Westboro Baptist Church ordered to pay $10.9m in damages [Archive]

edesignuk

Nov 1, 2007, 05:45 AM

A church whose members cheered a soldier's death as "punishment" for US tolerance of homosexuality has been told to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) in damages.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44210000/jpg/_44210754_picket_b203_ap.jpg

The Westboro Baptist Church was taken to court by the father of Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder, a marine who died serving in Iraq in March 2006.

The church cited its constitutional right to free speech in its defence.

But Albert Snyder's lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning.BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7072404.stm).

Too awesome, can't think of more deserving people to be hit with the kind of fine that will ruin them. Here's hoping the judgement stands up to the appeals they will no doubt seek.

Rev Phelps, can't think of a more deserving person that you can use the word c*** to describe. Bastard.

Agathon

Nov 1, 2007, 06:27 AM

Tee hee.

Here's hoping that Phelps gets thrown in prison for non payment. I can see him attracting a lot of "friends" on the block. :)

bartelby

Nov 1, 2007, 06:29 AM

Excellent!

I hope none of the religious nutters with influence can get these twunts off!!

Markleshark

Nov 1, 2007, 08:06 AM

Good, is all I have to say. After watching Louis Theroux's documentary about these animals this still isn't enough.

d_and_n5000

Nov 1, 2007, 08:52 AM

ucfgrad93

Nov 1, 2007, 09:40 AM

A well deserved fine in my opinion.

leekohler

Nov 1, 2007, 10:59 AM

Oi...

This sounds bad, but I'm not even sure why they bothered setting the fine. Knowing Phelps, he's going to fight this tooth and nail in the courts, and he will probably get out of it. And they'll continue picketing. He's always known right where the line of the law is, and he's always gone right up to within millimeters of that line.

What this particular class of social nutjob needs is an "accidental" atomic bomb to hit their stronghold.

You're right- this probably won't stick. I don't see it happening. Even unpopular speech is protected in the Constitution, and rightly so. As much as I hate this guy, he has a right to speak his mind.

SMM

Nov 1, 2007, 01:52 PM

You're right- this probably won't stick. I don't see it happening. Even unpopular speech is protected in the Constitution, and rightly so. As much as I hate this guy, he has a right to speak his mind.

I have not read the complaint, but a person/group does not have absolute right to say what they want, especially in a case where it would be libelous, or slander to do so. I am not an attorney, but I did ready about the distinctions before. Perhaps, a fellow member can provide a professional overview for us? In lieu of that happening, this would be the difference as I recall it.

The WBC is free to comment on the policies of the government, the religious consequences (as they see them) of having gay people in the military, etc. As long as they refrain from personally attacking an individual, especially accusing them of wrong doing. They do not have the right to make unsubstantiated attacks against Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder.

The attorney for Snyder was clever to file suit against the church, rather than Phelps himself himself. I have seen cases where an individual will transfer all of their assets to their church to keep them protected from seizure in a judgement. If Phelps tries to transfer assets from the church to himself, he will run into problems with the IRS. It will be interesting to see how the appellate court rules on this.

leekohler

Nov 1, 2007, 02:10 PM

I have not read the complaint, but a person/group does not have absolute right to say what they want, especially in a case where it would be libelous, or slander to do so. I am not an attorney, but I did ready about the distinctions before. Perhaps, a fellow member can provide a professional overview for us? In lieu of that happening, this would be the difference as I recall it.

The WBC is free to comment on the policies of the government, the religious consequences (as they see them) of having gay people in the military, etc. As long as they refrain from personally attacking an individual, especially accusing them of wrong doing. They do not have the right to make unsubstantiated attacks against Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder.

The attorney for Snyder was clever to file suit against the church, rather than Phelps himself himself. I have seen cases where an individual will transfer all of their assets to their church to keep them protected from seizure in a judgement. If Phelps tries to transfer assets from the church to himself, he will run into problems with the IRS. It will be interesting to see how the appellate court rules on this.

As previously mentioned, Phelps may be a lot of things, but when it comes to the law he's not stupid. I hope your right and the church gets sued out of existence, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

ucfgrad93

Nov 1, 2007, 06:17 PM

I hope your right and the church gets sued out of existence, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

My guess is that the church will declare bankruptcy and then Phelps and company will just start a new church and continue on.

leekohler

Nov 1, 2007, 06:20 PM

My guess is that the church will declare bankruptcy and then Phelps and company will just start a new church and continue on.

Exactly- this kind of hatred doesn't just go away.

thebassoonist

Nov 1, 2007, 06:23 PM

Just that much? The damage this group has done is more than $10.9m (if you can even put a price on it).

