing, intruding on someone else's right expression. Perhaps then they'll begin to understand. I think that's really the only way these assholes are going to learn short of a riot.
is getting people killed (O'Reilly - Dr. Tiller), beaten, burned and lynched - where's the court that's supposed to "protect" the downtrodden?
AIG, Lehman and Proctor and Gamble aren't the "downtrodden".
Cheney is not a "victim" and republican free speech is... not.
Is for people like the motorcycle vets to be there to beat the ever-loving shit out of any and all these "protestors".
I would personally get great personal satisfaction from applying these protestor's faces to concrete repeatedly. Take their posters and shove the poles so deep up their asses that they mumble.
Just need a heads up to tie up loose ends.Have friends will travel.
Have bail money,and a farm we can stay at in Delaware.Lets fire it up and wind it out.
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
http://www.patriotguard.org/
"Bush is not responsible for everything ill in the world"
Just most of it lately.
Robert King was nominated by William Clinton, Dennis Shedd was nominated by George H.W. Bush and Allyson Duncan was nominated by George W. Bush.
Justice Shedd concurred on separate grounds.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
.
Send him $$$ not just so he doesn't have to pay but also to fight these hate filled homophobes.
He needs to take this to appeal - all the way to the SCOTUS and THAT is going to cost a bunch even with pro bono lawyers.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
I don't know if you would want it to get that far. This is a conservative activist SCOTUS remember. I feel certain they would ignore any precedent and rule in favor of the right wing haters.
It would take a few years to get it in the SCOTUS - by then who knows what the make up of the court will be.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
The courts are right here.
If you look at the facts to this case it's pretty clear that the crazy religious kooks were engaged in a lawful protest. Now, if you think people should be able to sue for lawful protests then you open up the can of worms where other lawful protests will be sued. Then you can't even protest because fear of a lawsuit. You condemn Phelps at your own peril.
So even though Phelps and his religioous loojns are complete asshats, they still have the right to protest.
... to allow protesters unaffiliated with family or organization to show up at someone's funeral and show open disrespect to the deceased, callous disregard to the bereaved?
And is Phelps' group truly conducting a protest, or are they just promoting their particular brand of religious invective?
Can it be fairly said that, by taking a moderate view of the First Amendment as you have, you are thus enabling the extremists like Phelps to flourish? I can't wait to hear your excuse.
Unfortunately, he might be right. And if he is, then maybe we should be putting more energy into expanding personal privacy rights.
Get your facts straight. They weren't AT the funeral. They were protesting away from the funeral, in accordance to what the law was.
And, exposing Phelps and his religious bullshit to the light of day makes it decay faster...like bullshit.
At what point do you consider the family's rights to a moment of bereavement to be inviolable? Would it be fair, then, to take out a full-page ad in the newspaper proclaiming GOD HATES FAGS?
You seem to be arguing that if Mr. Snyder didn't see it and didn't hear of it until after the funeral, he cannot possibly be offended and, in fact, has no right to be offended. This is nonsense; humans do not inter their dead and stop grieving.
And you're getting your own words thrown back at you because you were here yesterday assigning blame for religious extremists to those who would not tell them to STFU. So, which is it? Shut them up, or let them yammer? If the latter, then, Sir, I respectfully submit that you are as much to blame for enabling Rev. Phelps' invective as any person of faith.
Yes. They do have the right to take out such a reprehensible full page ad, and the paper, should it choose to do so, has the right to publish it - without regard to whoever may be offended.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The point is not the ad, but the implication that Mr. Snyder has no grounds for a lawsuit, which the court certainly did not rule - they overturned the award for punitive damages.
So where is the boundary of decency for the Snyder family? At what point do we tell them to shut up and suck it up, that a buffoon like Phelps has a greater right to freedom of speech?
I doubt that's part of the calculus.
Moreover, this is a civil lawsuit. It's about money - period. Though I'm not sure, it appears the court threw out the entire award and not just the punitive damages. As for the fees, the amount seems far too low to have been for the entire case; my guess is that it was only for the appeal.
