Military Funeral Protest

[youtube]6UMP3AK5jwo[/youtube]​

Emanuella Grinberg said:
The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face."

"By the court making this decision, they're not only telling me that they're taking their side, but I have to pay them money to do this to more soldiers and their families," said Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006.

Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths.

Margie Phelps, the daughter of Fred Phelps and the attorney representing the church in its appeals, also said the money that the church receives from Snyder will be used to finance demonstrations. But she also said that the order was a consequence of his decision to sue the church over the demonstration.

"Mr. Snyder and his attorneys have engaged the legal system; there are some rules to that legal engagement," said Phelps, a member of Westboro who says she has participated in more than 150 protests of military funerals.

"They wanted to shut down the picketing so now they're going to finance it," she said.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered that Snyder pay more than $16,000 in costs requested by Westboro for copies of motions, briefs and appendices, according to court documents.

In a motion filed in October, Snyder's lawyer, who is representing him for free, asked the court to dismiss the bill of costs, or, alternatively, reduce the 50-cent fee per page or charge Snyder only for copies that were necessary to make their arguments on appeal.

"We objected based upon ability to pay and the fairness of the situation," Sean Summers said.

The mostly pro-forma ruling is the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga that pits privacy rights of grieving families against the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message.

Snyder's family sued the church and went to trial in 2007 alleging privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. A jury awarded the family $2.9 million in compensatory damages plus $8 million in punitive damages, which were reduced to $5 million.

Westboro in 2008 appealed the case to the 4th District, which reversed the judgments a year later, siding with the church's claims that its First Amendment rights had been violated.

"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to address issues of laws designed to protect the "sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services" as well as the privacy of family and friends of the deceased.

The justices will be asked to address how far states and private entities such as cemeteries and churches can go to justify picket-free zones and the use of "floating buffers" to silence or restrict speech or movements of demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights in a funeral setting.

Both Phelps and Snyder's attorney said they were surprised that the 4th District chose to weigh in on the issue of legal costs when they could have waited until after the Supreme Court hearing.

Phelps believes the ruling bodes well for her side.

"It is a good harbinger of the fact that the Supreme Court will remind this nation that you don't have mob rule. The fact that so many people hate these words does not mean you can silence or penalize them. That's supposed to be the great liberty that we congratulate ourselves on protecting in this nation. We strut all around the world forcing people to give all the liberties we supposedly have," she said.

Phelps anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling in the church's favor would be unpopular, but she said Westboro's members viewed the potential outcome in Biblical terms.

"When the Supreme Court unanimously upholds the 4th Circuit, it's going to put this country in a rage, and we will be expelled," she said. "But whenever it was time for an epic event in the Bible, the thing that happened right before is the prophets were removed from the land, and that's what's going to happen to us. ... We're going to sprint to the end of this race."

Snyder claims he is unable to pay any legal costs in the case and is attempting to raise funds on his son's site, http://www.matthewsnyder.org/. He is equally optimistic that he will prevail before the Supreme Court.

"The American people keep my spirits lifted a lot and give me hope. I think most of the country is on my side on this issue," he said. "Too many people have died to protect our rights and freedoms to have them degraded and spit upon like this church does."


The decision made by the Court of Appeals is, in my opinion, an insulting slap in the face to every family that has lost someone in combat. It not only deminstrates a great misuse of the judicial system, but also sets a dangerous precedent of how the memory of fallen soldier can be treated.

I understand, and am thankful, for the rights to free speech, but using a family's vulnerability during this time of grieving, for their own agenda is outragiously wrong. Especially when the right to freedom of speech is protected by the very soldiers who risk their lives.

When the Snyder family sued to protect the common decency we should provide to all grieving families, their efforts were met with court orders to pay the legal bills of those who needlessly contributed to their family pain. Perhaps the Court of Appeal judges had forgotten that without the sacrifices of brave soldiers and their families, the judicial system would have been a long-distant memory.

Surely, this is not the kind of thing that Lance Cpl. Snyder, and other soldiers gave their lives to protect.

It is time for the Supreme Court to take up this case, not only for families like Albert Snyder but for the families who will bear the ultimate price of freedom in the future. The justices should strike down the ruling of the Virginia court that brushed aside the sacrifice of Lance Cpl. Snyder and restore common sense and basic decency to the way we honor our fallen heroes.
 
