NationStates Jolt Archive

The father of a fallen Marine is suing the Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress:

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_7277523?source=most_viewed

I really hope the jury finds for the plaintiff and imposes damages on those inbred insults to the Christian faith that will send them once and for all into oblivion. Their behavior has long since ceased to be a First Amendment exercise.

I am against suing Phelps. It will put him in the limelight and give him attention he does not deserve. The best policy is to ignore people like him, or just point and laugh from a distance.

The father of a fallen Marine is suing the Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress:

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_7277523?source=most_viewed

I really hope the jury finds for the plaintiff and imposes damages on those inbred insults to the Christian faith that will send them once and for all into oblivion. Their behavior has long since ceased to be a First Amendment exercise.

Its about time those bastards had a good dose of justice.

I am against suing Phelps. It will put him in the limelight and give him attention he does not deserve. The best policy is to ignore people like him, or just point and laugh from a distance.

In theory I agree with you. Sometimes people like Phelps don't go away and legal action is required. I just want to be on that jury.

I'm frankly surprised this didn't happen sooner.

In theory I agree with you. Sometimes people like Phelps don't go away and legal action is required. I just want to be on that jury.

If he's suing him, isn't there no jury?

The father of a fallen Marine is suing the Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress:

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_7277523?source=most_viewed

I really hope the jury finds for the plaintiff and imposes damages on those inbred insults to the Christian faith that will send them once and for all into oblivion. Their behavior has long since ceased to be a First Amendment exercise.

I hope they show this on Court-TV, or at least C-Span, you know this is going to be a great trial.

*starts setting up for the "Phelps Trail" party*

I am against suing Phelps. It will put him in the limelight and give him attention he does not deserve. The best policy is to ignore people like him, or just point and laugh from a distance.

Phelps has more then proved that no amount of time or amount of people taking the high road will put a dent in his insanity ... maybe it is time to hit him in the pocketbook

If he's suing him, isn't there no jury?

There may be depending on how the jurisdiction is set up. I know where I am a jury can decide if a case is worthy of a settlement. May be different there I am not sure. I am sure some armchair lawyer will chime in and explain.

Personally, I find Fred Phelps abhorrant. Unfortunately, if he was on public property, while I think it protesting a funeral was an awful thing to do, I don't think it was an illegal thing to do.

I don't like what he says. I don't like how he says it. I don't like him, but I defend his right to say what he will, as did the soldier whose funeral Phelps picketed. If we want freedom of speech to protect us, it must also protect those who we would personally rather it did not. This is one of those places where the lines, once drawn, blow the whole deal for everyone.

That being said, I appreciate the idea of those vets who have started counter protests by ringing funerals with so many supporters that Phelps and his crowd can't get close enough to be bothersome. That is a good use of the freedoms provided by the First Amendment.

I am against suing Phelps. It will put him in the limelight and give him attention he does not deserve. The best policy is to ignore people like him, or just point and laugh from a distance.

I think the "point and laugh" option is more fun.

I'm not. It would be nice to see the WBC sold off and him reduced to miserable poverty as punishment for his crimes.

Personally, I find Fred Phelps abhorrant. Unfortunately, if he was on public property, while I think it protesting a funeral was an awful thing to do, I don't think it was an illegal thing to do.

The issue isn't whether WBC engaged in illegal behavior. This is a civil suit. Different cause of action, different burden of proof, different consequences to the defendant on losing.

I don't like what he says. I don't like how he says it. I don't like him, but I defend his right to say what he will, as did the soldier whose funeral Phelps picketed. If we want freedom of speech to protect us, it must also protect those who we would personally rather it did not. This is one of those places where the lines, once drawn, blow the whole deal for everyone.

Phelps and his gang can say whatever they want. If, in doing so, they intentionally inflict emotional distress or invade privacy, they will be held accountable and pay up.

That being said, I appreciate the idea of those vets who have started counter protests by ringing funerals with so many supporters that Phelps and his crowd can't get close enough to be bothersome. That is a good use of the freedoms provided by the First Amendment.

