Grieving Father Wins $11 Million Judgment Against Homophobic Church Protesters
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Oct 31, 2007 5:31pm
Via The Baltimore Sun: (h/t Nate)
A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.
It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."
They contend that the deaths are punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military. Read more...
No matter what your religious views might be, this is pure hatred. I am happy for Mr. Snyder and his family and we wish him all the best, but you can rest assured, the Phelps flock will appeal this as far as they can.
Login or Register to post comments.
No Frist.
Ignorance is bliss. And hatred is the brother of stupidity. My prayers go out to the Snyder family.
The only "god" who would laugh when people die is the "god" of evil, also known as Satan, Phelps.
I'm sure the Phelps kkklan already knows this though.
The idol that they worship cares nothing for the people of this world, and has no compassion.
Their "god" delights in suffering and according to them is the "god" of hate.
Their "god" hates this and hates that.
Phelps = Satanist.
Good that they appeal. As horrible as they are, this is clearly a case of free (yet repugnant) speech.
This is good news I remember that case. How sad that a church would act like that when they are suppose to represent God. This shows Americans just how low the Church Pastors have gone to get money from the White House. The soldier severed all Americans yet look how our Christian Church treats him. It's more like the Church did to Jesus. I guess money can even by the Pastors and the Church. Satan is running the White House.
WOOOHOOOO!
Take that Phelps!
God hates assholes!
free speech > right not to cry
Shouldn't he be able to take possession of the church building and property as part of the settlement? If he does, it would be quite right and proper for him to put up a big banner that says 'God love homosexuals', though it might cause some of the members to try and burn down their former place of worship.
I guess this puts to rest the possibility of Phelps being a brilliant satirist...
What a sick group of people pretending they "know" what their God wants.
To all who see this as a free speech issue,
I can only hope that you get to experience such wonderful free speech at each and every funeral you have to attend for the rest of your life.
My personal religious view is that all religions are equally ridiculous, but some are more equally ridiculous than others.
Religion belongs to the childhood of our species. It's time to grow up and get over it. The problem with religion is that it provides no basis for choosing among beliefs. The definition of faith is believing without evidence, or in spite of evidence. Fred Phelps is precisely as credible as the Pope, James Dobson, or, let's face it, Martin Luther King Jr. When it comes to religion, they all spout nonsense.
Agreed Craig. These views and tactics of these people are despicable to me. But free speech is free speech. Appeal the hell out of it and see what higher courts say. The amount of the verdict was likely a direct result of how most reasonable people would respond to what they say, and verdicts should not be decided on that basis (content of speech). This seems like a very troubling (and slippery) verdict to me at first sight.
Good for Snyder. Someone needed to do this. I'm not a religion scholar, come to think of it I don't believe in organized religion at all, but I know one thing. This is not a religious organization. They are pure hate and nothing more.
At the risk of minimizing this ruling, this shows you how far people will go in the name of their god and we have people running for office in the name of their god and making policies based on it. In the known history of this planet, more people have been murdered in the name of a god than in any political war. Most god's teachings are based on peace and tolerance, yet most current preachers of gods teach the exact opposite. Yet, I still can't figure out why I am so against organized religion. ( sarcasm )
Phelps: "It's going to be reversed in five minutes," he said. This case, he added, "will elevate me to something important."
A soulful statement, huh?
Craig @ 3:
I must question whether or not this is actually protected under free speech. While this group does sometimes protest in public areas, they have lately abandoned that practice. Their latest protests have been at funeral homes or in cemetaries, neither of which are technically public places. They intruded on private events. I know of no case in which free speech was held as a valid argument when someone invades a private event.
They seem to have grown bolder and are no longer standing on public streets but are actually on private property claiming that their right to free speech exists there as well.
Even if you consider this free speech, there is no guarantee that you can not be held liable for that free speech if others are affected by it. I have always wondered why none of the families sued this church for all funeral expenses since they decided to crash the funeral.
texas lady @ 9:
I agree. Christians need serious help.
I was overjoyed when I read about this yesterday. I kid you not - I did a happy dance.
Phelps is the enemy of everything - left, right, center, it doesn't matter.
Craig @ 3:
I disagree. Free speech should not include people protesting a family funeral regardless of the death. The old saying of yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind. Free speech does have limits. If you disagree, then you have no problem with the lies of swiftboaters. They have the right to free speech no matter the truth?
