# Westboro Baptist Church being sued **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 26, 2007, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107 "2007-10-26T14:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/81 "2007-10-29T20:36:50Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] I would think that once he dies, that whole family is just going to blow up. [/QUOTE] Ahh, suicide bombing. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/82 "2007-10-29T21:34:42Z")
[QUOTE=Mama Tiger] Considering the anger raised by the Phelps’ demonstrations, I think a reasonable person could also conclude that public safety standards might safely be applied to their demonstrations, however. [/quote] So, if a given example of speech pisses off a sufficient number of people, then it’s alright to curtail it? Because I’m having trouble figuring out a filter that catches Phelps’s brand of poison, but will still let through sentiments like, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,” or, “I should be able to sit in whatever bus seat I like, regardless of my skin color,” or even, “What the hell are we paying taxes to England for, anyway?” > [@](#): > > As I said initially, however, I’m a strong proponent of the First Amendment. I just wonder if there’s a level of abusive behavior shielded by it that perhaps bears exposing to the light and questioning and limiting when it tramples on the rights of others. The Phelps are a prime example of this. IMO, they’re abusing free speech and exercise of religion in order to cause severe emotional pain and exacerbate the grief of already devastated people – witness **Diosa Bellissima** ’s friend’s experience. At what point does their right to do so conflict with the general public’s right not to be so exposed, and particularly the families of dead soldiers? I would say at the point where Phelps’s speech causes direct, immediate risk of physical harm to other people, or where it can be clearly discerned as a threat of violence against another person, or where it can be shown to be an objective falsehood that causes damage to the reputation of a person or institution. In other words, the same point that we apply to every other exercise of free speech in this country. I very much oppose carving out an exception for the Phelps clan, as A) it gives this toad far more credit than he deserves, and B) the very real danger that any such exception could be used to squash any other example of speech that does not meet broad social approval, regardless of the actual merits of the speech. As much as I sympathize with the families of his victims, no one has a right to not hear things that make them sad or angry, and it is precisely the possibility of this reaction being used to justify censorship that we have the first ammendment in the first place. > [@](#): > > I think this is a murky area of the law because there is no clear right or wrong that applies under all circumstances, and it’s extremely naive to say that a literal reading of the First Amendment should be all that’s needed. There are a lot of other considerations to take into account, as courts have been doing for many, many years now. No one is suggesting the Phelps can’t believe what they want to, especially me. I just wonder where their right to inflict pain on others is overridden by the needs of the community. Actually, there are very few other considerations that need to be taken into account. There are very few limits placed on freedom of speech, and I think that we should be extraordinarily careful about adding new ones. In this case, we’re discussing creating an additional encroachment on the first ammendment to address the antics of one highly deranged individual and his horrifically abused family. Sorry, but that simply does not rise to the level of immediate need to justify new legislation in this area, particularly as time and the natural degeneration of the human body will solve this dilemma in another decade or two without any intervention from the authorities. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/83 "2007-10-29T22:14:14Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] No, it’s not. There is an objective standard by which to determine whether someone is a thief or not. No such standard exists for questions of god. [/QUOTE] Standing outside a store with a placard stating ‘the owner is a thief’ is expressing an opinion, of course it is. We don’t always preface our opinions with 'I think.. ’ or ‘I do believe…’. It might be mistaken for a fact, but that’s another matter. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/84 "2007-10-29T22:35:25Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor] It’s very creative of you to re-define my words to give you the illusion I’m wrong about something. [/QUOTE] Whaaaa…? 😕 I didn’t redefine anything. I simply pointed out that each item in your list is more than simple hatred and then requoted myself. Though I do have to cop to putting “solely” in italics. To clarify and emphasize my original point. Sorry 'bout taking that there creative license; I’ll strive to be more opaque with my responses to you in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/85 "2007-10-29T23:11:01Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Standing outside a store with a placard stating ‘the owner is a thief’ is expressing an opinion, of course it is. We don’t always preface our opinions with 'I think.. ’ or ‘I do believe…’. [/QUOTE] And we don’t always stand outside a store with a placard proclaiming thievery either. At least, I don’t; I’m not really sure what you do for fun. 😉 Levity aside: no, really, I don’t think it is. You say you would take it as an opinion. Really? If you saw someone standing outside a small business with such a sign, you wouldn’t at the very least consider that it was a factual assertion? Man, get out! I applaud your faith in the goodness of humanity, as it’s seemingly much higher than mine. In the least favorable interpretation of my assertion, there’s at least an element of doubt that it’s a mere opinion. In actuality, I’m pretty sure the view I’ve put forward has some weight. Particularly if the business can show damages due to the mobile signage. Perhaps I should’ve reitereated my “I’m hazarding a guess” disclaimer, but I thought it was understood. Sorry if my terse “No, it’s not.” bugged you out. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/86 "2007-10-30T08:36:45Z")