No disagreement there.

I think the "point and laugh" option is more fun.

I agree. ;)

I still need to find a flamboyant homosexual to just run up to Phelps naked (in public of course) and start manhandling him and bumping him and spanking him, while I get it all on camera for the world to see!

You know, this is the perfect opportunity for us to destroy the WBC. While Phelps is in court, we sneak over to his place and plant gay porn that has been Photoshopped to feature the other members of his church.

I still need to find a flamboyant homosexual to just run up to Phelps naked (in public of course) and start manhandling him and bumping him and spanking him, while I get it all on camera for the world to see!

And if Phelps is exposed as a closet homosexual, even better! :D

IIRC they have been sued many times before and never had to pay out... the whole family is full of lawyer types.

The issue isn't whether WBC engaged in illegal behavior. This is a civil suit. Different cause of action, different burden of proof, different consequences to the defendant on losing.

Phelps and his gang can say whatever they want. If, in doing so, they intentionally inflict emotional distress or invade privacy, they will be held accountable and pay up.

Oh! Well in that case, I hope he takes them for every penny they have ever been worth.

IIRC they have been sued many times before and never had to pay out... the whole family is full of lawyer types.

So that's where Scientology get their lawyers....I knew it!

I doubt it'll work.


At least they're trying, though. We just need people like that assassinated, really. Filth like that just shouldn't exist. I don't see how anyone can defend him or proclaim he doesn't deserve it.


Then again, that might just be wishful thinking. A nice idea, though...

I think my idea is better.

Having a right and freedom to say [x] statement doesn't absolve one of responsibility. Yes, you can scream "FIRE!!!" in a crowded restaurant, and you shouldn't be surprised, when you're the cause of people getting trampled to death, of civil and libel charges that follow.

Phelps & Co. knew that when they go around saying shit like they do, that someone would get angry enough to take them to task for it.

They do promulgate hatred and they've been sowing the wind. Time to reap the hurricane. :upyours:

And if Phelps is exposed as a closet homosexual, even better! :D

He doesn't have to be exposed as a closeted hoe-moe-sexshul, he abused his own kids. Judging from the looks of his daughter, probably rogered 'em, too. Forget the gay porn, beating and screwing your kids every day of their lives is enough of a petard to hoist him.

He doesn't have to be exposed as a closeted hoe-moe-sexshul, he abused his own kids. Judging from the looks of his daughter, probably rogered 'em, too. Forget the gay porn, beating and screwing your kids every day of their lives is enough of a petard to hoist him.

True.

The father of a fallen Marine is suing the Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress:

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_7277523?source=most_viewed

I really hope the jury finds for the plaintiff and imposes damages on those inbred insults to the Christian faith that will send them once and for all into oblivion. Their behavior has long since ceased to be a First Amendment exercise.

It's a great idea... The Phelps' inbred money will be exiting the church, which, hopefully will be enough to place a serious dent in their ability to exercise stu-uh-free speech.

This is my solution to WBC, and excuse me for the use of this smilie -

:mp5:

There we go. Simple as that, really. And I don't think too many people would care, and the fact that it would be in the news would be instantly pointless, seeing as they'd have not a single spokesperson left standing on their behalf.

It's be nice if he couldn't afford the sever costs for a few of his websites any more.

IIRC they have been sued many times before and never had to pay out... the whole family is full of lawyer types.

Yes, you do recall correctly. In fact, countersuing people is one of the ways that the WBC generates income.

If the party in question was truly smart, he'd invite others who had their child's funeral picketed to join a class action lawsuit. It would give his case more clout if it could be demonstrated that Phelps and his kin deliberately invaded the privacy of others on numerous separate occasions.

The issue isn't whether WBC engaged in illegal behavior. This is a civil suit. Different cause of action, different burden of proof, different consequences to the defendant on losing.

True enough, QFT.

Phelps and his gang can say whatever they want. If, in doing so, they intentionally inflict emotional distress or invade privacy, they will be held accountable and pay up.