But it does appear that the appellate court believed they had no right to the lawsuit. If the court also found the appeal frivolous, then a fee award seems justified.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Of course the family can try and sue. I like how we have courts and judges. I like when people use them. I'd rather have all this played out in court rather than, for example, violence on the streets.
I feel for the Snyder family. Hell they're from my state. But we can't go telling people what they can and cannot say or we cease to be a democracy where people can freely talk. The WBC assholes are under no obligation to meet your definition of decency.
The only real recourse here is to force a change of venue. IE: No protesting at funerals.
But the problem with that is, what happens if you're an anti-war protester protesting lives wasted in a war and not some slimy preacher looking to make a buck off misery and suffering? We cannot punish a single group for expression without punishing everyone.
The excuse is that the First Amendment was meant to apply to everyone equally. There is no requirement for an excuse. It doesn't say - "No restrictions unless you're somebody that nobody likes".
These people are the scum of the earth, but like it or not they're Americans and they have a right to speak. If you restrict their right to express themselves you undermine what this democracy was founded on - the free exchange of ideas for everyone....and if you restrict them and set a legal precedent allowing the courts to restrict the freedom of a group you don't like, then where does the restriction end? When the wingnuts get back in charge again, suddenly they can restrict the free speech rights of bloggers because "nobody likes bloggers and they're all mean nasty people."
It's a slippery slope to tyranny that you're talking about there and I'd rather not have my right to tell these people to jump off a cliff restricted just because we don't like hearing what they have to say.
... we live in such a wonderful world when we have voices like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck catapulted over the airwaves, where Rev. Fred Phelps gets to preach hatred nationwide ... but asking about common decency, well, that's 'quaint and outmoded.' It's the slippery slope to tyranny.
If the courts have determined that Phelps is within his rights to protest in the location he was, then that's the ruling. That doesn't mean there can't be a productive discussion about the nature of free speech.
you clearly need to acquaint yourself with the theory of the free marketplace of ideas; i.e., that bad, hateful ideas die quicker out in the open than they ever will when censored.
your melodramatic response to this story reveals a deep lack of understanding and/or commitment to the cause of free speech.
These asshats don't have the right to protest at the cite of the funeral. I don't want to hear about free speach etc... George Bush set the precedent and it was upheld in court that if you were going to protest in some objectional manner you had to do it in a cage some few miles from where it would be relevant.
And they weren't even nice cages like the one I grew up in. :(
"The great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the outright bigot, but the moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises us to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Help the family. Give to the Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder Fund at http://www.matthewsnyder.org/
SO WHAT HAPPENED. The fee order is because the $5 million dollar finding against Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church Leader) was vacated by the Appeals Court. As a result, the person who brought the suit, Mr. Snyder, is required to pay court costs.
The usual procedure. BUT the court could have ordered that this judgment be delayed until the Supreme Court hears Snyder's appeal.
The family is hoping that the suit will provide a way for other families to sue this awful excuse for a church whose members harass the grieving families of soldiers killed in combat. They protest at funerals with signs that praise God for the soldier's death calling the death proof of God's judgment against a sinful America.
If you want to help out the Snyders (I certainly am) go to the http://www.matthewsnyder.org/ and contribute to the Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder Fund to help his family meet the costs associated with the suit.
"He was a hero and he was the love of my life." - Albert Snyder, Matthew's Father
... to show up in Blacksburg Virginia (home of Virginia Tech) to spew their vitriol about our quasi-recent shootings. What must it be like to feel righteous about *that*?
There's the difference as far as I'm concerned.
A funeral isn't a public venue. It's outdoors because it has to be but it is a private matter.
A school campus is public.
A family should have the right not to be subjected to anything like what these people are doing, and frankly I hope karma catches up to them. The sooner the better.
The facts of this case put Phelps's protest 1,000 feet away from the funeral on public property. The father of the dead soldier didn't even see the protest except for afterwards on the news. The funeral was not disrupted in any way.
Then I have no problem with it. How much noise were they making? 1,000 feet isn't far enough to be out or ear-shot of people yelling.
The protest was small. All their protest are. Maybe 10 people.
