Snyder v. Phelps

[gnomon]

SCOTUSblog » Court to rule on funeral pickets

The Supreme Court, taking on the emotionally charged issue of picketing protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in wartime, agreed Monday to consider reinstating a $5 million damages verdict against a Kansas preacher and his anti-gay crusade. This was one of three newly granted cases. The others test the constitutionality of background checks for workers who work for the government under contract, rather than as regular employees, and a case testing the right to sue in state court when a child is injured or dies after receiving a vaccine. All of the cases will come up for review in the Court’s next Term, opening Oct. 4.

Have fun with that.

Discuss!

 

[no-body]

The biggest tragedy is that when Phelps was just targeting homosexuals almost no one cared. Now that they've gone after dead service men and women people blow their tops, what hypocrisy.

I think they should be allowed to picket whomever they want but their children should be taken away from them since they are basically a cult that only survives because of breeding and child abuse.

 

[McBell]

The biggest tragedy is that when Phelps was just targeting homosexuals almost no one cared. Now that they've gone after dead service men and women people blow their tops, what hypocrisy.

I think they should be allowed to picket whomever they want but their children should be taken away from them since they are basically a cult that only survives because of breeding and child abuse.

It would be one thing if they were peacefully picketing.
But the fact is they are there trying to get a riot started.

It is no different than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

 

[gnomon]

It's an interesting case because the story goes basically like this:

The Phelps followed all laws in staging their protest. No illegal activity occurred. Snyder filed a civil lawsuit allegedly after hearing about the protest that took place a few hundred yards away from the cemetery later on television. After the funeral. Snyder alleges emotional damage and that they were a "captive audience". The lawsuit named three things:

1) Intrusion into a secluded event (protest took place 1000 feet away from the cemetery on police orders)
2) intentional infliction of emotional distress
3) civil conspiracy

As most of us know most States enacted laws regarding protests and funerals establishing distances to allow individuals to exercise a First Amendment right while at the same time avoiding placing those attending a funeral as a captive audience. Most of those laws include distances less than or up to the 1000 feet in this specific case. Which makes me wonder if the SCOTUS will hold that Snyder was a captive audience when the Phelps protested.

If they were not a captive audience it would be hard to prove the intentional infliction of distress at the time. I don't know the truth to the claim that Snyder did not discover the protest occurred until after the funeral. If that is true it appears to be even less evidence to support the lawsuit. But it could still hinge on the fact that the Phelps continued the attacks on the website. But here the Court would have to know if Snyder actually viewed the website and consideration is given to whether or not the fallen soldier was even specifically referenced.

Just a few bits for thought.

And no-body, you are right, it is pathetic in our society when the laws were enacted by States after the protests targeted military funerals and the bikers showed up in anti-protest but our society for the most part never gave a damn when they were targeting pretty much just homosexuals. Speaks volumes, actually.

 

[Duck]

It's an interesting case because the story goes basically like this:

The Phelps followed all laws in staging their protest. No illegal activity occurred. Snyder filed a civil lawsuit allegedly after hearing about the protest that took place a few hundred yards away from the cemetery later on television. After the funeral. Snyder alleges emotional damage and that they were a "captive audience". The lawsuit named three things:

1) Intrusion into a secluded event (protest took place 1000 feet away from the cemetery on police orders)
2) intentional infliction of emotional distress
3) civil conspiracy

As most of us know most States enacted laws regarding protests and funerals establishing distances to allow individuals to exercise a First Amendment right while at the same time avoiding placing those attending a funeral as a captive audience. Most of those laws include distances less than or up to the 1000 feet in this specific case. Which makes me wonder if the SCOTUS will hold that Snyder was a captive audience when the Phelps protested.

If they were not a captive audience it would be hard to prove the intentional infliction of distress at the time. I don't know the truth to the claim that Snyder did not discover the protest occurred until after the funeral. If that is true it appears to be even less evidence to support the lawsuit. But it could still hinge on the fact that the Phelps continued the attacks on the website. But here the Court would have to know if Snyder actually viewed the website and consideration is given to whether or not the fallen soldier was even specifically referenced.

Just a few bits for thought.

And no-body, you are right, it is pathetic in our society when the laws were enacted by States after the protests targeted military funerals and the bikers showed up in anti-protest but our society for the most part never gave a damn when they were targeting pretty much just homosexuals. Speaks volumes, actually.

Ah, I was not aware of all the facts in the case. I thought that the case had stemmed from prior to the laws being enacted, and that the phelps' had been sued because the family (snyders in this case) had actually seen and been emotionally traumatized by the protest (after all the typical signs held by the phelps' at these protests thank their deity for the death of the soldier in question, something that I won't condone even at Fred Phelps' future funeral). I did not realize that the family had only found out about the protest after the fact. That changes my perception of the trial somewhat.

I have some issues with lawsuits of this nature (generally speaking, civil suits) but I will freely admit to reveling in the fact that the phelps' lost this one, based in part on my misunderstanding of the facts held above (the family witnessing the picketing) and partly because I strongly dislike the message and methodology of the phelps'. With the information pointed out by Gnomon above, I am not as pleased regarding the outcome of the lawsuit, and I think it likely that SCOTUS will NOT reinstate the suit results, I not so secretly hope that the phelps' will still be bankrupted and unable to be as prolifically hateful as they are.

I really dislike saying this, but the phelps' have every right to do what they do, just as I have every right to counter protest, and secretly hope for a meteor to land on their house while they are all home painting up more hatefilled signs.

I agree that it is not only pathetic, but a sign of how generally far society has to go before reaching equality for all, that no one but the lgbtq community knew who these jerks (the phelps') were prior to the first Iraq war casualty funeral. The lgbtq community have known their names since they showed up to Matthew Shepard's funeral in Wyoming. Where were the counter protestors when the funerals were of gays? My guess is that they were all in church being sanctimonius about how there weren't any gays in their families. Not that I am bitter or angry or anything.

 

[bobhikes]

First the guy is an idoit. But the problem is a supreme court issue.

I see it as freedom of religion(the ablity of the family to have a religious funeral) which he is clearly violating and freedom of speech(which he has a right to have). I could not clearly resolve it with out the knowledge of laws. If the supreme court decides in freedom of speech I would like to see laws passed to protect religious funeral rights.

 

[Autodidact]

I wrote an article on the case. The money line:

Gritting my teeth and holding my nose, I choose liberty, which means defending the rights of someone who advocates my annihilation, and whom I know would not do the same for me.

 

[Duck]

I wrote an article on the case. The money line:

Wow, good article. I have read in other forums that you regularly post to a blog/website, does the linkie point to that site?

 

[Autodidact]

I used to be the Denver Gay Parenting Examiner, but resigned. I do freelance magazine writing. I sometimes publish on religious topics at Religion Dispatches.

 

[Duck]

Thanks!