Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Jury Awards Father $2.9M in Funeral Case - Westboro Baptist Church


Destino

Recommended Posts

BALTIMORE (AP) - A federal jury on Wednesday awarded the father of a fallen Marine $2.9 million in compensatory damages after finding an anti-gay Kansas church and three of its leaders liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress for picketing the Marine's funeral in 2006.

The jury was to begin deliberating the size of punitive damages after receiving further instructions, although U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified monetary damages after members staged a demonstration at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."

A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries, but the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SKEED02&show_article=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BALTIMORE (AP) - A federal jury on Wednesday awarded the father of a fallen Marine $2.9 million in compensatory damages after finding an anti-gay Kansas church and three of its leaders liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress for picketing the Marine's funeral in 2006.

The jury was to begin deliberating the size of punitive damages after receiving further instructions, although U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified monetary damages after members staged a demonstration at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags."

A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries, but the Maryland lawsuit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SKEED02&show_article=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the Westboro ****ers as much as anyone but this was a poor decision and a bad precedent in this case.

I think I agree.

And I fear that the ACLU will step in on their behalf on appeal.

And I think people will hate the ACLU even more around here and I will have to try and defend them again.

Sigh. This is going to suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the Westboro ****ers as much as anyone but this was a poor decision and a bad precedent in this case.

I think I agree.

And I fear that the ACLU will step in on their behalf on appeal.

And I think people will hate the ACLU even more around here and I will have to try and defend them again.

Sigh. This is going to suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agree.

And I fear that the ACLU will step in on their behalf on appeal.

And I think people will hate the ACLU even more around here and I will have to try and defend them again.

Sigh. This is going to suck.

Pretty much sounds like the script. This seems to me just like a backhanded way of punishing freedom of speech since it can't be done through criminal/law enforcement channels. Again, I hate them as much as anyone but this is the wrong way to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agree.

And I fear that the ACLU will step in on their behalf on appeal.

And I think people will hate the ACLU even more around here and I will have to try and defend them again.

Sigh. This is going to suck.

Pretty much sounds like the script. This seems to me just like a backhanded way of punishing freedom of speech since it can't be done through criminal/law enforcement channels. Again, I hate them as much as anyone but this is the wrong way to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much sounds like the script. This seems to me just like a backhanded way of punishing freedom of speech since it can't be done through criminal/law enforcement channels. Again, I hate them as much as anyone but this is the wrong way to deal with it.

If it happens, the interesting thing will be seeing if some people are able to reconcile their strongly held belief that the ACLU is anti-Christian with the ACLU's defense of crazy hateful Christian radicals.

Ahh, maybe it won't happen. Im getting ahead of myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much sounds like the script. This seems to me just like a backhanded way of punishing freedom of speech since it can't be done through criminal/law enforcement channels. Again, I hate them as much as anyone but this is the wrong way to deal with it.

If it happens, the interesting thing will be seeing if some people are able to reconcile their strongly held belief that the ACLU is anti-Christian with the ACLU's defense of crazy hateful Christian radicals.

Ahh, maybe it won't happen. Im getting ahead of myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While i too struggle with the restriction of speach...this is a pretty clear cut example of intentional infliction of emotional distress....i would probably feel differently if i didnt hate these clowns so much.

I hear you, that's the easy way out, though. It's always easiest to deny freedom of speech when the speech is downright ugly, however, it's that speech that needs to treated with the most care when attempting to censor it because denying it tears at the very fabric of the freedoms our country embodies. At least that's how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While i too struggle with the restriction of speach...this is a pretty clear cut example of intentional infliction of emotional distress....i would probably feel differently if i didnt hate these clowns so much.

I hear you, that's the easy way out, though. It's always easiest to deny freedom of speech when the speech is downright ugly, however, it's that speech that needs to treated with the most care when attempting to censor it because denying it tears at the very fabric of the freedoms our country embodies. At least that's how I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it happens, the interesting thing will be seeing if some people are able to reconcile their strongly held belief that the ACLU is anti-Christian with the ACLU's defense of crazy hateful Christian radicals.

Ahh, maybe it won't happen. Im getting ahead of myself.

Doubtful. I'm pretty sure most Christians will find it MORE than easy to dismiss these people as not being "real" Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it happens, the interesting thing will be seeing if some people are able to reconcile their strongly held belief that the ACLU is anti-Christian with the ACLU's defense of crazy hateful Christian radicals.

Ahh, maybe it won't happen. Im getting ahead of myself.

Doubtful. I'm pretty sure most Christians will find it MORE than easy to dismiss these people as not being "real" Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you, that's the easy way out, though. It's always easiest to deny freedom of speech when the speech is downright ugly, however, it's that speech that needs to treated with the most care when attempting to censor it because denying it tears at the very fabric of the freedoms our country embodies. At least that's how I feel.

It should be noted that the right to free speech is not unlimited. It never has been construed as such.

You have things such as defamation, which one could argue is free speech, or "fighting words," which is like inciting a riot. Not all speech is protected speech.

If I remember correctly, anything having to do with desecration of a funeral or the corpse a family member pretty much falls right into the house of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...