Good, one bolt of lightning should solve the problem. :)
Is one man yelling GOD HATES FAGS less offensive than ten people yelling GOD HATES FAGS? If it were 100 people yelling GOD HATES FAGS, would you find it more offensive still?
One person usually makes less noise than 10 who, in turn, make less noise than 100. I don't know how loud they were but the fact is that they were following the laws laid out by the town in anticipation of the protest.
Anyway I'm not sure what "offense" has to do with anything. People don't have the right to not be offended.
... that the right to freedom of speech of the grieving family, to conduct a memorial unmarked by the presence - noted at the time or learned of in retrospect - is inferior to Rev. Phelps' right to wave his cute little signs around?
If they were out of sight and out of ear-shot during the funeral then I don't think the family has a right to sue them.
... award damages for emotional suffering, even in cases where the reason for that suffering was not the direct observation of an offense, but the loss of a family member.
It is also common among corporate Sexual Harassment Policies that the subject of a 'joke' or hostile work environment be the direct target.
So the law acknowledges that emotional suffering is wrong and can be met with punitive measures. Is the only difference because Phelps was on the sidewalk?
I think the difference is that Phelps didn't confront them directly.
If you're in my face at work harassing me, then I have a right to do something about it.
If you're just being a generic asshole off in the distance and possibly not even talking about me specifically, then what right do I have to do anything about it?
So then consider this example.
An infamous Nazi SS officer has died. He has a funeral where his Nazi friends are dressed in full nazi uniform doing their "hail Hitlers" and such. A littel old lady and her friends, holopcuast survivors, show up 1,000 feet away and hold up signs condemning Nazi's (in general, not calling out specific names). Do you afforx the same protecting to the Nazi's as you do to the dead soliers family?
Or (and linking this into yesterday's discussion). What if a priest dies. He was know to be a child molester. A few of his victims show up near his funeral to protest. Does the priest's family deserve the same protections as the dead soldiers family?
Why or why not?
They're welcome to sue.
They don't have a right not to be offended.
But, seriously - I have never said Phelps cannot express his opinion. I do question the propriety - as a matter of civil discourse and common courtesy - of protesting outside someone's funeral.
You are, ultimately, playing the same game as right-to-lifers who assiduously observe the limits to where they can shout 'baby killer' and wave their pictures of aborted fetuses, kind of an extremist version of 'I'm not touching you!!!!'
You mean protest 1,000 feet away in accordance to local laws. Read the darned opinion already.
when one can simply react? ignorance is the fuel of the hysterical reactions to this story.
for instance, so many are apparently unaware that when a petitioner successfully files a civil rights action (as the Phelps did in this instance), he or she will have their attorney costs paid by the defendant(s) who violated their constitutional rights. this exception was created to insure low income victims of civil rights violations are not barred from suing simply due to the cost of hiring legal counsel.
Except that the petitioner was Snyder. He was awarded $5 million, and Phelps appealed. The 4th Circuit overturned the award, and Snyder appealed. With the appeal pending, the 4th Circuit awarded costs to Phelps based its decision to overturn the original award.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
First it's one man yelling GOD HATES FAGS and the next day it's one man yelling DOG HATES LEMONS.
The content of their speech doesn't matter. They have a right to say what they want even if it's repugnant and you don't like it. If we start silencing people because we don't like what they have to say you won't be typing here at this blog very long, because all it'd take would be one person who didn't like the way you have a question mark at the end of your question.
Phelps can't have his say?
I'm questioning the propriety of doing so outside a soldier's funeral, and, 1,000 yards off or not, such that a grieving father became aware of it.
I take it you won't mind if I drop by the funeral of one of your loved ones and take a dump on the casket?
Why do you think making false equivalences (and by doing so being deliberately obtuse) is a good way to argue? You did this yesterday too.
and the love of the Lord will flood you with the gentle whispers of the WORD.
Or something pleasant in accord with your pasta preferences.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Snyder = Nazi = Child Molester.
And I'm the one making false equivalencies?
Laughable.
But but but protesting near a funeral is like all bad and stuff. Always. No matter what!!!