SMM

Nov 1, 2007, 06:59 PM

As previously mentioned, Phelps may be a lot of things, but when it comes to the law he's not stupid. I hope your right and the church gets sued out of existence, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

They will have to forfeit their assets and a court judgement is often at the top of the creditor list, depending on State. In fact, each State has quite a bit of flexibility in how they implement and manage bankruptcy laws. OJ is an example of a civil judgement where bankruptcy has not aided him greatly. He was forced to liquify virtually all of his assets to pay the claimants. He also must continue to pay from any new assets he gains. Remember the story from ~30 days ago, where he was filmed with an expensive watch on. The estate was going to investigate, and (perhaps) seize the watch.

Bankruptcy is not a slam-dunk way to escape paying a civil judgement.

dopey220

Nov 1, 2007, 06:59 PM

Seeing this article put a smile on my face. I hope the motherf***ers don't find a way to weasel out of it.

yg17

Nov 1, 2007, 07:24 PM

You're right- this probably won't stick. I don't see it happening. Even unpopular speech is protected in the Constitution, and rightly so. As much as I hate this guy, he has a right to speak his mind.

I agree about having the right to speak your mind, but I can definitely see this as an invasion of privacy and possibly emotional distress. Everyone deserves 1st Amendment rights, provided what they do with them isn't breaking any laws.

SMM

Nov 1, 2007, 11:18 PM

Exactly- this kind of hatred doesn't just go away.

I missed your other comment here. Unfortunately I must agree with you in totality here, Lee. Hatred runs too deep to be influenced by money. At most, you might gain silence.

solvs

Nov 2, 2007, 02:40 AM

That was the argument before, that it was not only slander but invasion of privacy. Since funerals are private ceremonies and cemeteries are private property. There is of course a loop hole where you can stand outside on public property and I guess it would count as a protest, but if they hassle the mourners it could be considered harassment. There's that whole, "your rights end where mine begin" thing.

I'm sure it'll be appealed anyway, but it sure is funny to see them smacked with this.

mactastic

Nov 2, 2007, 03:55 PM

It's just nice to see Phelps on the ass-end of a lawsuit for once...

SMM

Nov 2, 2007, 06:52 PM

C&L just posted a phone interview with that fruit basket. Oh my God :eek: i had only seen him once before, and that was in a much more controlled situation. This guy is seriously in need of being fitted for a straight-jacket (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/02/rev-fred-phelps-loses-11-million-in-lawsuit-cries-hogwash/). Remember folks, this sorry-ass, piece of sheep-dip is running free on the streets.

If you have a spare minute, you might also find interest in how -

From Crooks and Liars:

Hannity (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/02/hc-halloween-is-teaching-your-kids-to-be-liberal/) posted what has to be the most stupid theory to come out of his mouth since well….yesterday: Halloween teaches kids to ask for a handout, so therefore, it’s teaching them to be liberals.

Maybe Hannity, Phelps, O'Reilly and Lindburger can all go shopping together?

mactastic

Nov 2, 2007, 06:59 PM

xsedrinam

Nov 2, 2007, 09:57 PM

Actually, since Halloween teaches kids to do mean things to those who don't do what you ask of them, it is really teaching you to be a conservative.
Okay, I've read my post for the day. I can now retire this evening, from MR, in peace. :D

aquajet

Nov 3, 2007, 02:10 AM

I caught the trailing edge of John Stossel's interview with Shirley Phelps-Roper and some other clan minion, along with eight and ten year old boys born into this most unfortunate situation. If there's one thing that can said about their arguments, it's their consistency. But hearing the children talk about how God hates fags and how they're going to hell was especially disheartening. When Stossel asked the boys what they thought a fag actually is, one of them was at a loss for words and stared blankly into the camera for several seconds.

There are many in the Phelps clan with extensive education in law and some are practicing lawyers. They've on many occasions come awfully close to what is legally acceptable. We don't know the exact details about the circumstances leading up to this lawsuit, but I can't help but think that there are some serious First Amendment issues involved. It's not difficult to imagine how many fair-minded people faced with deciding the outcome of this lawsuit could set aside free speech in order to serve the needs of the folks on the receiving end of the WBC's vile shenanigans. It appears as if there are a few people in this thread willing to do the same. I think it's important to remember that none of us have the right to not be offended or have our feelings hurt and that the First Amendment applies especially in cases such as this. I mean, when's the last time popular ideas needed protection?

If this case is indeed about silencing what a preacher preaches, as Fred himself put it, then it is a sad day for free speech and the justice system.

takao

Nov 3, 2007, 06:27 AM

OMFG!@!@! The war on Halloween by the radical right has begun!

Thus when the war on Xmas starts, it will only be in retaliation.

