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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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".