/eyeroll
As defined and designated by the Southern Poverty Law center. Usually inflammatory hate groups need to get a parade permit in order to "protest". The thing that most people don't seem to understand is that a lawsuit does not abridge one's right to speak. "....the Congress shall pass no laws governing speech or the free exercise thereof....". Suing in court, even successfully as the result of a protest demonstration is not a law passed by the congress. The RNC protesters on the other hand, WERE denied their free exercise of speech.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
Don't tell me, chickenhawk war supporters, right?
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
In the many discussions I had about this case it's the right winger war mongerer types who support the dead soldiers family. Afterall the military is sacred for these people.
Where are the supposed liberals saying, "I detest what you say but I will defend your right to say it?"
WTF is going on here?
They do have the right to say it.
But there are appropriate venues and a private family funeral isn't one of them.
I 100% support their right to be freaks.
It's the difference between the jesus freak in the park vs. a guy standing on the road in front of your home with a bullhorn.
... respect for the dead.
Are you going to mandate by law that people show respect for the dead? What tradition of respect are you talking about? Are you talking about Norse where a proper burial involves a flaming boat? Or perhaps a Tibetan sky burial wherein they allow buzzards and crows and such to eat the remains until nothing is left?
I'm an atheist. A dead body is a decaying collection of proteins, carbohydrates, fats and other chemicals. Why the hell should I have to respect it? The dead person doesn't give a damn. He's dead. His time to care about anything is over. Really what you're talking about is respect for the mourners who are left behind - but even that you cannot mandate. If some dictator who's killed thousands dies, do you mandate that I have to show respect at his funeral? He's scum. What about a child molester? What about Charles Manson?
People are not required to live up to your expectations, nor should they be. No matter how repugnant I find these people (and I do) if I restrict their right to speak their minds I am damaging myself in the process. Presumably, Mr. Snyder's son believed he was fighting so that everybody could speak as they wished.
... of the fact that when Army Ranger Pat Tillman was killed, and it came to light that he was an Atheist, senior officers made light of the fact that without Jesus, Tillman was worm food? That people posted screeds against the Tillman family? Do you feel Tillman should have received some respect? Certainly, he was fighting for that vaunted right to speak freely, but he wasn't getting respect for doing so.
In this instance, I hold the Snyder family's bereavement in higher regard than I do Rev. Phelps' Carnival of Condemnation.
Give us a chance to get some coffee.
Till then:
Oh, and these people are slime.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Who made the decision. The fourth circuit court of appeals has fourteen judgeships including four W appointees.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
which has the court documents linked.
Judges: King, Shedd, Duncan. 2 W., 1 Clinton
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I recognize that the Westboro Wackos have a right to free speech; however, my opinion of them means that I will never, personally, defend their rights. Were I a lawer assigned to defend them, I would withdraw; were I a judge scheduled to hear their case, I would recuse myself. I will be passive and do nothing to help or hinder them. On the day that I hear of Fred Phelps' demise, I will smile and say to myself, "It's about time". Maybe that's not the way liberals are supposed to behave, but it's human nature, and I was born human before I became a liberal.
Phelps & his fruitcake supporters certainly have every right to say what they want, and almost anywhere and anytime they want. There is very little that the government can do to stop them, aside from some minor restrictions.
But this isn't about a government restriction on those rights.
Rather, this is about the right of a private individual to seek compensation for damages that he feels that he has suffered as a result of another individual's actions. Mr. Phelps' right to speak his mind does not confer upon Mr. Snyder an obligation to tolerate that speech.
If SCOTUS agrees with my interpretation, the judgment will be reinstated. If they agree with Phelps, it will be overturned.
But regardless of what SCOTUS determines, the appellate court should not have ordered Snyder to pay those court costs until after the final adjudication of the case.
The original tea-baggers.
churches Non-profit status. I just do not see why we are exempting groups so they can organize and cause pain.
Oh yeah,
WHY DO THEY HATE ARE TROOPS?
how sick a mind has to be to behave in this manner.
Fred Phelps is somehow more tolerable if he's paying taxes?
doesn't deserve a special TAX_EXEMPT status.
