Crazy "God Hates Fags" church forced to pay $11 million

[Dinner]

BTW I believe gay rights groups have tried to sue religious groups for saying homosexuality is an abomination but the courts, rightly, said the right to freedom of religion protected that speech. Other populist speech Berz has brought up (feminazis, Ann coulter's ravings, etc) has also been proven to be legally protected so there is no danger there.

What the court has said is that inflicting several emotional distress and disrupting private gathers during extremely sensitive moments, like at a family funeral, is not the appropriate place for such speech. The folks at Westboro can still run around saying Gos hates us because we haven't rounded up the fags but they have to stay well back from things like funerals. Wouldn't the town square or main street be a more fitting location anyway?

[DRoseDARs]

US anti-gay church to resume protests at funerals of soldiers

Thank God. For a moment there, I thought they might have learned their lesson and have to tone it down with The Crazy.

[Dinner]

[DRoseDARs]

What can I say? I'm a sucker for cheap fundie entertainment.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where in the Constitution are invasions of my privacy protected, Berz?

Long story short, SCOTUS has read privacy rights into the "Due Process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (insofar as it applies to state laws) and into the Fifth Amendment (for federal laws).

Note that these only protect against invasions of privacy by a state or government actor. So a Constitutional defense based on privacy might not be the best way to go with this case, as the conservative church was not a state actor.

The First Amendment might be the best way to go, if only through an inverse logic. The 1st Am protects certain types of speech but does have parameters. If you can prove this speech falls outside of the 1st Am protections, then it inversely shows a compelling interest for state regulation and thus common law damages in absence of a specific statute. The test is fairly complicated and different generations of SCOTUS may interpret it differently, but it basically boils down to:

1. Government regulation of POLITICAL speech, especially pertaining to a PUBLIC OFFICIAL, and especially pertaining to his or her FULFILLMENT OF PUBLIC DUTIES, is very unlikely to be constitutional. (Democracy works only if you can allow the public to comment and take part in political discourse, so govt can't control this at all.)

2. Government can regulate speech that may lead to "clear and present danger", though this doctrine is falling somewhat out of favor.

3. Certain types of action can constitute speech, such as flag burning (even though there's no speech or even language involved, per se). If the action involves a political statement, then the government generally cannot regulate it. (An exception is made if the regulation is narrowly tailored and protects a compelling govt interest. You cannot burn a draft card because the govt's interest in preserving the integrity of the draft card is essential to draft registration and administration. The govt has less material interest in any individual flag, so burning a flag does not stop the administration in any way.)

4. Govt can regulate the MANNER of speech much more readily than they can regulate the CONTENT of speech. So if somebody drives a sound truck through your neighborhood, government can regulate it if it's at 200 decibels at nighttime, since that's manner regulation. Govt can NOT regulate it purely because it's Republican or Democrat party advertising. That's protected speech. Same goes if the govt tries to pass a law saying you can't play music or Shakespeare over sound systems, since that's content regulation. [In this case, you could argue that the govt could regulate this sort of political speech insofar as they'd perceivably ban pro-gay demonstration at a funeral as well - the govt's case being that demonstration OF ANY TYPE at a funeral is not protected. See 5. below.]

5. Some types of speech lie at the opposite end of political discourse, i.e., the govt does not protect it much at all. Child pornography is probably the weakest type of expression there is - all sorts of laws exist to control or eliminate it, and there is no protection for it whatsoever against govt action. (For obvious reasons.) Other categories include adult pornography and hate speech, which may be analogous to "fighting words" (the original court language to describe speech without political value but calculated to outrage and instigate violence). [In this case, this is probably the most powerful argument - that the demonstrations were calculated to outrage and instigate violence and thus First Amendment protections do not apply. Of course, it helps if Maryland had a statute that outlawed it in the first place, but it doesn't. Hence, the plaintiffs have to rely on common law tort doctrines for recovery.]

Other points, which some posters have already made before but which bear repeating:

The calculus for punitive damages is unclear and the source of some debate, occasionally heated. Current SCOTUS thinking seems to be that anything equal to or greater than ten times the compensatory damages is unsuitably high for punitive damages. Many juries today tend to award nine times comp damages - and in this case, the punitive damages are less than triple the comp damages.

The case will almost certainly go to appeal, and Maryland has two appellate court levels - the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals. I believe neither court is *required* to review the case, though the standard may be stricter for the highest level court and lower for the intermediary court.

Historically speaking, churches have been bankrupted by lawsuits and then bounced back with donations within a matter of a few short years. The financial effects of this case are very unlikely to have any permanent impact on this congregation. As somebody already mentioned, the case is more important from a legal precedent viewpoint.

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't think Fred Phelps and his church has any financial support outside of his congregation, which as the article says is primarily his extended family. If they've managed to conduct 30,000 pickets in the past 10 to 15 years then most of them can't be working very much. A lot of his funding comes from counter suits he's won against groups trying to restrain him, but something tells me that now that he's taken to attacking dead soldiers he's not going to be getting more money from lawsuits.

[Berzerker]

BTW I believe gay rights groups have tried to sue religious groups for saying homosexuality is an abomination but the courts, rightly, said the right to freedom of religion protected that speech. Other populist speech Berz has brought up (feminazis, Ann coulter's ravings, etc) has also been proven to be legally protected so there is no danger there.