The decision made by the Court of Appeals is, in my opinion, an insulting slap in the face to every family that has lost someone in combat. It not only deminstrates a great misuse of the judicial system, but also sets a dangerous precedent of how the memory of fallen soldier can be treated.

Freedom of Speech is a bitch, isn't it?

I understand, and am thankful, for the rights to free speech, but using a family's vulnerability during this time of grieving, for their own agenda is outragiously wrong. Especially when the right to freedom of speech is protected by the very soldiers who risk their lives.

Ah. Then wouldn't infringing on their right of Free Speech be equivalent to pissing on their grave?

When the Snyder family sued to protect the common decency we should provide to all grieving families, their efforts were met with court orders to pay the legal bills of those who needlessly contributed to their family pain.

The Snyder family brought forth a lawsuit. He lost. It is common practice for the winning side of a lawsuit to sue for compensation of their legal bills. The judge was just following normal procedure.

Perhaps the Court of Appeal judges had forgotten that without the sacrifices of brave soldiers and their families, the judicial system would have been a long-distant memory.

Of course not. He was just respecting the dead soldier and the fact that Free Speech still reigns in this country. If you don't like it, then you can't do much about it.
Surely, this is not the kind of thing that Lance Cpl. Snyder, and other soldiers gave their lives to protect.

Sure they did. Or did Snyder die with a note to his chest reading "I only died to protect the right to Freedom of Expression and Free Speech for people that aren't batshit crazy?"

It is time for the Supreme Court to take up this case, not only for families like Albert Snyder but for the families who will bear the ultimate price of freedom in the future.

Why? The Supreme Court won't rule any differently. It's a simple Freedom of Speech issue.

The justices should strike down the ruling of the Virginia court that brushed aside the sacrifice of Lance Cpl. Snyder and restore common sense and basic decency to the way we honor our fallen heroes.

Freedom of Speech is a right granted to everyone in the United States. Everyone. That KKK member marching down the street? That white man ranting about taxes? That black man ranting about how whites today are responsible for the sins of their fathers a hundred years ago. That old Mexican man ranting about how God hates gays. That man who preaches tolerance. That woman who preaches that we should love everyone.

All of those people are protected under the first amendment of the Constitution. The only thing you can not do is cry "Fire" in a crowded building, or incite hatred or violence.

Those people protesting, while I find their stance despicable at the very least and an outright affront to their God at the most basic level, have every right to say what they want to say. That's why the father of the dead soldier lost his legal battle. It's a simple matter of Free Speech.

You may not like it, but it doesn't matter. It's Free Speech. Until the WBC members go about chanting that everyone should kill soldiers (Which they don't. They chant that God killed the soldiers because we allow gays to walk around without being stoned to death.) then they are within their Constitutional Rights.

Don't like it? You don't have much choice. It's in the very Constitution our forefathers ratified. The only way to change it would be an amendment to the Constitution. And no one is going to fuck with the First Amendment because a bunch of crazy old conservatives chanted that a solider died because "God hates F--s."
 
It's a fine line when talking about freedom of speech and violating the peace. DURING A FUNERAL NO LESS! I mean come on, how low can someone go. Actually wait. I think I just found how low people can go. It's a god damn funeral for christ sakes. People are in mourning and you have the gaul to protest? That's utterly disrescpectful and borderline violating keeping the peace laws. Hell they probably should've arrested them in the first place for that. THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT!
 
The Westboro Baptists are one of the more hateful groups of people you are likely to see. They do however exploit a problem with the American legal system and Constitution in general.

The ability to hide thinly veiled race hate and homophobia behind the First Amendment is a disgrace and as someone who does not live in America I find it ridiculous that people can get away with such slander because their right to say so is legally protected.
 
What kind of church protests with signs that say god hates you? And thank god for dead soldiers? Im pretty sure god wouldnt want to be thanked for innocent peoples deaths.
Im all for the freedom of speech and everything but protesting at a funeral? Have some decency people. How would they like it if people protested their church/beliefs at their funeral and said thank god your dead?
 
Razor hit this one out of the park on the first swing.

I'm gonna have to say that though it is reprehensible, the church was within their rights. And one shouldn't go into a lawsuit without taking into consideration that you might end up losing some money over it. The law can not make exceptions just because the defendants are worthless wastes of oxygen. Even wastes of oxygen are subject to the same rights. I wonder if they'll even understand how privileged they are, being protected by rights while seeking to take away those rights from others.
 