Maybe they deserve a special place in hell, but Justice is an artifical property created by us.
I am only asking that If groups want to: cause pain and misery, serve no useful social function than to distress others, and participate in the political sphere, then they pay taxes like EVERYONE ELSE...
This double standard is so pathetic.
... preaching hate and intolerance is just dandy if you're paying your taxes? (I suppose it works for Rush Limbaugh, so maybe you have a point.)
I agree. No special privileges for religion.
never opened a "free speech" center at Gitmo
He never opened a free speech center anywhere. In fact, he jailed people for speaking their minds.
Ugly American....used to be for those who traveled abroad...
but not anymore...
plaintiff's court costs? Is that nuts?
They are plaintiffs suing for a huge financial reward for emotional distress caused by whacko's showing up to demonstrate at the funeral of their son. Their son who died in a non-combat related vehicle accident he suffered doing the job he voluntarily applied for with the government.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
... I'd heard before that Phelps and several of his kin are lawyers (probably from the same vein as Orly Taitz and Jack Thompson, but lawyers nonetheless).
So whose bills are being paid, again?
that they are all a bunch of lawyers, that do this crap in the hope of generating lawsuits, see link
http://www.nndb.com/people/908/000025833/
i do not know the truth of that, but i most certainly agree with revoking the tax exempt status of religious organizations.
tune into the "christian" channels and see all the stuff they sell for a "love gift", most of these films and tapes cost next to nothing to produce, these people are making a killing.
these knuckle-draggers seem to really enjoy their work.
I guess hating brings them great pleasure.
I've seen it written that the 'church' is a group of lawyers who believe in nothing except that they can use their First Amendment rights to enrage people enough to attack or otherwise infringe on their rights... for the sole purpose of lawsuit income. I'd wager their 'legal fees' amount to zero, but the bill they present will be ruinously huge.
People have reported that they announced to a Phelps protest that they are Jewish, only to see Phelps' people walk immediately to their cars for a different set of signs... Yes, with anti-Jewish statements.
So, I believe this church only believes in money.
The original judgement won by the Snyder family was $2.9 million in damages plus a punitivie award of $8 million against the Phelps.
The Snyders were ordered to come up with $16,000 in court costs when the case was overturned. http://www.wgal.com/news/22997244/detail.html
The Snyders are represented by a firm with over 60 attorneys.
I would bet the $100 K I am going to win from Bretibart that firm is fronting the legal fees for a contingency award if they win. I am sure they can add the court costs to their gamble on this case.
http://www.barley.com/news/article.cfm?Articl...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Man these are some sick warped people , freedom of speech does have it's draw backs .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
... is it because we are inherently disrespectful of the concept? Does freedom of speech means freedom from consequences of that speech? If you look at the writings of our founding fathers, they weren't simply crying foul - they weighed the consequences of their words and actions, that they were setting themselves against the British Crown, to be perceived as traitors by many.
Is it an absolute? Or is it a narrowly-defined body of rights defining the relationship of citizen to government, that the citizen holds the right to petition the government for a redress of wrongs, and that the government cannot then restrict that citizen's expression of speech, of the press (including pamphlets and essays, common to their time, but now 'editorials' in ours), or on the grounds of religious belief?
Separate from the right to petition your government for a redress of grievances, the freedom of the press, or the free exercise of religion.
As far as being an absolute: nothing is an absolute. But the framers of the First Amendment obviously intended that it be as close as possible:
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Took you only half an hour to brew coffee, read an opinion, and offer comments.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
It's really quick if you crush the bean and snort it.
But I have made the coffee.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
which will take you there:
http://www.matthewsnyder.org/
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Thanks
Corruption favors the wealthy.
... I can only infer that the relationship between all elements is important, that peaceful assembly includes the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech and press, AND the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It's a single sentence with multiple dependent clauses.
Additionally, the inclusion of these freedoms within a single amendment suggests they are first and foremost, each one of equal weight and importance within a free society.
But not the first. There's no need to assume the framers were being redundant.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
... but that it builds, one upon another, to a logical conclusion. When you have freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, then it follows that you MUST have the right to petition the government.