There is now, its just a matter of being consistent. If we can sue over mental anguish the barn door is open. This is just another decision that will be enforced in the future along politically correct lines - "hate speech" - with those wielding the most political power ending up on top. If Nazis can march thru a Jewish neighborhood, these people can hold signs accusing the USA and/or its agents of being corrupt.

Intentional inflection of emotional distress has been around for many decades in the common law.

Usually associated with some other act, an accident or assault or grounds for divorce. How many civil lawsuits have been won based solely on offensive words?

There is a differnece. Neither the Church, Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are invading the sanctity of a very personal moment.

These people didn't invade anything, they stood around with signs at a distance probably on some road leading to and away from the funeral or cemetery. Thats how these people operate around here, they stand on street corners with signs. Being seen in public is not an invasion, and the sanctity of personal moments (which is not a caveat to the 1st Amendment) is in the eye of the beholder. How do you know the Church has not "invaded" the sanctity of personal moments for people condemned by the Church? The Pope aint exactly issuing proclamations in private, they make sure everyone knows about the sinners they've identified because of their religion. So if gay marriage is allowed in some state, Catholics can be sued for standing outside the wedding with signs condemning homosexuality.

I'll thank you to qualify what you mean by "church". right now my church is facing an ass-kicking via a bunch of African bishops in the pay of an American group of wealthy conservatives just because it refused to discriminate against gays.

It could mean any church that condemns homosexuals, apparently yours does not so why would you think gays would sue your church, much less thank me for clarifying what doesn't need clarification? And I capitalized "the Church", that usually refers to the Catholic Church because it has a central Church/authority whereas most other churches in the US are quasi-independent. Maybe now y'all can sue these people giving you trouble

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker


There is now, its just a matter of being consistent. If we can sue over mental anguish the barn door is open. This is just another decision that will be enforced in the future along politically correct lines - "hate speech" - with those wielding the most political power ending up on top. If Nazis can march thru a Jewish neighborhood, these people can hold signs accusing the USA and/or its agents of being corrupt.

The Nazis have to apply for a permit and have to adhere to certain requirements of public order. Furthermore, I don't think they've done that in nearly 20 years.

Usually associated with some other act, an accident or assault or grounds for divorce. How many civil lawsuits have been won based solely on offensive words?

Plenty, in fact one does not have to have inflicted actual physical harm in order to be guilty of criminal assault. Giving the victim the reasonable expectation of harm is sufficient. A group of screaming loonies leaning over your limo shouting obscenities as it enters the cemetary to me seems like a resonable expectation of harm.

These people didn't invade anything, they stood around with signs at a distance probably on some road leading to and away from the funeral or cemetery. Thats how these people operate around here, they stand on street corners with signs. Being seen in public is not an invasion, and the sanctity of personal moments (which is not a caveat to the 1st Amendment) is in the eye of the beholder. How do you know the Church has not "invaded" the sanctity of personal moments for people condemned by the Church? The Pope aint exactly issuing proclamations in private, they make sure everyone knows about the sinners they've identified because of their religion. So if gay marriage is allowed in some state, Catholics can be sued for standing outside the wedding with signs condemning homosexuality.

IIRC they do more than stand around quietly at a respectful distance. From the descriptions I've heard they generally crowd around the entryways and scream their message at the top of their lungs.

It could mean any church that condemns homosexuals, apparently yours does not so why would you think gays would sue your church, much less thank me for clarifying what doesn't need clarification? And I capitalized "the Church", that usually refers to the Catholic Church because it has a central Church/authority whereas most other churches in the US are quasi-independent. Maybe now y'all can sue these people giving you trouble

Ah, you mean Roman Catholic Church. We Anglicans consider our sacraments as well as those of the Eastern rites and the Lutherans to be "Catholic" also and we do have a central authority, the Anglican Communion heade by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Aeson]

[Dr Strangelove]

A few years ago some guy with the last name "Gay" walked into a gay bar in Roanoke and killed several patrons. Fred's group showed up at the funerals of the victims. I recall from the newd broadcast that the behavior of his group was in general very much like that of the woman in the video who starts shouting "youre a pervert" at the reporter in the video linked in the post above only they were shouting unprovoked at all the cars and pedestrians passing them, both those which were part of the funeral procession and those which weren't.

Many years back his group staged a protest at a high school in Lynchburg largely because this is Jerry Falwell territory and they wanted to drive home the poit that they were even more radically homophobic than Jerry Falwell. They came onto school property and harassed the students, at some points even grabbing freshmen students. That time they didn't get away. Fred served a little jail time.

[TCO]

freedom of speech. This is still a free country. Barely. Sorta. If you disagree with the cruelty of the speech, so be it. But a tort is wrong. speech is free.

[Dr Strangelove]

So it's OK if I stand on the sidewalk and scream at you. I mean really scream at you? How about if I come on to school grounds and shout at 13 and 14 year olds? May I grab them and hold them so they don't run away when I shout at them?

[TCO]

holding someone is a battery and is wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TCO
speech is free.

It's 11 million dollars.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's 11 million dollars.

it's going to get overturned.