I'm not so sure about this bit. If that holds true, where else will it be applied? Will Catholic churches and schools in San Francisco get to sue the Gay Advocacy group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, for causing emotional distress or invasion of privacy for angry speech against Catholicism in the streets around the school or entering a public Church? Will pro-life groups be sued for speaking out against abortion on the sidewalks a block away from a clinic and making young women emotionally distressed and invading their privacy as they try to go there? Will anyone who is ‘offended’ be able to sue someone else because they felt emotional distress when confronted with an opinion they do not share?

Where is the line drawn? When does your right to not feel emotional distress become a stronger right then my freedom to speak in the public forum?

I suspect that this battle front can be won in zoning regulations, for all of the situations above, not in allowing some groups to sue other groups (the ones we favor vs. the ones we don't) because they (the bad guys) made our guys ‘feel’ bad.

If the party in question was truly smart, he'd invite others who had their child's funeral picketed to join a class action lawsuit. It would give his case more clout if it could be demonstrated that Phelps and his kin deliberately invaded the privacy of others on numerous separate occasions.

Agreed.

Phelps getting sued? Good. I hope the person suing sues him till he's broke.

I'm not so sure about this bit. If that holds true, where else will it be applied? Will Catholic churches and schools in San Francisco get to sue the Gay Advocacy group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, for causing emotional distress or invasion of privacy for angry speech against Catholicism in the streets around the school or entering a public Church? Will pro-life groups be sued for speaking out against abortion on the sidewalks a block away from a clinic and making young women emotionally distressed and invading their privacy as they try to go there? Will anyone who is ‘offended’ be able to sue someone else because they felt emotional distress when confronted with an opinion they do not share?


I will point out that entities and groups like "the church" can not sue for emotional distress as a church, as an entity, has no emotions to be distressed. Individual members OF the church can, but that's somewhat different.

I will also note that one of the standards that gets applied is the "target"'s freedom of movement. If you're just standing at a streetcorner, and I don't like what you sayd...I can walk away from you. If however you are committing your act at a family event, my ability to just leave is severely hampered.

That being said, extreme emotional distress is not merely you committed an act that is rude, obnoxious, insulting, aggrevating or snide.

Rather the conduct must be extreme and outragious. Heinous and beyond the standards of basic civilized decency. That which a reasonable person could not be expected to bare. It's not just "offense". It's not just "distress". It's extreme emotional distress brought about by intolerable, outragious, and fundamentally heinous acts.

Merely standing on the public street and declaring that you think a religion is wrong and misguided probably doesn't raise to the level of beyond the standards of civilized decency. Disrupting a private funeral by yelling that the deceased is going to hell...now we're running into a problem.

I'm not so sure about this bit. If that holds true, where else will it be applied? Will Catholic churches and schools in San Francisco get to sue the Gay Advocacy group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, for causing emotional distress or invasion of privacy for angry speech against Catholicism in the streets around the school or entering a public Church?

It will and should be applied wherever the elements of the cause of action are present. Typically, a cause of action exists for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) lies where there is an intentional or reckless act, extreme and outrageous conduct, causation, and actual severe emotional distress (depression, changes in behavior, usually something that can be documented, not just hurt feelings).

And btw, a church is not "public". In the case you mention, IMO three of the four elements clearly are present, so the only issue is whether the emotional distress produced was severe enough.

Will pro-life groups be sued for speaking out against abortion on the sidewalks a block away from a clinic and making young women emotionally distressed and invading their privacy as they try to go there? Will anyone who is ‘offended’ be able to sue someone else because they felt emotional distress when confronted with an opinion they do not share?

Where is the line drawn? When does your right to not feel emotional distress become a stronger right then my freedom to speak in the public forum?

See above. Merely being "offended" is insufficient.

I suspect that this battle front can be won in zoning regulations, for all of the situations above, not in allowing some groups to sue other groups (the ones we favor vs. the ones we don't) because they (the bad guys) made our guys ‘feel’ bad.

