Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

November 01, 2007

Am I The Only One Troubled?

I may be about to make myself the most unpopular guy in the blogosphere with this post. I may even be accused of defending the indefensible. But I'm taken aback by the untoward celebration of a decision that imperils the free speech rights of Americans, even though the folks who lost this case are among the most despicable to slither from beneath a rock in the last several decades.

I'm talking, of course, about the nearly $11 million in damages a jury awarded to the father of a Marine killed in the war, against the Fred Phelps Klan for picketing the funeral with their usual array of disgusting signs and offensive chants, songs, and slogans.

A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict against a fundamentalist church that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder sued the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The federal 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."

So let's be clear about the goal of this suit -- it was to punish speech conducted in a public place, speech that is fully protected by the Constitution, on the grounds that it is hurtful, offensive, and outrageous. That troubles me very deeply, and it is my profound hope that the decision is thrown out on appeal as incompatible with the First Amendment.

And what is particularly disturbing to me is that folks who are usually supportive of freedom of speech are celebrating this decision against these loons.

I already see the next suit -- filed by some pro-abortion woman against picketers in front of the local abortion clinic After all, doesn't she have the right to seek medical care unharassed, without her privacy being invaded and emotional damage intentionally inflicted? Or a couple of summers back when local Democrats picketed the home of SwiftVets' John O'Neill on his daughter's wedding day -- I could see a suit being filed to suppress that speech, which I found disturbing but recognize as constitutionally protected.

So you see, it isn't that I carry a brief for the Fred Phelps Klan and their cult -- I don't. It is just that I worry about the First Amendment implications of allowing civil damages for legal, constitutionally protected speech in a public place on these grounds. Imposing civil damages for hurt feelings threatens our essential liberties. It isn't Fred Phelps whose speech I want to see protected -- it is everyone else's.

A similar question is raised at The Liberty Papers.

UPDATE: For those who object to the time and place (a public street proximate to a funeral), let me ask this question. If instead of a soldier this had been the funeral of a KKK member, and instead of the Phelps Cult it had been the a local black church or the NAACP proclaiming that God Hates Racists, would you view the judgment rendered in this case acceptable or appropriate? If not, are you seeking to punish the method used or the message you despise?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.





|| Greg, 05:39 AM || Permalink || Comments (11) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Am I The Only One Troubled?

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/228631
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Am I The Only One Troubled?'.

Comments on Am I The Only One Troubled?

I couldn't agree more. In fact I tried to say so over at STACLU, but Jay hasn't decided to approve the post. These are the comments I made late last night, which are being censored from their blog.

-----------------

Gentlemen:

Everyone is so eager to pounce on someone who insults your fallen brothers, that you are willing to over look the facts of the case.

Fact one: Phelps may be insane - that has nothing to do with the liberty issues involved.
Fact two: There is no guarantee in America to not be insulted or to not have ones feeling hurt. (Ēemotional distressĒ please I thought this site was run by a bunch of soldier, not a bunch of feminist.)
Fact three: We have the right to express hate. In fact, let me express the fact that I hate the actions by the Phelps group.

But I also hate a bunch of sissified ninnies who defend a private cause at the sake of my personal liberties. This has all the makings of a perfect ACLU case on the Snyder side, but because of the emotional attachment you soldiers feel, you canít separate the two.

Sorry guys, I agree with most of what you do around here, and I disagree with Phelps. But your rejoicing over his lose can only be because of an emotional attachment to the war and your career. Because if you love liberty, then you know you cannot rejoice over oneís mans lose of liberty without mourning your own!

Oh and by the way, itís a big bunch of bunk to say that an $11 million dollar judgment isnít taking away a manís liberty.

|| Posted by PaulTN, November 1, 2007 07:57 AM ||

Before all you Free Speech enthusiasts get bent, you should keep in mind that firstly, this was a civil trial. Secondly, the findings had nothing to do with free speech as you would be so quick to defend. The case was based on Invasion of Privacy, Defamation and Emotional Distress. You see, the 1st Ammendment allows for free speech, however, it does not protect one from the consequences of what is said. Now, you may wish to argue for or against the findings that privacy was invaded, or defamation occurred, (carrying signs that say "God hates Fags" when the soldier in question was, in fact, straight), but the plaintiff, nor the court challenged anyone on freedom of speech.

|| Posted by Syd B., November 1, 2007 08:22 AM ||

You are correct. This was a civil suit, and therefore, the Constitution does not apply. It still adds fuel to a powerful movement, and at the end of the day, is a bad, bad, bad decision. See my post on the topic.

|| Posted by rightwingprof, November 1, 2007 08:54 AM ||

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Let me hit the important part here: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ..."