IMHO, I think the Bill of Rights is built along these lines, with each of the original amendments building upon another. (And I know at least one troll out there scoffed at the notion.)
Then, according to your logic, the first thing mentioned in the BoR is how the government can't make laws even respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, this is the most important thing. And since it's the most important thing, then you advocate for the removal of "under god" "in god we trust" "god bless americ (in public schools)" etc etc, since these things clearly represent a respect for the establishment of religion. There certainly are religious people who advbocate for a secular government? (look at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State... www.au.org Do you support this stuff?
I did not say the most important thing is freedom of religion. I said that they are of equal importance, and furthermore, linked to the final clause of a right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
And, personally, I don't care for 'under God' in the Pledge. It wasn't added to honor God, it was added to stick it to the Commies. It is widely regarded as some magical formula that turns out morally superior human beings, when we see our political stage littered with hypocrites and liars.
I'm fond of Jefferson's quote - leave standing no authority not answerable to man. Another favorite is Kipling's MacDonough's Song - 'for Holy State, we have found, leads to wholly slave.'
Yep, so how is giving certian groups the priveledge to NOT pay taxes?
English may not be my first language, but it seems like religion is getting the best of every world in this country... and I am wondering why my taxes are going up while I cannot afford to hang out with signs saying "Cthulhu wants to waterboard Phelps".
I forget when but a deal was struck between the government and churches. Churches couldn't be political and they wouldn't be taxed. This deal is not working. Tax churches the same as everything else. But, of course, if there is a particular charity run by the church then they should be allowed to apply for tax exemption like any other charity. That just because they are associated with a religious organization doesn't disqualify them.
I'm an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, and have officiated at weddings.
But I still pay taxes.
Wasn't the Universal Life Church Joe Stack's chosen religious tax dodge?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
are still subject to income tax for work they do. You are eligible to forgo social security/medicare taxes if you believe your church will care for you when you become unable to continue working. IRS form 4361
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4361.pdf
It's been quite a few years since I've done tax preparation work but I've filled a few of these out for ministers in the past. Not too complicated, or no more then most tax return forms anyway.
has good intentions....
but in the hands of ignorant haters....
it is freedom to be ugly...
This case could be called Emotional vs Rational.
Emotionally you feel sorry for the family vs. Rationally the Phelps are exhibiting their right to free speech.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
... being upset at tea-party types spitting on members of Congress and hurling racial epithets an emotional response?
Just wondering. In my book, a rational mind understands that all behavior has consequences, and that constraints are imposed because of our often less-productive emotional tendencies.
Spitting on somebody is an assault. Being an asshole downwind is quite a bit different.
... if you didn't hear the shout, you can't take offense?
Does that mean you can't be offended by a Klan rally held in a state other than your own?
And, actually, is offense the legal standard that should necessarily be examined?
Just a point - there are no WRONG answers here, this is all about defining our freedom of speech. If we chose to punish Phelps, what precedents would we set, and where does that take us, etc.
You are offending me. Shut up or give me money.
No, we're back to not having a right to not be offended.
Are you saying you have a right to sue the Klan for damages in another state because they offend you?
Not trying to put words in your mouth. Just not sure what your argument is.
... at where 'taking offense' is considered fair. So far, the size of the group, the volume of the group, the visibility of the group, and the direct knowledge of the group has been offered up against the much more vague standard of 'grieving family'.
Is there a point where the family CAN take offense, CAN sue, and Phelps will, one day, be told to pack up his ugly little carny act and hit the road?
. . . but who cares if someone is offended?
Galileo offended plenty of people, so did Dr. King. Offensive speech can be the most valuable. If these idiots are right, then their protests may be the last chance for America to save itself from God's wrath. Perhaps, he'll open the flood gates in the firmament, and the celestial waters from outer space will food the entire earth.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
... had a little more to their arguments than Rev. Phelps. (Apparently, key among Galileo's offenses was that he lampooned a high-ranking church member.)
So that's what they called it back then
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I think that's beside the point. It wasn't a private family situation.