Zoning regulations whose purpose is really to suppress speech are unlikely to survive legal challenges. And again, bad feelings alone don't support an action for IIED.

You know, I just realized something. Phelps is, as far as I can tell, the only non-controversial topic on this forum. He is someone who is universally hated by NSG.

You know, I just realized something. Phelps is, as far as I can tell, the only non-controversial topic on this forum. He is someone who is universally hated by NSG.

We did once have someone on this forum who liked him, but he got permanently banned in 2005.

Could someone dig up his posts? I could use a laugh.

You know, I just realized something. Phelps is, as far as I can tell, the only non-controversial topic on this forum. He is someone who is universally hated by NSG.

That is because there are no Westboro Baptist Church members here (at the moment, I suppose one might join some day). They seem to be the only ones in the universe who support him. Even other right wing fanatic evangelist types seem to know that Phelps is like the rabid dog you really don't want to get anywhere near.

Phelps getting sued? Good. I hope the person suing sues him till he's broke.

The sue-r, or the sue-ee?
Never can tell with you 1/4-century young'ens.

The court decided today!

Phelps has to cough up 2.9 million! Hooray!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story



:D

Hurrah!!!

Best news I've heard all day!

The court decided today!

Phelps has to cough up 2.9 million! Hooray!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story



:D

2.9 million in compensatory damages. ...

PLUS

6 million in punitive damages.

PLUS

2 million for emotional distress.

$10.9 million.

Maybe Fred can whore himself out to men to raise the money. :)

The court decided today!

Phelps has to cough up 2.9 million! Hooray!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story



:D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/ottoautopilot/nelson-muntz.gif
http://www.tk421.net/gallery/sounds/haha.wav

Could someone dig up his posts? I could use a laugh.

He had a bunch of different accounts. Communist Mississippi, VoteEarly, and DecisiveAction are the three ones he mainly used. You can search those if you like, I'm too lazy to dig up the threads. I think he got banned for putting up links to Phred's website, actually.

Phelps FTL

The court decided today!

Phelps has to cough up 2.9 million! Hooray!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story



:D

Sorry, wasn't that $11 million?

im glad to see this happen to phelps. most of the time i am against lawsuits like this that reward such a huge amount of money for emotional stuff with no actuall physical or property damage. but in this case i think it is weel deserved, not becasue the father of the soldier won, but becasue it put phelps in his place.

i beleive the there is a court date set in Nebraska against the phelps family for something they had on of their children do.

You know, I just realized something. Phelps is, as far as I can tell, the only non-controversial topic on this forum. He is someone who is universally hated by NSG.

*quickly draws curtain shut to hide phelps shrine*

<.<

>.>

Phelps getting sued? Good. I hope the person suing sues him till he's broke.

How does he make money anyhow?

Is he paid to shout incoherent hate speech?

They've been sued dozens of times.

They're all lawyers. They get off EVERY SINGLE TIME.

They'll get off this time again.

Sorry, wasn't that $11 million?

Yes. The story was updated about an hour after I posted the link. The original article didn't have the punitive damages listed yet.

They've been sued dozens of times.

They're all lawyers. They get off EVERY SINGLE TIME.

They'll get off this time again.
They already lost.

They already lost.

Big time.

How does he make money anyhow?

Is he paid to shout incoherent hate speech?

I have a theory (unproven) that he secretly operates an underground child pornography empire.

Yes. The story was updated about an hour after I posted the link. The original article didn't have the punitive damages listed yet.

Best news of the week. Hopefully this will be the first of many.

WBC, can you say "Chapter 11"?

I still need to find a flamboyant homosexual to just run up to Phelps naked (in public of course) and start manhandling him and bumping him and spanking him, while I get it all on camera for the world to see!

I think thats what he secretly wants.

"Methinks the fairy doth protest too much."

The court decided today!

Phelps has to cough up 2.9 million! Hooray!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story



:D

You know the Phelps Klan (and yes I intentionally spelled Clan with a K) is going to appeal that. I just hope that the appeal court will support the decision, and the Supreme court too if it gets up to that.