Personally, I do not see why the First Amendment cannot be amended. Perhaps it is because I am a foreigner but as I see it all Americans, Democrats, Republicans and others alike, are ultra-conservative when it comes to their Constitution even when it is protecting a group that would exploit it for malicious ends. The sheer fact that there are 27 Amendments to the US Constitution shows that Americans have seen the need to alter or enhance their legal structure so what makes the First Amendment untouchable?

We in Britain have had similar problems with abuses of freedom of speech. Having said that, the religious nuts we get abusing that freedom are usually not British nationals and can be deported if they are found to have crossed a line.

Freedom of speech, while a fundamental right, still needs to be governed.
 
Personally, I do not see why the First Amendment cannot be amended. Perhaps it is because I am a foreigner but as I see it all Americans, Democrats, Republicans and others alike, are ultra-conservative when it comes to their Constitution even when it is protecting a group that would exploit it for malicious ends. The sheer fact that there are 27 Amendments to the US Constitution shows that Americans have seen the need to alter or enhance their legal structure so what makes the First Amendment untouchable?

We in Britain have had similar problems with abuses of freedom of speech. Having said that, the religious nuts we get abusing that freedom are usually not British nationals and can be deported if they are found to have crossed a line.

Freedom of speech, while a fundamental right, still needs to be governed.

That is a very interesting point. I'm not claiming to speak for all Americans, but I believe it has to do with the fact that we'd rather not open those gates. If we amend, reword, or repeal any of those basic rights, who's to say when enough is enough. A change here, modification there, sooner or later the rights are nothing like what they were intended to be.
 
The first amendment has been changed many times through court decisions.

One of those decisions was
Baltimore Sun said:
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court ruled that free speech does not protect “obscene utterances” and “certain personal slurs.” The lawsuit also considers the possibility that the free speech expression of the Westboro Baptist Church may have violated the Snyder family’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion – to hold and attend their son’s funeral. When two constitutionally protected rights come into conflict, the Supreme Court is asked to determine where the line between the two should be drawn.

The Supreme Court is going to hear the case and finally prioritize free speech vs. religion. The problem lies in the fact that the first amendment offers several protections, and at some point, those protections are going to come in conflict. Expression has already been deprioritized through obscenity laws, however, this may be the first time the court hears an argument of religion vs. speech.

I feel that the family's right to freely express their religious ritual expression should outweigh the freedom of speech here. The family is having a small private ceremony and the church moved in an infringed upon their right. Conversely, if a group was having a protest and a church walked in and started praying, I feel that the church group would need to be removed. It is a very prima facie case, in which a court can easily determine which group is showing up just to antagonize the other.

Basically, you can't yell fire in a theater because it may incite panic and injury. In the same vein, speech that disturbs another protected form of expression to a point where there is conflict should be limited.
 
Members of Westboro Baptist Church are all going to hell, if such a thing exists, and I almost want to be there just to laugh in their horrible faces when they realise that. Protesting at the funeral of a soldier is one of the lowest things you can do, and if I had a child who died fighting for their country, and ANYONE protested ANYWHERE near the funeral site I'd shoot them all without a second thought.

Freedom of speech my fucking arse. I have a right to put my hero child to rest peacefully. If you don't like the war, that's fine, protest it near a government building. But come near a soldiers funeral while I'm there and I'll try my hardest not to stamp on your face so much your eyes pop out.

It's absolutely disgusting, what if family of those in the Westboro Baptist Church were killed in 9/11 or 7/7? Would they still be against fighting those responsible? I've never disagreed with anyone as much as I disagree with this scum.
 
Ah westbro, Cant live with them, Cant Kill them

This freedom of speech should have some type of clause where it cant be arrogant and self serving in some cases.
 
I am, in no way, against the freedom of speech. It is afterall, what allows me to post threads and comments such as these.

I don't know if amendments need to be changed to the Constitution, but protesting of any kind should not be permitted a or near a funeral. Especially a protest that promotes "Thank God for Dead Soliers" at a military funeral.

Even aside from how appalling this whole thing is, if a ruling in favor of Westboro Baptist Church is made, this could set precedence for other nutty people to spread their garbage.



Further information regarding this case; Westboro Baptist Church plans on suing the money that they gained from this ruling to fund other protest.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,837
Messages
3,300,747
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top