The Law vs Wesboro Baptists

[Liar]

Nice to see those fucks get hit by the letter of the law that they usually hide their crap behind.

At least a little.


---------

Anti-Gay Church Must Pay Marine's Family

POSTED: 10:15 am EST December 12, 2006E

BALTIMORE -- A Kansas church has been ordered to pay $3,150 for costs and fees associated with a summons and complaint filed by the father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the extremist group.

Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., is suing the Rev. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church after church members demonstrated at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, of Westminster, and posted pictures of the protest on their Web site.

Lance Snyder was killed in Iraq in March. Members of the Topeka church claim U.S. soldiers are killed as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

His father's federal lawsuit, filed June 5, alleges church members violated the family's right to privacy and defamed the Marine and his family at the funeral and on the church's Web site.

Phelps and the church refused to grant a waiver in the serving of summonses in connection with the federal lawsuit, making the church liable for those costs.

Court documents say the church has 30 days to make the payment to Snyder.

 

[CharleyH]

Nice to see those fucks get hit by the letter of the law that they usually hide their crap behind.

At least a little.

--------

Anti-Gay Church Must Pay Marine's Family

POSTED: 10:15 am EST December 12, 2006E

BALTIMORE -- A Kansas church has been ordered to pay $3,150 for costs and fees associated with a summons and complaint filed by the father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the extremist group.

Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., is suing the Rev. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church after church members demonstrated at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, of Westminster, and posted pictures of the protest on their Web site.

Lance Snyder was killed in Iraq in March. Members of the Topeka church claim U.S. soldiers are killed as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

His father's federal lawsuit, filed June 5, alleges church members violated the family's right to privacy and defamed the Marine and his family at the funeral and on the church's Web site.

Phelps and the church refused to grant a waiver in the serving of summonses in connection with the federal lawsuit, making the church liable for those costs.

Court documents say the church has 30 days to make the payment to Snyder.

lol indeed. I especially find the dichotomy interesting - Is God a fascist? Now there is a question.

 

[JamesSD]

"Members of the Topeka church claim U.S. soldiers are killed as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality."
Wow, this attitude is offensive on multiple levels. It's got something for everyone too. It's disrespsectful to our troops, and it's homophobic.

 

[Guest]

Nice to see those fucks get hit by the letter of the law that they usually hide their crap behind.

At least a little.


---------

Anti-Gay Church Must Pay Marine's Family

POSTED: 10:15 am EST December 12, 2006E

BALTIMORE -- A Kansas church has been ordered to pay $3,150 for costs and fees associated with a summons and complaint filed by the father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the extremist group.

Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., is suing the Rev. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church after church members demonstrated at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, of Westminster, and posted pictures of the protest on their Web site.

Lance Snyder was killed in Iraq in March. Members of the Topeka church claim U.S. soldiers are killed as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

His father's federal lawsuit, filed June 5, alleges church members violated the family's right to privacy and defamed the Marine and his family at the funeral and on the church's Web site.

Phelps and the church refused to grant a waiver in the serving of summonses in connection with the federal lawsuit, making the church liable for those costs.

Court documents say the church has 30 days to make the payment to Snyder.

Thank you, Liar.

This certainly brings a smile to my face.

I can't wait to see how many more federal lawsuits will be filed.

 

[SeaCat]

I wonder.

If one of his family were to die, and people showed up to protest would the funeral would he and the family be upset?

Would they try to sue?

How many people would show up or the protest? Would the media? How about the Freedom Riders?

In a way it would be justice, but in another way it would be a waste. (Not to mention stooping to their level.)

Cat

 

[poppy1963]

Thank you, Liar.

This certainly brings a smile to my face.

I can't wait to see how many more federal lawsuits will be filed.

Me, too! I hope enough to bankrupt them completely.

 

[rgraham666]

There is a God.

 

[Guest]

There is a God.

And apparently, He loves irony.



(well done, Rob!)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Just because I think it warrants the question...

...how is this not a matter of freedom of both speech and protest?

