Baltimore — Jurors began deliberating Tuesday whether members of a fundamentalist Kansas church known for picketing military funerals nationwide should be held liable for a protest at a Marine's funeral.
Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., is seeking unspecified monetary damages for invasion of privacy and intent to inflect emotional distress during the March 2006 burial of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, in Westminster.
Members of Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kan., have picketed at funerals nationwide carrying signs that read "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags." A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting protests at military funerals at federal cemeteries, but the Maryland suit is believed to be the first filed by the family of a fallen serviceman.
Church members say they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that the deaths of soldiers are due to the nation's tolerance of homosexuality and they are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
In an emotional summation that brought Snyder to tears at times, plaintiffs attorney Sean Summers asked jurors to use their common sense, saying his client has to live forever with the memory of protesters carrying signs reading "Semper Fi fags," and "Pope in hell" at the funeral.
"They are terrorizing people, and in particular they terrorized Mr. Snyder," Summers said.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett instructed jurors to "use common sense, good judgment and life experience."
Jurors deliberated for a little more than an hour before retiring for the day. Deliberations were expected to resume this morning.
The judge said the defendants have "the right to picket and publish their message," but vulgar, offensive and shocking material is not entitled to absolute protection under the First Amendment.
Both sides also spent a considerable amount of time during their closing arguments on whether the burial was a private or public event. The judge told jurors that a distinction exists between free speech rights in public and private matters.
In private matters, the church members' right to free speech must be weighed against the right of citizens to be free from intentional, reckless or extreme and outrageous conduct causing him or her severe emotional distress, Bennett said.
Defense attorney Jonathan Katz told jurors "it is not a matter if anyone agrees with them. These are their views."
If the church members are not allowed to express their views, "where does it stop?"
Katz told jurors the First Amendment is "there to protect speech and pickets that people detest," language that makes "you want to throw rocks at the picketers and smash their windows."
The defense attorney noted the Pilgrims left England for religious freedom, and his clients are like the first Puritans who settled in America.
"Who were the Puritans? Fundamental evangelicals. And who are the members of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fundamental evangelicals," Katz said.
Katz said the church members did not target Snyder but use the funerals of soldiers to put a human face on their message. The plaintiffs also had not proven all the elements needed to prove invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress, Katz told the jury in his lengthy closing argument.
Summers repeatedly disputed the assertion that Snyder was not targeted, showing jurors photos of protesters carrying signs at Snyder's funeral. Summers said the standards of a reasonable person, not the church members, are what should be considered.
"So the question becomes would a reasonable person think that sign was directed at Matt Snyder," Summers said.
Comments
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.
tanzer (anonymous) says…
just some thoughts. funerals are personal affairs even when conducted in an open public space - it isn't a party after all. being a soldier is part of who a person is. knowing that a person is a soldier and has recently died takes that picketing business to a personal level - otherwise they would either picket all funerals or they would picket recruiting centers.. it just seems like a personal attack to me.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
The first amendment gives us the right to free speech, and also gives us protection to do so. This includes people being able to use a public venue to practice a ceremony. In this case a funeral, without fear of reprisal or disturbance by any other entity wishing to disrupt said activity. In this case, the primary group utilizing the 1st amendment (the funeral) is being disrupted by the secondary group utilizing said amendment(The protesters). This is a case where there is a clear conflict between two forces that are observing and using their American Rights. This is not a first amendment issue about religion. That's right. It's not the practice of free speech that is the issue here. It is the second part of the first amendment that guarantees us the right to lawful assembly. In this case, the lawful assembly includes a variety of permits and such that legalize the disposal of the dead and the observance of the rituals or practices involved by the private party. By contrast, the protesters are not legally recognized by any permits or otherwise recognized by process of government permit. Since said protest is on a government venue, disallowing others to use same venue with government recognition, the Phelpsian Brigade and the Westboro Baptist church are the ones in the wrong. Basically, the funeral was there first, therfore granting them primary protection under the constitution.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Sorry but evangelicals are supposed to bring the good news of being saved by grace through Christ's redemptive work on the cross, not "God hates fags." This hate cult is nothing more than that, there is nothing Christian about it and nobody should ever compare them to Puritans!!
tmkatt (Tom Miller) says…
Logic and raging, the two of you hit the nail squarly on the head. "It is already illegal to use free speech to threaten or incite violence." I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that particular point has already been to th U.S. Supreme Court, and precedent has been established, so why is this even an issue? Being an adherent of Voltaires' perspective, "though I may disagree...", I strongly defend the right to free speech, but, really, come on now, I have some equally strong opinions concerning respect for OTHERS' rights, and these so-called Phelpsians so me they have absolutely NO respect, and are ANYthing but Christians. Met fred (note the lower case...) once many years when he was bicycling across Kansas in a lame-a$$ attempt at the statehouse. I was working for High Plains Public Radio. The man, and I use that term VERY loosely, was, even back THEN, almost too wacko for the air-time he wanted, but, they aired his comments, and even in neo-conservative western Kansas he inflammed people. We (the radio station) caught grief over THAT for quite a while. Sooner or later, he will "go away", and the world will smell sweeter for his departure. Me? Being a Vietnam combat vet? Just what do ya think MY attitude is about all their posturing and b.s.? But, as previously stated, I truly respect free speech, and phred and his "followers" really put my principals to the ultimate test. I sincerely HOPE they never show up at a service I am attending...might prove to be just a bit too much for this old war-dogs' patience.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Jury's in!!!!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?...