I think thats what he secretly wants.

"Methinks the fairy doth protest too much."

Who cares what he wants, I want a video of a flamboyant homosexual manhandling Fred Phelps so I can post it on YouTube for the world to laugh at him.

*goes to plot*

Baruch Hashem!

This is awesome news.

I still need to find a flamboyant homosexual to just run up to Phelps naked (in public of course) and start manhandling him and bumping him and spanking him, while I get it all on camera for the world to see!


This isn't that but it's pretty close and awesomely funny. It's called "Flirting with a Westboro Church Man" XD. Thanks to the Aussie's on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE

2.9 million in compensatory damages. ...

PLUS

6 million in punitive damages.

PLUS

2 million for emotional distress.

$10.9 million.

Maybe Fred can whore himself out to men to raise the money. :)
Ooooooohhhhh. *delighted*

So - does anyone know how much money they actually have?

his granddaughters are crazy as well.

don't hate them, it's what they want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gX-vQ5sMOw


maybe have pity on them or something

So - does anyone know how much money they actually have?
Turns out reading helps. <<

From the Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story) link:
The compensatory damage award alone, $2.9 million, was nearly triple the net worth of Westboro and the three members on trial, their attorney said.

[Their attorney] said Fred Phelps is an unpaid pastor, Rebecca Phelps-Davis is a low-paid attorney at the Phelps law firm and that Shirley Phelps- Roper is a part-time law firm employee and mother of 11 children.

As for the church, Katz said, its only income is generated by meager tithings from congregants, many of whom are children or unemployed.

However:

Trebilcock told jurors that they did not have to believe the Phelpses' financial disclosures -- pointing out that Rebecca Phelps- Davis reported just $306 in liquid assets.

Earlier in the trial, the Phelpses testified that they spent $400 apiece on plane tickets to get to Snyder's funeral. And Shirley Phelps-Roper eagerly showed off her iPhone to reporters, which she said was a birthday gift from her children.

Meh. Either way, I seriously doubt they have anywhere near $11 million. Where would it come from?

So let's just hope this doesn't get overturned.

They've been sued dozens of times.

They're all lawyers. They get off EVERY SINGLE TIME.

They'll get off this time again.

Not this time. :D

Man, looks like he'll have to cut back on a few things.

Might I suggest:

Signs.

Travel.

Things like that.

Not this time. :D

There's always appeals...

Ooooooohhhhh. *delighted*

So - does anyone know how much money they actually have?

According to the judge, the $2.9 million compensation alone was more than the net worth of the church's disclosed assets. *nod*

Clearly this is punishment on the Westboro Baptists from God for living in a country that allows homosexuality. *nod*

According to the judge, the $2.9 million compensation alone was more than the net worth of the church's disclosed assets. *nod*Their sealed financial records were ordered to be released to the plantiffs as part of the judgement. We'll likely learn just what they have in the next day or so.

Clearly this is punishment on the Westboro Baptists from God for living in a country that allows homosexuality. *nod*
I think God finally figured out Fred's rabid homophobia is a cover for his latent tendancies and has unleashed his wrath.

Surely his cuddly line in children books netted him a few dollars.

'Benny Bumpkins the Fluffy Bunny' is a lovely series of tales concerning a rabbit who learns humility and grace through simple, everyday bunny stories aimed at teaching children the amazing love of God.

The one that made me smile most was where Benny Bumpkins was worried that a new rabbit in the neighborhood might disrupt the peace in Fluffytown. However, on getting to know the new rabbit through a series of amusing mishaps, Benny Bumpkins learns to accept difference and embrace new people into his life, which brings him closer to God.

Then Benny Bumpkins and his new friend go all genocide on some homosexual rabbits for kicks.

I believe the story's called 'God hates fags', but can't be sure.

I tend to think that Phelps is the old OT God who has been thrown out of heaven for being such a bigot by his more left-field progressive son.