Which is to say, if they had a message many here would have agreed with, and were all up on someone that is generally belittled or hated here... would it be terribly different?

 

[rgraham666]

Just because I think it warrants the question...

...how is this not a matter of freedom of both speech and protest?

Which is to say, if they had a message many here would have agreed with, and were all up on someone that is generally belittled or hated here... would it be terribly different?

I would be just as down on someone who protested at someone's funeral that I disagreed with. Say for example if Rev. Phelps croaked and people showed up to scream and shout at that.

A funeral is a personal thing, a time for family and friends to grieve and say good bye. No one has the right to interfere with that, especially for political purposes.

 

[CharleyH]

Just because I think it warrants the question...

...how is this not a matter of freedom of both speech and protest?

Which is to say, if they had a message many here would have agreed with, and were all up on someone that is generally belittled or hated here... would it be terribly different?

lol - No.

 

[3113]

Which is to say, if they had a message many here would have agreed with, and were all up on someone that is generally belittled or hated here... would it be terribly different?

You mean, if they'd just been protesting the war say? Or if the one buried had hated gays and gays had protested the funeral and said he deserved to die? I'm sorry, but I think most of us would still agree that it's not "freedom of speech" to invade the grave site.

If, say, Rev. Phelps died and people wanted to cheer in the streets, then, by way of freedom of speech they could. They can say whatever they like about how he deserved to die on the television news, hold parties of joy, if they wish. But, as justified as it would seem, it would be beyond the pale for them to get within spitting distance of the grave as Phelps' family was lowering the body into the ground and disrupt the burial and the privacy of the family to mourn him.

And really, if your intent is to catch us up in hypocrisy, you need to do better than that.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Nice to see those fucks get hit by the letter of the law that they usually hide their crap behind.

At least a little.


---------

Anti-Gay Church Must Pay Marine's Family

POSTED: 10:15 am EST December 12, 2006E

BALTIMORE -- A Kansas church has been ordered to pay $3,150 for costs and fees associated with a summons and complaint filed by the father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the extremist group.

Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., is suing the Rev. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church after church members demonstrated at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, of Westminster, and posted pictures of the protest on their Web site.

Lance Snyder was killed in Iraq in March. Members of the Topeka church claim U.S. soldiers are killed as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

His father's federal lawsuit, filed June 5, alleges church members violated the family's right to privacy and defamed the Marine and his family at the funeral and on the church's Web site.

Phelps and the church refused to grant a waiver in the serving of summonses in connection with the federal lawsuit, making the church liable for those costs.

Court documents say the church has 30 days to make the payment to Snyder.

Albeit a stocking stuffer its certainly nonetheless welcome!!!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You mean, if they'd just been protesting the war say? Or if the one buried had hated gays and gays had protested the funeral and said he deserved to die? I'm sorry, but I think most of us would still agree that it's not "freedom of speech" to invade the grave site.

If, say, Rev. Phelps died and people wanted to cheer in the streets, then, by way of freedom of speech they could. They can say whatever they like about how he deserved to die on the television news, hold parties of joy, if they wish. But, as justified as it would seem, it would be beyond the pale for them to get within spitting distance of the grave as Phelps' family was lowering the body into the ground and disrupt the burial and the privacy of the family to mourn him.

And really, if your intent is to catch us up in hypocrisy, you need to do better than that.

But, if my intent is to understand the grounds, then I'm doing just fine it seems... or did I too completely dismiss your accusation?

*shrug* Anyhow...

So, it is the case that funerals are sacred, then?

 

[3113]

So, it is the case that funerals are sacred, then?

You do have a tendency to put words into people's mouths, Joe.

I don't know the specifics of the court case, but I'd guess that it relates to trespassing as well as right to privacy laws. To quote Justice Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding privacy rights:

the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.

This right primarily relates to privacy of information, but also of other things as well. Like, for example "unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc."

