AP urges Supreme Court to side with ‘God hates fag’ church
arthurdent
Posts: 969
4 years after son's death in Iraq, father and funeral protesters take dispute to Supreme Court
By The Associated Press
Thursday, September 30th, 2010 -- 8:22 am
One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection of the Constitution.
"It's an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for," Snyder says, barely concealing his anger.
Yet more than four years after the death of his only son, Matthew, Snyder is in the middle of a Supreme Court case that raises almost precisely that issue.
The court is set to decide whether members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas who picketed Matthew's funeral with signs bearing anti-gay and anti-Catholic invective have a constitutional right to say what they want.
Or, in intruding on a private citizen's funeral in a hurtful way, have the protesters crossed a line and given Snyder the right to collect millions of dollars for the emotional pain they caused?
One blog noted in July, "In an amicus brief filed with the U. S. Supreme Court, the New York Times, Associated Press, Tribune Company, Bloomberg, the Society of Professional Journalists, NPR, the National Press Club, and numerous other media and First Amendment groups, not only came down firmly on the side of the church's "right" to protest at the funerals of American soldiers, but said it is vitally important that the protests be allowed to continue."
"Far more is at stake in this case than the ability of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest near military funerals. This case concerns an issue critical to a wide range of speakers, including members of the news media: whether a plaintiff may recover for intrusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress where the harm is based upon the publication of controversial speech about matters of public concern."
The justices will hear arguments in the case next Wednesday.
The case is shaping up as a potentially important test of the First Amendment. "The difficulty in this case is that the speech occurs at the most personal and sensitive of times," said Cliff Sloan, a First Amendment expert at the Skadden, Arps law firm and the former publisher of Slate magazine.
Margie Phelps, a daughter of the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and the lawyer representing her family members at the Supreme Court, said that if the justices reinstate the $5 million judgment to Snyder, anyone who says anything upsetting to a mourner "is subject to a crushing penalty."
But Snyder said in an interview with The Associated Press that if he had the chance, he would tell the justices "that this isn't a case of free speech. It's case of harassment."
Snyder's nightmare began on a late winter night in 2006 when he flipped on the porch light and saw two uniformed Marines standing at the front door of his home in this small south central Pennsylvania city.
He knew right away that Matthew was dead, after just five weeks in Iraq.
He could accept his son's death because Matthew always wanted to be a soldier.
But Snyder was not prepared for what came next.
Eleven hundred miles away, in Topeka, Kan., the Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church decided that Snyder's funeral at a Catholic church in Westminster, Md., would be their next stop.
Phelps and his small band of followers have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
They showed up with the usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.
The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.
Several weeks later, as Snyder surfed the Internet for tributes to Matthew from other soldiers and strangers, he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.
That's when he decided to take action and soon filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.
Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.
The idea that the picketers' rights might trump his own led Snyder to continue the lawsuit. "They want to use the First Amendment as both a sword and a shield and that's not right," he said.
The Supreme Court gave him some hope that, in deciding to hear the case, the justices might say that funerals are different.
Phelps and his followers do not limit themselves to funerals. They have been protesting for decades, about homosexuality, abortion, Catholics and Jews. The court is made up of six Catholics and three Jews.
The Phelpses have even picketed unlikely targets, college students and breast-cancer survivors, to call attention to their belief that God is angry with the United States.
When Chief Justice John Roberts appeared in Lawrence, Kan., in 2008, Westboro protesters were there as well.
Asked about free speech cases that day, Roberts said, "It's certainly the responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold freedom of speech, even when it's unpopular."
Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are urging the court to side with the Phelpses despite what they call the church's "deeply offensive" message.
The groups said that "to silence a fringe messenger because of the distastefulness of the message is antithetical to the First Amendment's most basic precepts."
Other groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, are not taking sides, but say the case is a poor one for making any broad pronouncements about the First Amendment that could inhibit religious expression. Some conservative groups are concerned that a ruling for Snyder could be used to limit anti-abortion protests.
On the other side, all the states, except Maine and Virginia, and veterans groups say that the court should stand behind state laws that limit funeral protests and recognize that mourners at a funeral have a right to be left alone.
The church's lawyer said the outcome of the case will not affect the work of her father and his flock. "The Westboro Baptist Church will talk to the nation until the job is done," Margie Phelps said.
