11 million dollar verdict against Fred Phelps

JackWhite · #1 11-01-2007, 04:21 AM

Fred Phelps is the Kansas preacher/lunatic who leads the group that goes to military funerals with the "God Hates [censored]" signs. He was sued by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq in 2006 following one of these demonstrations at his son's funeral. The jury awarded 11 million dollars in damages.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...s_N.htm?csp=34

Phelps and his group are the lowest of the low, but I have a problem with this. Even absolute scum have the right to protest and say vile things. If juries award millions in damages to anyone who was offended by protesters, it would certainly have a chilling effect on the First Amendment.

Case Closed · #2 11-01-2007, 04:32 AM

This is absolutely terrible IMO.

DblBarrelJ · #3 11-01-2007, 04:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Fred Phelps is the Kansas preacher/lunatic who leads the group that goes to military funerals with the "God Hates [censored]" signs. He was sued by the father of a Marine killed in Iraq in 2006 following one of these demonstrations at his son's funeral. The jury awarded 11 million dollars in damages.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...s_N.htm?csp=34

Phelps and his group are the lowest of the low, but I have a problem with this. Even absolute scum have the right to protest and say vile things. If juries award millions in damages to anyone who was offended by protesters, it would certainly have a chilling effect on the First Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, suing isn't the answer. However, if the Guardian Angels happened to be at this funeral, and a little brawl broke out, I might have my back turned if I were a patrolman assigned to the funeral that day.

Then again, I may provide the Angels with OC spray and batons.

Bedreviter · #4 11-01-2007, 04:34 AM

As much as I absolutely loathe that group I do hope that verdict will be reversed.

Taso · #5 11-01-2007, 04:34 AM

I'm not sure I understand 100%. Was the lawsuit based on the fact that what the Church-members/protestors were saying was slanderous? Or just that it was offensive?

The First Amendment only applies to the Government limiting what people say, not on private citizens going to court with other private citizens.

DblBarrelJ · #6 11-01-2007, 04:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The group is planning to picket the memorial services of the seven college students who died in a North Carolina house fire, it said on its website.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

applejuicekid · #7 11-01-2007, 04:41 AM

I completely agree. It's one of those things that everyone thinks is so horrible so they don't mind punishing them even if it infringes on their rights. Also, on a different topic, why do victims get the punitive damages?

However, the family should be able to bury their son in peace without some nutjobs harassing them. But if they are on public property and aren't disrupting anything I don't see what they can do about it. People should be allowed to protest, and almost anything worth protesting is bound to offend someone.

These people are like real life trolls. Yet everyone keeps giving them the publicity that they crave. Their protests aren't newsworthy and yet they still get coverage. The best thing the media could do is ignore them. Honestly why are people getting so riled up over them? Their message is so crazy there is no reason to pay these lunatics any attention.

JackWhite · #8 11-01-2007, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand 100%. Was the lawsuit based on the fact that what the Church-members/protestors were saying was slanderous? Or just that it was offensive?

The First Amendment only applies to the Government limiting what people say, not on private citizens going to court with other private citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

The jury awarded 2.9 million in compenatory damages, 6 million in punitive damages, and 2 million for emotional distress.

I feel really bad for the family having to see those signs, but if they are peacefully protesting in public, I cannot imagine how that is worth 11 million dollars. And if that becomes a new standard, protesting of any kind will be in jepoardy.

Bedreviter · #9 11-01-2007, 04:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However, the family should be able to bury their son in peace without some nutjobs harassing them. But if they are on public property and aren't disrupting anything I don't see what they can do about it. People should be allowed to protest, and almost anything worth protesting is bound to offend someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure about the legal aspect of this, but couldnt it be possible for the government (or whoever deals with this) to put up a "no-protesting-area" inside a 1000 feet radius of the church for a few hours while the funeral is going on? Or are anyone allowed to have an organized protest wherever whenever they feel like?

I think there should be a way to keep those [censored] out of the way during the funeral, and if they feel it is important to protest they can do that somewhere away from the place where the funeral is taking place.

DblBarrelJ · #10 11-01-2007, 04:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the family should be able to bury their son in peace without some nutjobs harassing them. But if they are on public property and aren't disrupting anything I don't see what they can do about it. People should be allowed to protest, and almost anything worth protesting is bound to offend someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure about the legal aspect of this, but couldnt it be possible for the government (or whoever deals with this) to put up a "no-protesting-area" inside a 1000 feet radius of the church for a few hours while the funeral is going on? Or are anyone allowed to have an organized protest wherever whenever they feel like?

I think there should be a way to keep those [censored] out of the way during the funeral, and if they feel it is important to protest they can do that somewhere away from the place where the funeral is taking place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think some old fashioned vigilante justice is the answer, rather than more laws, but that's just me.