# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/101 "2007-10-31T22:49:16Z")
[Jury Awards $11M](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Funeral-Protests.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) > [@](#): > > A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. > > Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. > > The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress. > > Snyder’s attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount ‘‘that says don’t do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again.’’ ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/102 "2007-11-01T12:56:07Z")
“Invasion of privacy and intent to cause emotional distress.” Can an argument be made that a private service (funeral) held on public grounds (cemetary) is considered private? If a gay couple decided to hold a marriage ceremony in a park, and Phelps was picketing and screaming obscenities nearby, he can be sued? After all, they have just as much right not to be harassed in a public place as Phelps does to picket. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/103 "2007-11-01T13:27:02Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] > [@](#): > > Look around – how many states, cities, etc. have laws about when and where free speech can be properly exercised? None. [/QUOTE] Oh, really? Try cranking up a sound truck in a residential neighborhood at 3 AM, and the police will soon arrive to disabuse you of that notion. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2007, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/104 "2007-11-01T18:28:09Z")
[QUOTE=ivylass] “Invasion of privacy and intent to cause emotional distress.” [/quote] I have to say, this is a very conflicting result for me in two areas: (1) the moral aspect and (2) the legal aspect. For (1), on one hand I’m glad WBC got slapped – there aren’t many groups I think deserve it more. On the other, I think the value of free speech is diminished. Personally, I hold the overarching ability to freely express one’s opinion much dearer (in a moral sense) than (almost) any restriction on that ability. So there’s that. For (2), it’s not clear to me how either of the findings (privacy and distress) are acceptable legal justifications. A further aspect of this case is revealed by this [ABC News article](http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3803459), which says: _Snyder said that on the day of the funeral, he didn’t see the protesters or their signs, only the tops of the signs._ IOW, for Snyder, the service remained private throughout its duration. And yet another wrinkle in all this has been pointed out by **Hamlet** in the current Pit thread: > [@Hamlet](#): > > The Constitution and the First Amendment were meant to protect people from the actions of the government…This isn’t a case of “suspension of civil liberties”, it’s one citizen suing another citizen for a tort. That’s a point that I’d not given its due consideration. It makes the practicalities of free speech much less clear-cut, and the dividing lines (and how/when/where to apply them) are not clear to me at all. Doesn’t change my feelings on the ideological aspects, however. > [@](#): > > Can an argument be made that a private service (funeral) held on public grounds (cemetary) is considered private? I’d think an argument _can_ be made; I’d also think that it is greatly weakened (eliminated?) if there is a permitting process in effect. After all, I don’t see how obtaining a permit wouldn’t necessarily include privacy considerations as part of the process. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/105 "2009-09-26T09:07:23Z")
Reviving this old thread to report the latest news. Back in February 2008, a federal judge reduced the damages from $10.9 million to $5 million, citing constitutional concerns of appropriateness. Now even that has been overturned. This week, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., held that the signs and writings of the Westboro Baptist Church, which included anti-gay and anti-military messages, though distasteful and repugnant, are protected by the First Amendment. So the church has won this case, unless it is appealed to tye US Supreme Court. Personally, I agree with the federal appeals court, on both items: - their comments are distasteful and repugnant, and - they are constitutionally protected free speech. I’d rather put up with idiots like them speaking out (and displaying their ignorance & bigotry) than having any part of the government deciding what speech is ‘appropriate’. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/106 "2009-09-26T12:40:56Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > It’s cases like this that really test your belief in the first amendment. I loathe these people. I loathe what they do. They have no moral or ethical right to intrude on families like this. > > But, as long as they weren’t outright disruptive, they probably do have a legal right to this type of speech and we probably do need to support it. And I **HATE** saying that. You’re a good citizen. It’s cold comfort, I’m sure, but God bless ya for being principled and loyal to those principles. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2009, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107/107 "2009-09-27T13:33:31Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > However, sick as it is, when they’re on public property, they can do what they want. I think it helps that NO ONE takes these people seriously, and that they’re fucking insane. And picketing funerals is NOTHING compared to how Fred treated his [own family](http://www.blank.org/addict/). I read the first two chapters. That is horrific. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/westboro-baptist-church-being-sued/424107.md?page=5)