Actually, since Halloween teaches kids to do mean things to those who don't do what you ask of them, it is really teaching you to be a conservative.

trick or treating is one of the reasons i don't like halloween (besides that it is an imported custom and that it is used as a reason for parties around a day meant for praying for the dead)

MACDRIVE

Nov 3, 2007, 06:52 AM

.Andy

Nov 3, 2007, 07:09 AM

Hold on! Let me get this straight:

A bunch of bible thumpers were picketing outside of a Marine's funeral (whom was killed while in service to his country) just because he so happened to be gay?

You're kidding me, right? :mad:

No he wasn't gay. God allowed the soldier to be killed to punish the US for their increasingly liberal attitude towards gays.

srf4real

Nov 3, 2007, 07:55 AM

Those fools don't know God. They worship publicity and their own glory which will turn out to be their shame. At heaven's gate they will cry "Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons in Your name!?" and the Lord will say "Get away from me you liars and hypocrites - I never knew you.";)

aviationwiz

Nov 4, 2007, 03:14 AM

Too bad some USAF pilot can't "accidentally" bomb that place. Whiteman AFB where our B-2's are stored is right next door...

"Whopps, I accidentally bombed some place in Kansas instead of Iraq... I'm going to have to come back for some more weapons before heading over..."

MACDRIVE

Nov 4, 2007, 04:53 AM

No he wasn't gay. God allowed the soldier to be killed to punish the US for their increasingly liberal attitude towards gays.

Seriously?!?!?!? He wasn't even gay?!?!?!? :mad:

You mean they just randomly selected this Marine's funeral to protest the Pentagon's relaxed policy on gay applicants? Deport these evangelistic bastards I say! Deport them! :mad:

They don't deserve to live in this country for disgracing the honour of a fallen service member! :mad:

If I'm a 4 star general and I'm sending you off to war to fight a battle as a young private, I don't care if you're gay or straight; can you pull the freaking trigger?!?

Markleshark

Nov 4, 2007, 04:59 AM

Seriously?!?!?!? He wasn't even gay?!?!?!? :mad:

You mean they just randomly selected this Marine's funeral to protest the Pentagon's relaxed policy on gay applicants? Deport these evangelistic bastards I say! Deport them! :mad:

They don't deserve to live in this country for disgracing the honour of a fallen service member! :mad:

If I'm a 4 star general and I'm sending you off to war to fight a battle as a young private, I don't care if you're gay or straight; can you pull the freaking trigger?!?

Not just one Marine, they do it at as many as they can. They do it on the 'sidewalk' and just about anywhere they can grab attention.

They are freaks. There was a documentary about them over here on TV once and they we're picketing with their usual hatred on the side of the road. Someone drove past and threw a big ass cup of coke or something out of the window of their car. Got this little girl (Who was 'one of them' holding the banners and shouting their ****) right on the side of the head and they we're all acting like their the victims. Serves the bitch right, **** them all.

skunk

Nov 4, 2007, 04:59 AM

Deport these evangelistic bastards I say! Deport them! :mad:Who the hell would want them?

solvs

Nov 4, 2007, 08:44 AM

Who the hell would want them?

Well, if they were Muslim, the Taliban might.

aquajet

Nov 4, 2007, 11:13 AM

Seriously?!?!?!? He wasn't even gay?!?!?!? :mad:

Well, we don't know that for sure, with don'taskdon'ttell and all. ;)

You mean they just randomly selected this Marine's funeral to protest the Pentagon's relaxed policy on gay applicants? Deport these evangelistic bastards I say! Deport them! :mad:

Not quite. It has more to do with their belief that the US is a nation of fags and fag enablers, which God abhors. Actively defending an evil nation is a damnable offense, in their eyes. The only road to heaven is to is to separate yourself from this evil and commit yourself to a life of spreading the word that the US is a hellbound nation.

Desertrat

Nov 4, 2007, 12:33 PM

Desertrat

Nov 4, 2007, 12:37 PM

Halloween used to be a fun thing for kids twelve or so, and under--with a relatively small amount of adult supervision needed. Witches and jack o'lanterns and Boo! And the little guys could scream and giggle and do trick or treat for candy.

Like everything in the U.S., "Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess." It doesn't matter if it's Halloween, Nascar racing, politics or spending money. We can turn any fun or innocuous affair into a total debacle.

Pardon my cynicism...

'Rat

aquajet

Nov 4, 2007, 12:54 PM

There's no First Amendment issue in this. The government merely provided a forum for a civil lawsuit about harassment, and the jury agreed that it was harassment. They were judged on their actions, not their speech.

It's harassment if you go up to someone and go to yelling and screaming, "I love you!" and don't stop even when requested to do so. It's not the content, it's the action.

'Rat

Did they "go up" to the father at the funeral?

The implication of your comments seems to indicate anytime someone vocally protests against someone or something, it's harrassment. Why don't we hear about more lawsuits involving harrassing protesters? Of course this has to do with the content of their protest. To think otherwise is extremely naive.