Kansas church loses bid to dismiss lawsuit / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, June 8, 2007

June 8, 2007

Baltimore — A federal judge has rejected a church's attempt to dismiss a defamation lawsuit that had been filed by the father of a fallen Marine after church members picketed his son's funeral.

U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett on Monday ruled against the church's contention that the court would be forced to decide between different religious viewpoints.

Albert Snyder, of York, Pa. is suing the Rev. Fred Phelps and his Topeka, Kan.-based church after church members demonstrated at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, of Westminster, Md., last year and posted pictures of the protest on their Web site.

The church claims that the death of American servicemen and women in Iraq is God's punishment for the country's tolerance of homosexuality.

Its attorneys have argued that members have a First Amendment right to express such opinions. Snyder's suit says that such rights do not extend to funerals.

The case goes to trial in U.S. District Court in Baltimore in October.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

8 June 2007
at 7:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

countrygirl (Anonymous) says…

Hope they take the Phelps clan to the cleaners!
8 June 2007
at 8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

werekoala (Anonymous) says…

Unfortunately, I don't agree. Heavens knows, I'm no fan of Phelps, but in this time of “free speech zones” and the like, I really don't like any further infringement on the right to free speech.

And realize that the point of the First Amendment isn't to protect popular, safe opinions. It's to protect the venial, disgusting ones that make you feel sick to be a member of the same species as the person saying them. And not because we value disgusting commentary, but because our founding fathers realized that it was the banning of unpopular speech that would set the precedent for the later banning of everyone's speech.

I know, Phelps and his clan are acting like unmitigated as*hats at the funerals, but people are joining together to rise above it. Take the Patriot Riders, for example, those guys are awesome.

I'm also of the opinion that the more attention this guy gets, in form of TV coverage or of lawsuits or whatever, the longer he'll stick around.
9 June 2007
at 12:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mr_economy (Anonymous) says…

I'm normally a defender of absolute free speech, but at the same time, I have a hard time imagining any benefit to free-speech rights in a funeral setting. Yes I understand the “snowball effect” argument (or fallacy, rather), but it has proven untrue with other limitations on speech. The Supreme Court tends to be very specific in its approval of exceptions to free speech protection, and I believe it would be a good steward in the case of funeral protests.
9 June 2007
at 12:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

There is no absolute right to free speech. Slander and libel laws exist and are Constitutional and you are not allowed to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater for public safety reasons. This is no different. Protesting the funerals of dead service men and women puts all involved at risk of a violent confrontation as emotions run very high. Phelps and his ilk have plenty of other opportunities to spread their gospel of hate. This is nothing more than a reasonable restriction on the time. place, and manner they can do that. I hope he gets taken for every dime he has or will ever have until he finds himself burning in hell.
9 June 2007
at 2:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Don't know who wrote this claptrap, but it is wrong. Somebody at either AP or LJW needs to do their research. From the article:

“Its attorneys have argued that members have a First Amendment right to express such opinions. Snyder's suit says that such rights do not extend to funerals.”

This is wrong. Snyder's suit is a **CIVIL** lawsuit, not a criminal one. From Snyder's web site:

“This is a private civil lawsuit that is separate from any actions being pursued by states or the federal government against Mr. Phelps. While those cases involve Government action and potential 1st Amendment issues, this case is distinct. This case simply alleges that one does not have the right to conspire to use lies in order to inflict intentional harm upon persons who are grieving the death of their children.”

http://www.matthewsnyder.org/

Snyder, as I understand it, is not contesting the First Amendment Rights of Phelps or anyone else. He is simply trying to reconnect to an idea that has long been forgotten in this nation, particularly on the part of self-proclaimed “Constitutional activists” and “LIbertarians”: The notion that rights come with responsibilities.

The Constitution only prohibits the government from restricting your speech—it says nothing about citizens seeking damages against other citizens for negligent, reckless, irresponsible exercise of said rights. The Second Amendment says that the government can't take guns away from law-abiding citizens; it says nothing about the government holding those citizens responsible for abusing those rights (murder).

The cult members of WBC have spent almost two decades hiding behind the Constitution, using the Bible as a blunt instrument to lash out at those they don't agree with, and using the First Amendment in much the same way that a drunk driver gleefully mows down a sidewalk full of pedestrians.

Snyder's civil lawsuit stands a good chance of hitting the Westboro Bigot Cult where it hurts most: the bank account. If Snyder wins, it will set a precedent for hundreds of other slandered and defamed families of fallen service members, and their families.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
9 June 2007
at 2:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KawValleyKid (Nick Yoho) says…

The right for you to swing your arms around ends where my nose begins.Picketing a funaral is like swinging your arms around in a room full of noses.

The Phelps disgust me.
9 June 2007
at 1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

erod0723 (Anonymous) says…

I agree with Agnostik. While the federal government has no right limiting what Fred Phelps says, an individual has the right to sue for defamation and libel. I hope they milk Fred Phelps dry, but I also hope it brings something else. I am not opposed to the nature of protesting, but hopefully this will cause the Phelps clan to tone it down a bit.

13 June 2007
at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“This is no different. Protesting the funerals of dead service men and women puts all involved at risk of a violent confrontation as emotions run very high.”

Ya mean like,
And anyone saying bad things about “Bush” or any other president should be executed on the spot, as it “puts all involved at risk of a violent confrontation as emotions run very high.”