It's not about being offended. It's about one person's rights trumping another in a venue that should be private to one of the parties.
so why hasn't anyone been arrested?
WHY WON"T THIS POST AS A RESPONSE TO Cafeen Man?
Probably because it's nested too deep.
What political persuasion are the Snyders? And, if it were brought out that a totally Right-wing leaning family was openly suing the pastor .... would that have been overturned? Just saying.
I have been heartsick for all those families who have lost their loved ones in these two 'wars'...even though I may not agree with their politics (as some feel their loved ones 'wanted' to go to war..or supported the illegal invasion ..)..and I would expect ALL those families to enjoy the PRIVACY that the funeral should have..indoors or out..and picketing of ANY stripe should be banned. Totally.
yes, I thought the caskets at Dover should be viewed..AS LONG AS THE FAMILIES AGREED..and those who DIDN'T want their loved ones' caskets shown had NO RIGHT to prevent the showing of the caskets of the other families...seems to me, as usual...many want 'it' both ways.
The phelps should have their tax break taken away.
They're not a church, but in-bred hicks.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It's that they're always pictured with children. These people shouldn't be allowed to breed, much less raise children with that hate-filled world view. It's tantamount to child abuse IMO.
"I could give a flying crap about the political process.... We're an entertainment company."
- Glenn Beck - Forbes interview; April 26, 2010
... had written about his childhood experiences, and acknowledged the abusive factors present. It was some years ago, so I don't know if the info is still on the web.
Looks like these knuckle draggers are enjoying themselves and having a good time . Some people this world would be better off without .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
should get the fuck out of this country. Note one of the signs "God hates the USA". These "people" are the sickest of the sick. They (almost) make the Teabaggers look sane.
read the Opinion of the 4th Circuit as linked by the Snyder family.
It contains an excellent summary of the facts surroiunding the protest and the court case.
http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WBC%20-%204th%20Circuit%20Opinion,%20Doc.%2082,%209_24_09%20(4).PDF
Update: If that does not get you there, this link takes you to all the documents. The Opinion is near the bottom of the list.
http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Documents.html
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Straight to the Fourth Circuit opinion on the merits
http://www.matthewsnyder.org/Snyder%20v.%20WB...
Corruption favors the wealthy.
thanks for the link
The facts of the case are all laid out there for anyone to see.
If anyone thinks they should post on this topic the court opinion is IMO required reading.
if you want an accurate picture. If you want help, that is.
If you assume you are reading absolute truth or you already possess it, well, skipping links does save valuable time. That gives you more time to comment on missing sex organs or charcterizing people as having someone else's birth defects because you disagree with them.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I'm getting nothing but the same AP article over and over.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
which contains it references a two page order I assume contains that info. There is a reference to having obtained that in a release from the law firm.
http://www.barley.com/attorneys/
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
at the top of the thread about the same time. It's interesting to note that the ACLU of Maryland filed a brief on the Phelps side of the case. That must have been hard for them but if the law says they have the right then that's the way it is.
To the dismay of conservatives, the ACLU defends religion a lot when it comes to the freedom of expression clause.
the ACLU defends the Constitution consistently and constantly.
...this case should be the reason for a constitutional amendment to ban hate speech. We are about the only democracy in the world that doesn't ban it.
.
Is it really anything more than "speech I strongly disagree with"?
In many people's eyes the teaching of evolution is particularly hateful.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I guess being a conservative is sometimes about feeling conflicted.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Wrong side of 'citizens united',I'm not gonna renew my 12 yrs. of support to them just for that reason.
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
It's sad that there are such HATEFUL, uneducated, bastards out there.
Just donated to the cause.
How about passing a law that makes it illegal to protest at funerals/burials?
usually by how many feet away one has to be. But to totally ban protest would be uncostitutional. Standing at an intersection down the street from the cemetary could not be defined as being "at" the funeral. The UK has banned the Phelps from entering their country.
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
But who would take them?
was misplaced.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
And note that the Phelps were in full accordance with the laws and guidelines laid out by the town and local police.
Comments are closed on this entry