MA father awarded $11 million in lawsuit over his military son's funeral

[Joe Biden 2020]

You all remember the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas with pastor Fred Phelps who's congregation protests at funerals of our fallen military personnel with the message that God is punishing America for their tolerance of homosexuality.  Well, anyway, they were hit with an $11 million lawsuit by a Massachusetts father over the protest at his military son's funeral.  The judge sided with the father.

Personally, I think this is a HUGE victory for the American people and will hopefully begin to shut this hateful group up.  I don't think it will, but hopefully it will at least hinder their message.

This so-called "church" is a major black-eye to all those good and decent churches who preach the Gospel of Peace and is a major black-eye to my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.

While I don't agree with homosexuality, as I have said many, many times on this forum, I do not agree with anyone who preaches hate against homosexuals, and I especially don't like the fact that they protest the funerals of military personnel and make the family and loved one's grieve even more.

I don't even call that congregation true Americans, and definitely not true Christians.  True Christians do not preach hate, we preach that the way to change the world is by displaying the love which Christ showed us, and continues to show us on a daily basis.

[bergie72]

Hallelujah!

[MODU]

Good!  May they lose their appeal and go broke in the process.

[bullmoose88]

This sort of low value, hate speech, has no place in America.

[Alcon]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

A very, very bad one.

[Gabu]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

The guy won his claim that Phelps' actions caused him severe emotional trauma (and given that it was the funeral of his own son, I'm not particularly incredulous of that idea).  That argument usually gets laughed out of court, so the fact that it actually succeeded this time means that Phelps must have done something pretty bad.

Quite frankly, this looks about as much a restriction of freedom of speech as the banning of libel and slander.  Not something I'm worried about.

[Alcon]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

The guy won his claim that Phelps' actions caused him severe emotional trauma (and given that it was the funeral of his own son, I'm not particularly incredulous of that idea).  That argument usually gets laughed out of court, so the fact that it actually succeeded this time means that Phelps must have done something pretty bad.

Quite frankly, this looks about as much a restriction of freedom of speech as the banning of libel and slander.  Not something I'm worried about.

I don't see how "his protest emotionally upset me" is a valid argument for restricting free speech.  I'm no Constitutional scholar, but beyond civil harassment, "fire in a crowded theater", and encouragements of violence, I don't see a compelling reason to restrict it.

This, I don't think, fell into any of the three.  It worries me.

[Gabu]

I don't see how "his protest emotionally upset me" is a valid argument for restricting free speech.  I'm no Constitutional scholar, but beyond civil harassment, "fire in a crowded theater", and encouragements of violence, I don't see a compelling reason to restrict it.

This, I don't think, fell into any of the three.  It worries me.

It's not a matter of it just making him sad.  The accusation of intentional infliction of emotional distress carries with it very specific things that the plaintiff must show:

1. The defendant must act intentionally or recklessly;
2. The defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and
3. The conduct must be the cause of severe emotional distress.

Further down it also says that "the defendant's conduct must be more than malicious and intentional; and liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions."

In other words, it's not just being a jerk to someone; you have to do something really, really bad to intentionally cause extreme emotional trauma to the victim for this accusation to fly.  As I said before, courts are generally not receptive towards claims of IIED; for a court to actually award damages to someone based solely on this charge, you have to seriously go beyond the pale.

Personally, I look at emotional damage to be roughly the same as physical damage.  If you punch someone once, that person probably isn't going to win a court case over it.  If you pummel someone into a bloody pulp, the chances probably go up substantially.  Same thing as with a person's emotions.  A person should be liable to take a little emotional beating, but just as certain amounts of physical assault are deemed to go too far, so too are certain amounts of emotional assault.

I see nothing wrong with protecting people here just as they're protected against physical assault.  Just as Mr. Universe might be able to take an abnormal amount of physical damage and come out on top, so too could an abnormally emotionally strong person be able to take a large emotional beating, but everyone has their limits, and I don't see why we can't acknowledge an emotional limit the same as we acknowledge a physical limit.