Clearly this is punishment on the Westboro Baptists from God for living in a country that allows homosexuality. *nod*

You made me spray my monitor with soda. :p Thanks.

The community should take care of Phelps and his followers, not the courts. The man has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants - just as I feel those offended have a right to deliver some righteous smackdown on him and his minions as well. Stop counting on the courts and the government to take care of everything for everyone and start taking back America.

The community should take care of Phelps and his followers, not the courts. The man has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants - just as I feel those offended have a right to deliver some righteous smackdown on him and his minions as well. Stop counting on the courts and the government to take care of everything for everyone and start taking back America.

There just aren't enough people advocating vigilantism these days :rolleyes:

Hmmmmmm?

Unfortunately, Freedom of Speech includes the ability to say stupid hateful things.

I wonder if all this support for the dead marines was around when Phelps and his people were hassling gays and gay funerals?

The community should take care of Phelps and his followers, not the courts. The man has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants - just as I feel those offended have a right to deliver some righteous smackdown on him and his minions as well. Stop counting on the courts and the government to take care of everything for everyone and start taking back America.

Maybe if that happened more often the government could actually stop them from protesting on the grounds said "righteous smackdown" constitutes Imminent lawless action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) :p.

The community should take care of Phelps and his followers, not the courts. The man has a right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants - just as I feel those offended have a right to deliver some righteous smackdown on him and his minions as well. Stop counting on the courts and the government to take care of everything for everyone and start taking back America.

No, he doesn't.

This has been another addition of easy answers to stupid statements.

Hmmmmmm?

Unfortunately, Freedom of Speech includes the ability to say stupid hateful things.

Indeed, but it does not include the ability to infringe on another's privacy, unlimited ability to assail another person's character, or unlimited ability to attempt to put someone into emotional distress.

As has been pointed out in this thread a few times, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

As has been pointed out in this thread a few times, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

Indeed.

Indeed, but it does not include the ability to infringe on another's privacy, unlimited ability to assail another person's character, or unlimited ability to attempt to put someone into emotional distress.

As I seem to recall they didn't go near the actual burial site. But I admit I don't care to follow that jackass so I don't have the specifics.

But I am finding this interesting that many people were not outraged when they were hassling gays and yet when they started on the military the tone changed dramatically.

As has been pointed out in this thread a few times, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.

If that is directed at me, I am not suggesting it was....

But I am finding this interesting that many people were not outraged when they were hassling gays and yet when they started on the military the tone changed dramatically.

Well, that's because it's still "ok" to some people in this country to treat gay people like crap, but not ok to treat soldiers like crap.

Of course, I don't know about anyone else, but I [b]was[/i] outraged when they were picketing funerals of gay people and standing near Matthew Shepard's grave for quite a while after his death with signs.

This breaks me up. :(

I find Phelps and his brood abhorrent, but I don't think they should be punished for speaking their views.

Let him spew his bullshit until he breaks a law, then come down on him with the fiery hand of justice. However, he broke no laws here. I hate to say it, but he's clean. I would look for this case to get a judicial review if not completely overturned.

My guess is that this was a judge who, like 99% of the rest of us, finds Phelps despicable and so let his personal bias influence his ruling. That sucks. The man is reprehensible, but that's not the way this whole 'justice' thing works. We work off of laws. The heinous offenses of these guys to our sense of 'right' doesn't come into it. Law. Not personal bias.

I find Phelps and his brood abhorrent, but I don't think they should be punished for speaking their views.

They aren't. They're being punished for invasion of privacy and intentionally causing emotional distress.

Let him spew his bullshit until he breaks a law, then come down on him with the fiery hand of justice. However, he broke no laws here. I hate to say it, but he's clean. I would look for this case to get a judicial review if not completely overturned.

You don't have to break a law to be sued in civil court, IIRC.

My guess is that this was a judge who, like 99% of the rest of us, finds Phelps despicable and so let his personal bias influence his ruling.

This wasn't a bench ruling. There was a jury, and they ruled based on the law.