[MarkS]

And I mean that literally!

Jury awards father $11M in funeral case

Jury awards father $11M in funeral case - Yahoo! News

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.

I've been wanting to see something like this happen since I first heard about these nuts! Of course, it will be overturned on appeal, but its the principle.

I don't know what Bible they are reading or what God they believe in, but they sure are not Christians.

[Ninong]

Great! I hope he gets to seize everything they own.

[MarkS]

Unfortunately, it will not happen. I guarantee you that they will appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary. As despicable as their speech is, it is protected. All we can hope for now is that the legal fees break them first.

[SPasse]

Hi All,

You guys beat me to the post.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/

All I can say is SWEET!

But I agree that the legal fees are Karmas best hope.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by MarkS

As despicable as their speech is, it is protected.

Not necessarily. This is an extremely complex and confusing area of First Amendment rights, especially so since it involves freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The question is not whether they have a right to express their despicable views, but where and when.

Westboro Baptist Church is probably not a group that most Christian fundamentalists would like to see bringing this issue before higher courts. Their conduct is so extreme that it invites the court to consider restrictions.

There have been other cases in recent years brought by Christian fundamentalists who believed that they had an unrestricted right to express their anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality views as part of their right to freedom of religious expression. In the most recent test case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled a California public school did not violate the free speech rights of a student when it asked him to remove a T-shirt on which he had written the messages "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" on the front and "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the back.

This student's public high school had a special day promoting tolerance of gay students and he wore the T-shirt as a way of expressing his disapproval based on his religious beliefs. After refusing to removed the T-shirt as ordered by the principal, he spent the rest of the day in the front office. No further action was taken against this student. He sued the school for violation of his free speech rights but the federal district court denied his motion for an injunction against the school and various officials, in which he asked that they be enjoined from violating his constitutional rights.

In affirming the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction motion, the Ninth Circuit held that the free speech rights of students must be balanced against the rights of other students, including the rights of gay and lesbian students, to receive an education free of "verbal assaults that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development."

There is no question that the student in this case could have worn that T-shirt away from school without a problem and he might even be able to wear it once he gets to college. Most colleges have rules restricting sexist and racist messages on T-shirts but I don't think they restrict hate messages founded in religion. Of course, depending on the school, he may be laughed off campus with that T-shirt.

The case of the student with the anti-gay T-shirt is an example of the "captive audience" principle. The Supreme Court has upheld a Wisconsin law prohibiting protestors from targeting a residence. The occupants of the home are a "captive audience" and they don't have to be subjected to your anti-abortion message just because the doctor who lives there performs legal abortions.

Mourners attending a funeral could be considered a captive audience. Some three dozen states have passed laws restricting picketing within a certain distance of funerals. These laws were passed in response to the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church clan. I believe the Maryland law calls for pickets to stay 300-ft away from a funeral or funeral procession. Does anyone know if the Westboro Baptist Church picketers were closer than that in the case involving this Marine's funeral? Did the father win because they violated the law against picketing funerals or did he win based on intentional infliction of emotional distress?

[MarkS]

Well, Ninong, I truly hope you're right. However, using the 9th court of appeals as an example in the particular matter you posted is kind of moot as they have a long history of left-leaning rulings. Not that I agree with that student, but if he were in a different part of the county, the ruling probably would have been different.









I can't believe I just agreed with you.

[Ninong]

Even though the Ninth Circuit is more liberal than say the Fourth or the First, I think their reasoning is sound in that T-shirt case. They based it on a couple of previous Supreme Court rulings. I'm not sure what the status is of that kid's suit, whether the group pushing it has backed off or whether they're appealing it higher.

Often rulings that apply to children cannot be applied to adults but in this case it looks like what the Ninth Circuit did was take a concept that has already been applied to adults ("captive audience") and applied it to children. The judge who wrote the opinion stated that he may not have ruled that way had it involved college students instead of high school students.

Our free speech laws are still much less restrictive than any other country I can think of. For example, we still allow hate groups like the KKK to parade in public. That's probably a good thing even though we know what they represent. No one is forced to attend their parades and people are free to organize counter-protests. Other democratic countries in Europe take a different approach. For example, in Germany, because of their recent history, they don't allow any display of Nazi symbols. Just last year in France they passed a law making it illegal to deny that the slaughter of 1.5 million ethnic Armenians by the Ottoman Turks amounted to genocide.

I think it would be too easy to get carried away with restrictions if we started passing laws on what people can say or not say about a particular subject like some European countries do.

The Fred Phelps clan is going to appeal the judgment against them based on their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression. The Supreme Court has already upheld state laws that restrict anti-abortion demonstrators who claimed the same right based on freedom of religious expression. I suspect that if the Phelps appeal is taken all the way to the Supreme Court, assuming it is taken up by the Court, that it will fail.

[Ninong]

College Republicans sued San Francisco State and won a partial victory.

The university's policy manual says students are expected to be civil to one another and they should not engage in intimidation or harassment of others.

The Young Republicans held a rally during which they stomped on flags bearing the name of Allah. A student complained to the university that the YRs had engaged in "actions of incivility" and had tried to incite violence and create a hostile environment.

School officials interviewed witnesses and referred the dispute to a panel of students, faculty and staff, which held a hearing in March and found no violations of university policy. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian nonprofit law firm that represents the San Francisco State College Republicans sued anyway because they claimed that restrictions on "incivility, intimidation or harassment" violated their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The judge said "it's fine for the university to say, 'Hey, we hope you folks are civil to one another,' but it's not fine for the university to say, 'If you're not civil, whatever that means, we're going to punish you.'" He said he will issue a preliminary injunction barring the university from enforcing the civility standard in any disciplinary proceeding. (There are no disiplinary proceedings pending as a result of that incident.)

The judge said the university can continue to enforce another rule disputed by the College Republicans - prohibiting intimidation or harassment - but can use the rule to punish students only for threatening someone's health or safety, and not merely for offensive statements or conduct.

Here.