Are you telling me that the grieving father who filed the lawsuit was actually Congress?

Was the Federal Government the plaintiff in this case?

Was the Federal Government involved in this case in any way -- other than as arbitrator between two private citizens?

If not, why are you bringing the First Amendment into this?

Anyone who complains that parts of the Constitution (the Interstate Commerce Clause, for instance)are being expanded into areas that don't concern it -- well, these folks should not be expanding any other part of the Constitution -- including the First Amendment -- into areas that don't concern it.

|| Posted by LawDog, November 1, 2007 10:42 AM ||

Right on SydB,rightwingprof,and Lawdog.
All the rest of you getting bent out shape,CHILL OUT.
Those protesters should have cooled their overwrought heels in jail for a protracted length of time.Better still,spend A LOT of time in a Funny Farm,as they are seriously mentally ill.
What a sad sad time for that grieving father.His freedom to mourn was seriously impacted by that flow of hate gushing out of those sick mouths.

|| Posted by Ellie, November 1, 2007 02:19 PM ||

I think the point to all of this legal action is not the erosion of your constitutional rights, but the way in which a reasonable person should express them. The funeral of a soldier is not the place, perhaps on the church website, they own the medium, they control the message. Klan Phelps is out there with the express goal to cause pain, pure and simple.

Would he have gone away if he was asked to? Hell no. If I shout "fire" (falsely)in a crowded stadium, is this my right to free speech? Or would a normal person realise that they are potentially putting a lot of lives in danger over what would be considered a prank?

Think about it before you cry about free speech.

|| Posted by Graham, November 1, 2007 02:58 PM ||

So what you are saying, Syd, is that someone may engage in Constitutionally protected speech about their religious beliefs on a public sidewalk, but that any private individual may then use the courts to punish them for the speech by claiming that the speech somehow inflicted emotional distress upon them, or that it invaded their private time. Such nonsense would render the right to freedom of speech null and void, because unpopular speech could then be suppressed via the civil courts imposing judgments (like this one) that essentially render such speech too personally perilous to engage in.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 1, 2007 03:05 PM ||

Prof:

The Constitution does not apply in the civil courts of the United States? My, what a novel concept!

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 1, 2007 03:06 PM ||

LawDog:

Because a cause of action for those torts is still taking place in courts set up by Congress under its Article III powers. Congress cannot authorize a court that will interfere with the legitimate exercise of a right under the Constitution.

Similarly, no reasonable reading of the Constitution or the last 100 years of civil liberties jurisprudence would legitimately allow any interpretation of the Constitution to permit a court to stop or punish constitutionally protected speech -- or permit the executive branch to issue an executive order to stop speech. The First Amendment as currently interpreted does not merely extend to restrictions upon Congress, but also upon the other two branches of government and the states (via the 14th Amendment).

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 1, 2007 04:09 PM ||

Ellie:

Jail time? On what charge? Engaging in free speech on a public street?

And involuntary commitment is only permitted when an individual is found to be an imminent threat to the life or safety of themselves or others due to their mental illness. You couldn't prove that here in a million years. As disgusting as these folks are, they have no history of violence.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 1, 2007 04:12 PM ||

Graham:

Gotta disagree with you here. A public street, even during a funeral, is a legitimate venue for speech. I may hate the speech in question, but it is not my place to deny them access to a public forum.

And let me point out that there is no comparison between this speech and yelling fire in a theater. Indeed, it was more akin to burning a flag, which is constitutionally protected. What you apparently want is a heckler's veto.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, November 1, 2007 04:15 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg






Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 179)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 407)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 661)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 478)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 64)
History (posts: 323)
Humor (posts: 84)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 36)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 272)
News (posts: 1542)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 106)
Politics (posts: 5027)
Race & Racism (posts: 267)
Religion (posts: 802)
Terrorism (posts: 853)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 3)
The Courts (posts: 307)
Watcher's Council (posts: 438)
World Affairs (posts: 341)

Archives

August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Why The "Dead Civilians" Numbers From Gaza Are Hard To Accept
Austin Is A Liberal Island In The Heart Of Texas
HERO Petition Case Sent Back To State Court, Ordinance Put On Hold
HERO Opponents Challenge Petition Rejection In State Court, City Moves To Make It A Federal Case
If We Are Going To Talk About "Economic Patriotism"
London Times Refuses Ad Condemning Hamas
Oh, No! Not Bacon!
Fallout From HERO Repeal Failure
Dictator-In-Chief Plans To Impose Taxes Without Congressional Approval
Anti-Semitic Former President Comes Out In Favor Of Legitimizing Terrorist Organization Dedicated To Exterminating Jews

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs