Phelps protests marine's funeral, marine's family forced to pay Phelps

[Badlands17]

Why hasn't anyone made it federal law that there must be a no-picketing buffer zone within a certain radius of funerals like some states already have (including WBC's home state of Kansas)? Problem solved.

EDIT: OK, apparently a few months after this soldier's funeral Congress passed a law prohibiting protests within 300 feet of military funerals, but that's only military funerals. :/

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why hasn't anyone made it federal law that there must be a no-picketing buffer zone within a certain radius of funerals like some states already have (including WBC's home state of Kansas)? Problem solved.

How would Congress have the Consitutional authority to do that?  I can't think of any possible claim Congress could give that would give them authority to legislate that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So I've read over the case and read the Petition for Certiorari and Brief in Opposition.

Here are my conclusions (from Snyder's side):

Hustler v. Falwell cannot be applied to a private v. private suit, because at the heart of Hustler v. Falwell is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without that sentence, Hustler v. Falwell largely falls apart.

There's no clear way to decide whether the right to assembly trumps the right to free speech; however, since courts have upheld restrictions of free speech around aboartion clinics, I think the precedent is on the side of the right to assemble.

I think that an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” - that doesn't seem like there's too much leeway there.

Now here are my conclusions on matters from Phelps' side:

Phelps is a private individual, and I disagree with his argument that this is a "public matter".

Phelps's best argument comes when he claims that the "captive audience" argument is irrelevant, since the protests were not close enough to matter.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I took the time to review the case, and found out a lot more detail.

Beyond what has already been reported in this thread, it should be noted that in Snyder v. Phelps the plaintiff won a jury verdict of $10.9 million which was reduced to $5 million by the trial court judge while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the damages asserting that Phelps speech was constitutionally protected.

It is believed that the Supreme Court will accept the case for review.

To me it is very clear that the Court of Appeals erred in its decision.

First, all political speech is NOT free from civil liability.  Indeed, although the standard required to sustain a defamation (slander or libel) case, a public figure must prove not only that the communication occurs and is defamatory, but that it is malicious as well.  New York Times v. Sullivan.

Second, as  Justice Aliver Well Holmes Jr's 's opinion in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919) noted, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

So, there is no absolute protection for all political speech from civil sanctions!

Now, intentional infliction of emotional (or mental distress is a long recognized civil action which is very difficult to sustain.  According to quizlaw:

"In tort law, intentional infliction of emotional (or mental) distress is a mental reaction (such as anguish, grief, or fright) to another person’s actions that entails recoverable damages. To successfully prove a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show four elements: 1) that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; 2) that the defendant’s conduct was extreme or outrageous; 3) that the extreme or outrageous conduct caused 4) severe emotional distress. One of the major hurdles in a intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit is proving that the defendant’s conduct was extreme or outrageous; this is defined best as conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. An example of intentional infliction of emotional distress would include seeing a child die in an automobile accident from a distance or receiving a letter from someone falsely claiming that a close family member had died. Because of this very high standard, it is very difficult to prove an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim."

As no one is arguing that the actions of the defendant did not meet those standards, the Supreme Court should reinstate the decision of the jury, and educate the court of appeals on properly performing its function instead of engaging in very stupid misreading of the Constitution.

[SvenssonRS]

Fred Phelps can go to hell. And I don't even legitimately believe there is a hell.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here's a summary of my views on the subject - it's my column coming out in tomorrow's newspaper.  Unfortunately, my word limit is 500 and my editor likes to edit it down to 450 so I tried to cut it down as much as possible.  Originally, it was around 550, so it's a really abridged version of what I'd like to say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

That is a well crafted essay Inks. Are the facts of the case that the protest in fact disrupted the funeral due to shouting etc., so the voices conducting the funeral could not be heard, or only with difficultly?  That strikes me as important fact one way or the other. If not, then the protest does not appear to me to materially interfere with freedom of assembly.

[??????????]

That is a well crafted essay Inks. Are the facts of the case that the protest in fact disrupted the funeral due to shouting etc., so the voices conducting the funeral could not be heard, or only with difficultly?  That strikes me as important fact one way or the other. If not, then the protest does not appear to me to materially interfere with freedom of assembly.

They are sick disgusting f'ckers. That being said, they have the absolute right to protest whatever the hell they want but they probably should be kept back a couple hundred yards at least.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That is a well crafted essay Inks. Are the facts of the case that the protest in fact disrupted the funeral due to shouting etc., so the voices conducting the funeral could not be heard, or only with difficultly?  That strikes me as important fact one way or the other. If not, then the protest does not appear to me to materially interfere with freedom of assembly.

The protest was (I believe) 1000 feet away, so arguably, far enough away to not be heard (at least too much).  The claim by Snyder is that the knowledge of the presence of Phelps was enough to cause distress - in other words, Phelps gets as close as he can get and then protests, so does that still constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress?  That part of the case is going to be where the decision is made, in my opinion (that and, which part of the First Amendment trumps the other).

If the SCOTUS sides with Phelps, I hope they reject the claim that Hustler v. Falwell applies here, because applying Hustler v. Falwell would be one of the most blatant misinterpretations of legal precedent in the history of this country.

[Torie]

Based on that, Inks, I would be amazed if SCOTUS truncates the first amendment in this way. There was no real disruption of freedom of assembly, just the psychic pain from the content of the speech itself. The First Amendment is all about protecting speech, that many or most, find offensive. If the speech is reasonably popular, we don't need a First Amendment to protect it. JMO.

[bullmoose88]

Holy Crap...States is back.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So I just looked at tomorrow's paper... my editor stuck my column in the 300-word spot in the opinion section.  How you can cut Snyder v. Phelps down to 300 words is beyond me, but he butchered the crap out of my column.

[Scam of God]

Fine essay, Inks. Of course, I disagree with it almost to the very word. That's not to say that you haven't based your position on fine, Constitutional reasoning; you certainly have, and I think the Framers would have agreed with you. But I disagree with the Framers.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fine essay, Inks. Of course, I disagree with it almost to the very word. That's not to say that you haven't based your position on fine, Constitutional reasoning; you certainly have, and I think the Framers would have agreed with you. But I disagree with the Framers.

Just curious, what's your position on the case?

[The Mikado]

Fine essay, Inks. Of course, I disagree with it almost to the very word. That's not to say that you haven't based your position on fine, Constitutional reasoning; you certainly have, and I think the Framers would have agreed with you. But I disagree with the Framers.

Just curious, what's your position on the case?

I'm also curious.  At first glance, it looks as if Einzige is siding with Fred Phelps, which would be the ultimate in "strange bedfellows."  (A metaphor Mr. Phelps would love )

[Scam of God]

Fine essay, Inks. Of course, I disagree with it almost to the very word. That's not to say that you haven't based your position on fine, Constitutional reasoning; you certainly have, and I think the Framers would have agreed with you. But I disagree with the Framers.

Just curious, what's your position on the case?

That it was insolent and barbarous for Phelps to intrude in the privacy of the funeral, particularly the funeral of his superior, but that, so long as they hadn't trespassed directly onto the property of the funeral parlor, they were within their rights. I don't base that position on any understanding of Constitutional law, mind, but on my own preferences and tastes, which, I suspect, is the same with everyone else.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fine essay, Inks. Of course, I disagree with it almost to the very word. That's not to say that you haven't based your position on fine, Constitutional reasoning; you certainly have, and I think the Framers would have agreed with you. But I disagree with the Framers.

Just curious, what's your position on the case?

I'm also curious.  At first glance, it looks as if Einzige is siding with Fred Phelps, which would be the ultimate in "strange bedfellows."  (A metaphor Mr. Phelps would love )

Well, Einzige is consistent in his political positions - in all of my back-and-forths with him, I've never seen him back himself into a corner of hypocrisy, and I respect him for that, considering that a lot of our other members (including myself at times) sacrifice consistent political logic and reasoning on order to side with their party or a particular political position.