Mike @ 6:
I agree, but there is such a thing as harassment that goes beyond free speech.
It seems like a really tenuous line that I wouldn't trust any judge to define for me, but surely it can't be a black and white thing. I think there could be a way to protect a citizen from abusive and violent verbal attacks while still allowing for peaceful demonstrations and free press and the right to express oneself (in a nonviolent manner). This seems like a violent attack on another human being. The spirit of free speech is putting no restraint on one's self-expression while still protecting the rights of individuals from harm, no? Again, a slippery slope, but do I have the right to scream at another human being up close and personal forever and ever, or would another person stopping me from doing that be illegal and an affront to my rights? This gets into the notion of public space I think. It is one thing to change the channel if you don't like something or to not buy a book or game, etc. and another thing to have to wear earplugs.
Greg @ 18:
I agree with you.
A person's rights end where another person's begin.
The Phelps clan has the right of free speech - right up until they invade someone else's life with it.
Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.
Phelps has nothing to do with any religion. His is a church of pure hatred, nothing more.
proud atheist @ 16:
This group of sicko's knows christ about as well as you do...
Pete @ 10:
Agreed. This is not a free speech issue. This is a hate issue. I suppose the people who are calling this free speech also have no problem with the Jenna 6 and a noose. A noose should be considered free speech? That was hate and not free speech.
Matt @ 21:
Yep. There is no Christ in their church - even less than in most fundie churches.
Heck, they've even admitted before if it wasn't homosexuality, they'd be doing this about *something* - they are just hateful people; out to stir up hate against *someone*.
No, this isn't a free speech issue, that ignores the rights of the grieving families.
This is a disorderly conduct issue, a public nuisance issue, and perhaps even an inciting to riot issue.
The speech is not the issue, they are free to espouse their idiocy at will.
But in doing what they do they violate the rights of others, and it would seem to be a violation of multiple right of others that is in question.
That being the case, the question is should some one be allowed to exercise a single right if it violates multiple rights of others.
cervantes @ 11:
Well said.
V V
Woohoo!!! Congratulations Mr. Snyder. You've ridded the planet of a hate-mongering Phelps family... now they'll have to work and will hopefully be too busy doing that to spew their bigotry and hate.
What the rest of the families who have been protested by the phelps clan need to do is file individual lawsuits against them. This will keep their lawyer children so busy, they won't have time to protest funerals.
Greg @ 18:
Free speech in the US has turned into the cover all shield for hate-mongering, and the people that enforce it are scared to do so.
I find the lack of respect that people have for each other there (and the world) abhorrently disgusting.
texas lady @ 9:
Wouldn't it then be equally "sick" of you to say this isn't what God wants?
They quote the Bible, chapter and verse. They are as "Christian" as anyone else who claims to be. To suggest they are somehow getting the message wrong is silly. They are getting the message just right for them. As is George Bush, the entire "Christian right" and the "Christian left". If they are wrong on the interpretation then so is everyone who professes their belief in the book. The problem is the book not the people who believe in it.
I wish more people would quote the Constitution chapter and verse. It's a far more important piece of work whose effect in 200 years outweighs that of the Bible's entire existentence.
Chip @ 22:
Get a grip Chip, that was stupid.
Most atheists, myself included, know more about your religious figures than you do.
That is WHY we are atheists.
Good for the dad.
These people are poster-child of right-wing idiots. I mean these people are same type that would burn or run over Dixie Chicks CDs. Also the same type who would get in groups and Harry Porter books.
John R. @ 30:
Who's funeral(s) did Jesus protest?
This is a tactic that has worked successfully for the Southern Poverty Law Center to sue haters out of business. The only downside is that Phelp's lawyers will get richer.
Thank god for sensible judgments
I wonder if the RNC is privately backing him!
JJohnson @ 20:
mmmmm I dunno 'bout that. It is just a few steps away from fineing anti-war protesters because they are an affront to the families who have lost soldiers in the war. While I certianly don't condone these hate-mongers (and I would loose no sleep over someone kicking their ass at the funeral) I can see how this could be used by the state as a pretext the next time 'round.
Doncha just love a Christian who has the audacity to say "God hates"? Losers don't get any more lose-y than that.