Clearly, the Judge decided that the protests were an "unreasonable" intrusion upon a family's seclusion. Funerals take place on private land. And the people who own the plot, own the plot. There is a question of trespassing here, as well as invasion of the family's seclusion.

That's my *guess* on what this ruling is based on. There is a right to privacy that is part of U.S. law--and there are anti-trespassing laws as well. It has nothing to do with funerals being sacred. If funerals WERE sacred, then I would not have argued that people can throw parties if someone dies. They can. They can rejoice that someone is being buried and put on their own mock burial.

But that doesn't mean they can trespass or invade someone's privacy.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You do have a tendency to put words into people's mouths, Joe.

Of all the habits that others might find unpleasant, from me, I certainly do not put words in anyone's mouth. Asking for clarification is a far, far, far cry from assuming the answer.

I don't know the specifics of the court case, but I'd guess that it relates to trespassing as well as right to privacy laws. To quote Justice Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding privacy rights:

This right primarily relates to privacy of information, but also of other things as well. Like, for example "unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc."

Clearly, the Judge decided that the protests were an "unreasonable" intrusion upon a family's seclusion. Funerals take place on private land. And the people who own the plot, own the plot. There is a question of trespassing here, as well as invasion of the family's seclusion.

That's my *guess* on what this ruling is based on. There is a right to privacy that is part of U.S. law--and there are anti-trespassing laws as well. It has nothing to do with funerals being sacred. If funerals WERE sacred, then I would not have argued that people can throw parties if someone dies. They can. They can rejoice that someone is being buried and put on their own mock burial.

But that doesn't mean they can trespass or invade someone's privacy.

As I had understood it... this was a matter of public mourning, funerals in this case being specifically not-private--in the manner of a Church or Funeral Home, that is. A funeral, then, held in a public area--as owning the plot is not owning the cemetary or surrounding areas.

It just seems like a de-neutralizing of the first amendment. Even the language of the legislation being passed is heavily emotive--its not a wonder the ACLU is opposing it.

Am I reading all of this wrong, then?

 

[angela146]

So, it is the case that funerals are sacred, then?

It isn't the sacred nature of funerals that's somehow has special protection.

Although funerals are, in fact, sacred, any activity that people normally do in private has a right to be protected from an invasion of privacy in the form of a "breach of the peace".

Funerals are one example. Getting a good night's sleep is another.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to say what you want *in public*, not on private property, not forcibly broadcast onto private property and not forcibly broadcast into areas specifically designed for peace and quiet - such as cemetaries.

I would have the same problem with people protesting loudly in the middle of a residential neighborhood, regarless of the content of the protest.

 

[angela146]

As I had understood it... this was a matter of public mourning, funerals in this case being specifically not-private--in the manner of a Church or Funeral Home, that is.

Um, a funeral *is* a private function. If it were public it would be called a "memorial service".

A funeral, then, held in a public area--as owning the plot is not owning the cemetary or surrounding areas.

However, some public places - such as cemetaries, hospitals, orchestra halls - do have special rules requiring peace and quiet

It just seems like a de-neutralizing of the first amendment. Even the language of the legislation being passed is heavily emotive--its not a wonder the ACLU is opposing it. Am I reading all of this wrong, then?

The ACLU will probably advocate that the legislation has to be "content neutral".

In other words, you can write a law that prevents people from making lots of noise in certain areas (such as those I listed above) but the law has to cover all loud noise regardless of the content of the noise.

In a related issue, if you take a look at the Supreme Court decision that upheld flag burning as a right of freedom of expression, it did allow the government to prohibit burning of things in certain areas (i.e. you can't burn stuff in the public park except in specially designated trash bins) as long as the rules were content neutral.

 

[The_Fool]

There is an irony in considering the concept of freedom of expression when discussing dear old Fred.

 

[SeaCat]

Just because I think it warrants the question...

...how is this not a matter of freedom of both speech and protest?

Which is to say, if they had a message many here would have agreed with, and were all up on someone that is generally belittled or hated here... would it be terribly different?