[HardRCafé]

I honestly am not sure how anyone but the ACLU could argue drowning out funeral after funeral with heckling is in any way protected by the first amendment, any more than "FIRE, HAW HAW!"

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

A very, very bad one.

Agreed - Although I like the ruling, it's VERY frivolous - I hate Westboro - they're not really Christians - and their pure biggots.

[Gabu]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

A very, very bad one.

Agreed - Although I like the ruling, it's VERY frivolous - I hate Westboro - they're not really Christians - and their pure biggots.

I don't see how it's any less frivolous to launch a court case based on physical harm caused by someone else.  Like I said, people should be expected to live with a certain extent of emotional pain caused by others, but I see nothing wrong with drawing a line.  All it really is doing is respecting the fact that everyone has limits.  We all love repeating the mantra "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" and act as if no amount of emotional pain ought to be too much for someone to bear, but if we want to actually live in the real world, I really think we ought to acknowledge that that isn't true to an indefinitely great extent, and that every person has emotional limits that should be noted.

[HardRCafé]

I suppose systematically disrupting weddings so that they never get to the vows is fine under the first amendment, too.  Hey, no worries now if gay marriage passes!

[Emsworth]

While I abhor the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, I consider verdicts such as this one monstrous violations of free speech rights. I am not making a constitutional claim here, but rather a normative one. Individuals have, or ought to have, an almost absolute right to protest the policies of the government. That is precisely what the Westboro Baptist Church was doing here: it was protesting the policies of the government with regard to homosexuality, and was claiming that the death of American soldiers was a consequence of those policies. However outlandish and absurd the claim may seem, it is not the government's place to regulate it, whether through legislation or through the court system.

Merely calling something "intentional infliction of emotional distress" does not, I think, dispose of the rights claim here. IIED is very different from libel and slander. Defamatory remarks can be judged by a reasonably objective yardstick. Is the statement one of fact, rather than one of opinion? If so, is it true? If so, is it harmful to the plaintiff's reputation? It is true that these questions are not as precise as, say, a mathematical definition, but nonetheless, as I said, they appear to be reasonably objective. On the other hand, any IIED claim turns entirely on the emotional response of the triers of fact. The term "outrageous" is inherently subjective, susceptible to a far greater extent than most legal terms to the whims and caprices of a particular judge or jury.

As to the constitutional issue: I think that the Supreme Court's decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is dispositive here. Even though a publication may have been sufficiently "outrageous," and even though it met all of the standards for IIED, the Court held that the First Amendment precluded the lawsuit because it was never demonstrated that there was any "false statement of fact which was made with 'actual malice'". Here, the Westboro Baptist Church, while engaged in a protest about public affairs, made no false statements of fact; their statements are at best opinions, and at worst simply unverifiable. Hence, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, and the lawsuit ought to have been dismissed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

A very, very bad one.

Agreed - Although I like the ruling, it's VERY frivolous - I hate Westboro - they're not really Christians - and their pure biggots.

I don't see how it's any less frivolous to launch a court case based on physical harm caused by someone else.  Like I said, people should be expected to live with a certain extent of emotional pain caused by others, but I see nothing wrong with drawing a line.  All it really is doing is respecting the fact that everyone has limits.  We all love repeating the mantra "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" and act as if no amount of emotional pain ought to be too much for someone to bear, but if we want to actually live in the real world, I really think we ought to acknowledge that that isn't true to an indefinitely great extent, and that every person has emotional limits that should be noted.

But $10.9 million?

[Ebowed]

The right to freedom of speech trumps the right not to be offended.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The right to freedom of speech trumps the right not to be offended.

Even at a funeral?

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So is it a statement of fact or one of opinion to be called a jerk? American Heritage Dictionary defines a 'jerk' as 'a foolish, rude, or contemptible person.' At first one would think this is not a statement of fact, merely one of opinion. But suppose that the person really did make many more mistakes over the course of his life that others would not have made. Perhaps he made three foolish mistakes as witnessed by the defendant. He was really 'foolish' and the statement was factually true. Or was he just a regular person who made three mistakes? Just what is a 'foolish mistake' anyway? And how many mistakes does one have to make before one is a jerk?