Chip @ 22:
So you feel qualified to speak for Christ? You and Rev. Phelps are in the same boat. You believe Christ would not support his actions, but the Bible is not very clear on this matter. Certain passages can be taken from the Old Testament to mean exactly what Phelps believes. Alas, for a divinely inspired book, the Bible is a confusing mess of contradictions, and historical fabrications. You can find support for polygamy, slavery, and genocide all within its solemn pages.
Dr. Matt @ 33:
Jesus didn't protest funerals, but I'm sure he approved of some!
Murphy this was big news yesterday .
Still this is good news far as I'm concerned.
I look at the pic at the top of that guy holding those signs and all I can think is: Boy, he must reeeeeeally want a dick in his mouth bad!
How sweet the irony would taste if Phelps enlisted the help of the ACLU for his appeals.
Dr. Matt @ 33:
What is an acceptable protest to you? When I sue Code Pink for "hate-speech" and win 11 million will everyone applauding the decision applaud me?
John R. @ 44:
Has code pink EVER picketed a servicemans funeral?
John R. @ 44:
That depends, will Code Pink be at your moms funeral jeering her death?
Ummmm. Quite simple,really. THE STATE NEVER denied Them their 'Rights' They said what they said and NO state stopped Them. However,once Your 'Free speech is uttered,Be prepared for the consequenses. It's like My motto ' a law- abideing citizen' applies up and until You pull the trigger.
FIRE!
The classic example of the sane limits of "free speech".
Some of you people are very cold.
proud atheist @ 16:
Wow you sound just like Michael Savage.
CD @ 49:
Well, they do.
They obviously think so themselves, after all they need a personal savior because they can't do it themselves.
CD @ 45:
So if Code Pink holds up "End the War" now signs anywhere near a soldiers's funeral then they should be sued and they should have to pay? How close is to close to a funeral? What are your rules?
Symes @ 46:
Hopefully. A little coverage for mom would be a good thing. You people have no perspective.
Joshua James @ 43:
There have been cases in the past of a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU defending neo-nazi organizations. How is that for irony? We live in a remarkable country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Vill...
cervantes @ 11:
Religion is the reason America is screwed up in the first place.
Hiding behind 'The Lord' lends despicable power to otherwise, insignificant idiots.
God is only a convenience for the corrupt.
proud atheist @ 52:
The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh on privacy grounds in the FLA case. Rightfully so IMHO.
Tom @ 34:
Exactly what I was thinking.
For those not in the know, the Southern Poverty Law Centre sued the KKK for damages and were awarded millions, effectively bankrupting the Klan.
JerryM @ 29:
I agree. If this group stayed in their temple of god and spewed their hate, that's free speech. But when they show up at a persons funeral, that is beyond free speech. They are taking away the rights of a family who is grieving a loss. It is a private ceremony. Would they accept people showing up in your office and protesting the job you are doing, or in your living room calling you a bad parent? How about your diet? Should they come to your kitchen and protest the fact that you're not having 5 servings of fruits and vegetables? I think the people who are standing up for the Phelps are doing it because these people lost their lives in a war they disagree with. I disagree with this war but believe they should respect the right to a decent burial.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
[Susan B. Anthony]
CD @ 49:
Would you care to elaborate on that statement? It is not clear what you mean. Of course, not being a listener of Michael Savage, I really do not understand how that applies to what I said or how that would accurately describe me.
Do you people know how close to the funeral they actually got? The Snyder family learned about the protest from the media.
I seem to remember reading that Phelps himself is a lawyer. He's not practicing now, maybe because he's been disbarred.
Does anybody remember this?
"...the Phelps flock will appeal this as far as they can..."
Aren't they all lawyers?
Symes @ 31:
John R. @ 51:
You are such a disingenuous person.
If they were as offensive as Phelps was then you'd get me cheering as well.
And I don't mean offensive to some delicate little flower (as you are about to pass yourself off as I am sure) but truly offensive, like Phelps.
That is what is being said and your attempts to to Faux Noise drive by won't gain traction here.