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus] Levity aside: no, really, I don’t think it is. You say you would take it as an opinion. Really? If you saw someone standing outside a small business with such a sign, you wouldn’t at the very least consider that it was a factual assertion? Man, get out! I applaud your faith in the goodness of humanity, as it’s seemingly much higher than mine. [/QUOTE] No, I might very well _not_ perceive it as an opinion, but it is one nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/87 "2007-10-30T12:38:08Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] I would say at the point where Phelps’s speech causes direct, immediate risk of physical harm to other people, or where it can be clearly discerned as a threat of violence against another person, or where it can be shown to be an objective falsehood that causes damage to the reputation of a person or institution. In other words, the same point that we apply to every other exercise of free speech in this country. [/QUOTE] Fortunately, I don’t have to think about whether or not we should specially target Phelp’s clan: I am probably of the mind that if they were _just_ loud protesters, on the balance of it it would be a bad thing. I say fortunately because they have already shown themselves to be a violence-prone group. We should enforce the anti-violence laws already on the books. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/88 "2007-10-30T17:47:34Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] I say fortunately because they have already shown themselves to be a violence-prone group. We should enforce the anti-violence laws already on the books. [/QUOTE] Have they? I wasn’t aware that they’d started attacking people. I mean, other than Fred beating the shit out of his wife and children. **Mangetout** , I don’t think an accusation of thievery can reasonably be called a matter of opinion. Either the storekeeper has taken something that doesn’t belong to him, or he hasn’t. I mean, in the above paragraph where I call Fred an abusive father and husband, that’s not me speaking my opinion, that’s me relaying a fact as reported by a couple of his kids who have managed to escape his influence. It’s my opinion that the kids’ accusations are reliable, of course, but the accusation itself is either a fact, or a lie. Not an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/89 "2007-10-30T17:57:37Z")
I think that even a libelous or defamatory statement is only tortiable if the plaintiff can show financial damages, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/90 "2007-10-30T20:30:01Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Have they? I wasn’t aware that they’d started attacking people. I mean, other than Fred beating the shit out of his wife and children. **Mangetout** , I don’t think an accusation of thievery can reasonably be called a matter of opinion. Either the storekeeper has taken something that doesn’t belong to him, or he hasn’t. I mean, in the above paragraph where I call Fred an abusive father and husband, that’s not me speaking my opinion, that’s me relaying a fact as reported by a couple of his kids who have managed to escape his influence. It’s my opinion that the kids’ accusations are reliable, of course, but the accusation itself is either a fact, or a lie. Not an opinion. [/QUOTE] So… OJ… killer or not? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/91 "2007-10-30T20:33:31Z")
But in any case, that’s a far more specific example than some random guy standing outside some random store with a placard claiming the owner is a thief - there’s no way to tell _what_ that is, for a whole range of reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/92 "2007-10-30T21:06:30Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] So… OJ… killer or not? But in any case, that’s a far more specific example than some random guy standing outside some random store with a placard claiming the owner is a thief - there’s no way to tell what that is, for a whole range of reasons. [/QUOTE] Look, this would be a lot easier if you’d just admit that I’m right, and stop asking all these pesky questions. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/93 "2007-10-31T00:52:19Z")
You’re right eh? Interesting opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/94 "2007-10-31T01:51:06Z")
Paraphrasing something I say to my wife occasionally: “If only there was a globally connected repository of information that we could use to find the answer to this question…hmmm…” GQ thread started: [Legal Q, re: libel](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=442228) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/95 "2007-10-31T03:47:09Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] You’re right eh? Interesting opinion. [/QUOTE] Of course I’m right! I’m just… not entirely certain why, at the moment. But I’m definitly right! ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/96 "2007-10-31T04:31:41Z")
Much as I despise Phelps, I’m not conflicted about this at all. He and his crowd have the right to say anything they want when they are on their property or public property. Period. If it’s slanderous, they can be sued for it. And personally, I can’t see how it can be construed as slanderous, since their speech doesn’t address the personal acts of the dead soldiers. It is a batshit crazy claim that God is killing soldiers because of our country’s moral deterioration. AFAIK the soldiers’ personal actions aren’t a factor at all. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/97 "2007-10-31T19:00:11Z")
I’m not familiar with U.S. law but isn’t there a case for sectioning these total scum? ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/98 "2007-10-31T20:36:47Z")
Latest…judge awards $2.9 million to the family of the fallen Marine. No link yet… “Developing” on Drudge right now. I doubt they’ll see a penny…this will be tied up in appeals for decades to come. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/99 "2007-10-31T20:47:44Z")
[QUOTE=ivylass] Latest…judge awards $2.9 million to the family of the fallen Marine. No link yet… “Developing” on Drudge right now. I doubt they’ll see a penny…this will be tied up in appeals for decades to come. [/QUOTE] > **[Google News](https://news.google.com/search?scoring=d&q=phelps&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en)** > > Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News. There’s a few news reports now. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/100 "2007-10-31T22:46:22Z")
[QUOTE=Antinor01] > **[Google News](https://news.google.com/search?scoring=d&q=phelps&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en)** > > Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News. There’s a few news reports now. [/QUOTE] It’s up to 10.9M. And the church must open its financial records. [http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107.md?page=6)