You say that these questions appear to be 'reasonably objective'. Yet it seems that there are cases where they can provide no clarity.

And is 'outrageous' really inherently subjective? What if there was a chemical pattern in the brain that was associated with the emotion of extreme anger-- and this could be measured? And what if there was a strong statistically significant relationship between certain accusations at a family member's funeral and activity in this sector of the brain for a random cross-section of people? Is it 'inherently subjective' then?

[Alcon]

The right to freedom of speech trumps the right not to be offended.

Even at a funeral?

Who decides what event is solemn enough to warrant this?  So, yes, as far as I'm concerned, it should.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The right to freedom of speech trumps the right not to be offended.

Even at a funeral?

Who decides what event is solemn enough to warrant this?  So, yes, as far as I'm concerned, it should.

Interesting that we're on agreement with this.  (And in rather thin company, too.)

[Gabu]

The right to freedom of speech trumps the right not to be offended.

Even at a funeral?

Who decides what event is solemn enough to warrant this?  So, yes, as far as I'm concerned, it should.

It's not that it's solemn; it's that it's a private event being crashed and ruined by these people.  What gives them the right to do that?

[HardRCafé]

It's not that it's solemn; it's that it's a private event being crashed and ruined by these people.  What gives them the right to do that?

Seconded.

I also wonder how "free speech" can be banned from within 100 feet of any polling place, but not from a funeral.

[Alcon]

It's not that it's solemn; it's that it's a private event being crashed and ruined by these people.  What gives them the right to do that?

If they are protesting within legal distances, how does that constitute "crashing" the event?  They weren't sued for trespassing or disturbing the peace, as far as I'm aware.  If they were, I could understand.

Seconded.

I also wonder how "free speech" can be banned from within 100 feet of any polling place, but not from a funeral.

Honestly, defending that is probably possible, but I'm not competent enough.  Effectively, with that argument, though, you could support banning any form of free speech whatsoever.  There is clearly a legally-defined law; I'm just not sure what it is.  And if this ruling crosses it just because these people are exceptional bastards, I can't respect that, as much as I wish I could.

[Gabu]

It's not that it's solemn; it's that it's a private event being crashed and ruined by these people.  What gives them the right to do that?

If they are protesting within legal distances, how does that constitute "crashing" the event?  They weren't sued for trespassing or disturbing the peace, as far as I'm aware.  If they were, I could understand.

No, they weren't, probably because the father was so distraught that he didn't think of doing anything else.  But I mean, really, what difference does it make whether they were x number of feet away?  If you're playing loud rock music at 2 AM, that is still not okay if your neighbors are being bothered, despite the fact that you were far enough away to be on your property.  It seems to me that if your actions led to a tangible decrease in enjoyment by those present (or whatever you want to call what you get at a funeral), it doesn't particularly matter how far away you happened to be inasmuch as "your right to swing your fist ends at my face".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's not that it's solemn; it's that it's a private event being crashed and ruined by these people.  What gives them the right to do that?

If they are protesting within legal distances, how does that constitute "crashing" the event?  They weren't sued for trespassing or disturbing the peace, as far as I'm aware.  If they were, I could understand.

No, they weren't, probably because the father was so distraught that he didn't think of doing anything else.  But I mean, really, what difference does it make whether they were x number of feet away?  If you're playing loud rock music at 2 AM, that is still not okay if your neighbors are being bothered, despite the fact that you were far enough away to be on your property.  It seems to me that if your actions led to a tangible decrease in enjoyment by those present (or whatever you want to call what you get at a funeral), it doesn't particularly matter how far away you happened to be inasmuch as "your right to swing your fist ends at my face".

Actually - you got me thinking - perhaps they're in violation of some nois ordinances?