You are the one with no perspective, after all you are just saying all protests are the same regardless of how nasty and vicious the protesters.
ashton @ 15:
I heard that they were 1000ft away, per state law. 1st amendment protects unpopular speech in particular. The fact that some of you people are attack those of us lamenting the erosion of free speech demonstrate the very mechanism by which we may lose it. That is, we'll cheer when it is taken away from people until it is our turn
Symes @ 50:
Because they disagree with you they have a mental disorder?
you really need to be more open minded.
proud atheist @ 58:
He describes liberals as having a mental disorder.
Sad to see so many on a progressive site applauding the loss of free speech. But it's already been said that democrecy will NOT go out with a bang.
Free speech MUST protect the most vile speech, otherwise it is worthless.
As long as these idiots are on public property, they should be allowed to protest.
And those who liken this to yelling fire in a theater are clueless. This is not a safety issue, and it's not about "the truth". After all, who knows what "God" hates? There's no way to prove he is slandering or libeling "God", so this is a very clear issue of free speech.
Loonie @ 38:
The God of the old testament is not a nice God and you could accurately describe him as hating a great many people. After all, on frequent occasions he ordered the slaughter of every man, woman, and babe of another tribe or city when they stood in the way of his chosen people. This is, after all, the God that tested Abraham's faith by ordering him to kill his own son. If not hateful, the God of the old testament is certainly pathological and NOT a great source moral teaching.
The family got nothing and will receive nothing from the Phelps. Naturally the Phelps family (where many of them are lawyers, Fred himself being a former civil rights attorney for African-Americans) will appeal. Also, Westboro Baptists assets are less than a million dollars so they don't have the money to give the family.
Symes @ 63:
So I am disingenuous yet you seem to think you can read minds. Classic. Right wingers are cheering this decision as well you silly goose. You don't get to define offensive. That is the point. Explain what the difference would be if a soldiers' family sued war protesters for holding up signs that read "no blood for oil". Offensive is personal.
McMike @ 64:
Ummm. Pardon me, but the suit was not brought on first ammendment grounds, of which the Phelps have every right to spew what ever hatred that they want to spew... just like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and David Duke... it was brought on the face of invasion of privacy and emotional distress...
John R. @ 59:
And that is important because......... ? IF I whisper to Yur friend at a bar that Your sister is a whore,and He tells you,that makes it less hurtfull?
just look at Phelps' wiki page for a clue as to who we're dealing with here. The guy is certifiable. He hates EVERYONE!
Men like Phelps awake within me an ancient instinct; one akin to dealing with mad dogs.
CD @ 65:
Actually, because they believe in an invisible father figure who looks over them and will make it all better AFTER they are dead without ANY critical examination of those beliefs means they have a problem.
Because they will make judgments of others based on this fantasy withou even questioning the basis of their judgments they need some help.
Because they seem not to be able to face the world and universe as it really is without a veneer of some baseless story, that they believe just because it is really really old, yeah, they need some help.
Open minded about what, that Gollum might actually exist? That Santa will be visiting my house this year?
What am I supposed to be open minded about in this case?
I think that admonishment is rightly yours to examine.
CD @ 66:
I would describe anyone who believes anything without evidence as having a mental disorder and in need of help. To base your beliefs on evidence = rational, to base your beliefs on no evidence = irrational.
Before you accuse me of believing in the non-existence of God without any evidence, let me make this analogy. I (and 99% of the sane world) do not believe that alchemy is a valid realm of science. I do not believe so because no evidence has been presented to incline me to such a belief. Yet no one would think to describe me as a non-alchemist and irrational. The onus of proof is always on those stating a belief in God, not the other way around. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Symes, I've been studying Ancient manuscripts in original languages for over a decade..care to spar?
Besides my point was that these are not Christians.
BTW - what makes you think I am a Christian?
David Hawes @ 72:
It makes a difference because they did not disrupt the funeral. The family saw it a day later and got upset that the Phelps got more attention than their son. Listen to the father's interview. Your hypothetical is so stupid that is doesn't deserve anymore than me telling you how stupid it is.
n m
John R. @ 70:
Disingenuous crap.
There things that are offensive even to hardened attitudes, and Phelps has demonstrated he can offend nearly the entire country, right left and all in between.
Except perhaps you.
Chip @ 76:
Why don't you two get a room? the egos here almost exploded my laptop
Um, what if the theater is actually on fire when you shout?
More civil liberties being eroded away. Next will be anti-war protests or anti-religion rallies. Remember that when given an inch they will take a mile.