Joe,

While I understand your question, I do not truly understand where it comes from.

As I understand it the father of the dead soldier is suing on the grounds that the Phelp's Family, ie The Westboro Family Church, has used the pictures of their rptoest at his sons funeral on their website along with their rehtoric. This is a violation of Privacy Laws and with their views on Gays as a matter of Slander. Therefore he does have a right to sue.

He is using their own ammunition against them and for this I applaude him.

As for Mr. Phelps and his family. Yes they do have the rights of Free Speech and Protest on their side. Rights that I and many others have paid for and am willing to do so again. However I do find his venue to be more than distasteful and would personally inform him of this in a personal and very painful manner if he ever visited the memorial service of a loved one.

Cat

 

[blackhaus7]

I'm confused.

Joe seems to be advocating AGAINST freedom of religion. Is that his case here?

For most funerals are religious ceremonies. Are church services then to be fair game for protest?

Phelps answer to all of the above is yes, but I think his position to be ill thought out.

It is disappointing to find Joe Wordworth in that camp.

 

[S-Des]

I'm confused.

Joe seems to be advocating AGAINST freedom of religion. Is that his case here?

For most funerals are religious ceremonies. Are church services then to be fair game for protest?

Phelps answer to all of the above is yes, but I think his position to be ill thought out.

It is disappointing to find Joe Wordworth in that camp.

Actually his point is right on, but I agree with Cat that the suit isn't based on what he's asking. Cemetaries are private, but the group in question carefully avoided the legal problems by protesting far enough away to not violate any specific laws (which is why the bikers could get next to them or between them and the families and make more noise than the protesters...the bikers weren't breaking any laws either). It's in incredibly poor taste and I wouldn't have a problem with a narrow law being written to make noise regulations around burials (although then the idiots would just protest silently ).

The problem is trying to stop what they're doing without someone finding a way to use it broadly to interfere with important freedoms. It's a tricky situation. All of us can say he and his "flock" are a bunch of ass-wipes that deserve to be hit by a bus, but it's much more difficult to make laws to stop them without watering down the 1st Ammendment. As Cat pointed out, the suit seems to be about the pictures, more than the actual protest. With any luck, the group has made the same mistake before and will be flooded by lawsuits (although I prefer the bus solution).

I didn't see Joe putting words in anyone's mouth, he just asked a very pointed question. I've seen hideous protests by all kinds of groups...the smart ones usually manage to be as annoying as possible without breaking any laws. They do it to intentionally piss as many people off as possible, hoping to draw attention to their cause. These jerk-offs just managed to prove there is a layer below the pondscum. Hopefully we'll always find ways to deal with people like this without resorting to giving up our rights in the process.

 

[Jagged]

Hope that group pays a lot more families...they are scum. They protested outside of the murders for Daniel Sheppard's trial They don't protest they harrass grieving families

 

[cumallday]

religious zealots over the cuckoo's nest

God kills soldiers because a nation tolerates homosexuals. If this isn't the thought process of people who are certifiably insane then I don't know what is. It isn't the law they need - it's the men in white coats. It's been said that a person who truly is crazy doesn't think they are. The fact that these people truly belive what they preach and are willing to practice it by protesting a funeral only shows how fucking depraved their lunacy has become. They must be so god damned out of it if they've forgotten the most essential message of all Christianity - Do unto others as you would have them do onto you. Now come on, let's get those straight jackets ready, we've got some crazies to bag!

 

[Liar]

Just because I think it warrants the question...

...how is this not a matter of freedom of both speech and protest?

Which is to say, if they had a message many here would have agreed with, and were all up on someone that is generally belittled or hated here... would it be terribly different?

Maybe not the perfect example but kindof in that ballpark...

Pinochet just died. In the streets of Santiago, there have been demonstrations, riots even, for and against the man.

But at the funeral, the protesters against seems to have had the common decency to keep their distance. This for a man who have murdered and tortured members of their families. If anyone have just cause to dance on a grave, they have. But kept their peace at the ceremony.