“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.
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.
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, 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:
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.
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.
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’.
You’re a good citizen. It’s cold comfort, I’m sure, but God bless ya for being principled and loyal to those principles.
I read the first two chapters. That is horrific.