Snyder said he thinks a victory would "put a dent" in the Phelpses' ability to travel far and wide to other military funerals.
He wants other parents, having just been told a child was killed in action, not to have worry that the funeral might be disrupted. "I had one chance to bury my son and it was taken from me," Snyder said.
But he also struck a more ominous tone. "It has to be stopped," Snyder said. "If the courts don't stop it, believe me, someone is going to."
By The Associated Press
Thursday, September 30th, 2010 -- 8:22 am
One thing Al Snyder wants to make clear: His boy fought and died for freedom in Iraq, but not for the right of some "wackos" to spew hate at soldiers' funerals under the protection of the Constitution.
"It's an insult to myself, my family and the veterans to say this is what our military men and women died for," Snyder says, barely concealing his anger.
Yet more than four years after the death of his only son, Matthew, Snyder is in the middle of a Supreme Court case that raises almost precisely that issue.
The court is set to decide whether members of a fundamentalist church in Kansas who picketed Matthew's funeral with signs bearing anti-gay and anti-Catholic invective have a constitutional right to say what they want.
Or, in intruding on a private citizen's funeral in a hurtful way, have the protesters crossed a line and given Snyder the right to collect millions of dollars for the emotional pain they caused?
One blog noted in July, "In an amicus brief filed with the U. S. Supreme Court, the New York Times, Associated Press, Tribune Company, Bloomberg, the Society of Professional Journalists, NPR, the National Press Club, and numerous other media and First Amendment groups, not only came down firmly on the side of the church's "right" to protest at the funerals of American soldiers, but said it is vitally important that the protests be allowed to continue."
"Far more is at stake in this case than the ability of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest near military funerals. This case concerns an issue critical to a wide range of speakers, including members of the news media: whether a plaintiff may recover for intrusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress where the harm is based upon the publication of controversial speech about matters of public concern."
The justices will hear arguments in the case next Wednesday.
The case is shaping up as a potentially important test of the First Amendment. "The difficulty in this case is that the speech occurs at the most personal and sensitive of times," said Cliff Sloan, a First Amendment expert at the Skadden, Arps law firm and the former publisher of Slate magazine.
Margie Phelps, a daughter of the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church and the lawyer representing her family members at the Supreme Court, said that if the justices reinstate the $5 million judgment to Snyder, anyone who says anything upsetting to a mourner "is subject to a crushing penalty."
But Snyder said in an interview with The Associated Press that if he had the chance, he would tell the justices "that this isn't a case of free speech. It's case of harassment."
Snyder's nightmare began on a late winter night in 2006 when he flipped on the porch light and saw two uniformed Marines standing at the front door of his home in this small south central Pennsylvania city.
He knew right away that Matthew was dead, after just five weeks in Iraq.
He could accept his son's death because Matthew always wanted to be a soldier.
But Snyder was not prepared for what came next.
Eleven hundred miles away, in Topeka, Kan., the Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church decided that Snyder's funeral at a Catholic church in Westminster, Md., would be their next stop.
Phelps and his small band of followers have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
They showed up with the usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.
The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.
Several weeks later, as Snyder surfed the Internet for tributes to Matthew from other soldiers and strangers, he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.
That's when he decided to take action and soon filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.
Then the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.
The idea that the picketers' rights might trump his own led Snyder to continue the lawsuit. "They want to use the First Amendment as both a sword and a shield and that's not right," he said.
The Supreme Court gave him some hope that, in deciding to hear the case, the justices might say that funerals are different.
Phelps and his followers do not limit themselves to funerals. They have been protesting for decades, about homosexuality, abortion, Catholics and Jews. The court is made up of six Catholics and three Jews.
The Phelpses have even picketed unlikely targets, college students and breast-cancer survivors, to call attention to their belief that God is angry with the United States.
When Chief Justice John Roberts appeared in Lawrence, Kan., in 2008, Westboro protesters were there as well.
Asked about free speech cases that day, Roberts said, "It's certainly the responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold freedom of speech, even when it's unpopular."
Media organizations, including The Associated Press, are urging the court to side with the Phelpses despite what they call the church's "deeply offensive" message.
The groups said that "to silence a fringe messenger because of the distastefulness of the message is antithetical to the First Amendment's most basic precepts."
Other groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, are not taking sides, but say the case is a poor one for making any broad pronouncements about the First Amendment that could inhibit religious expression. Some conservative groups are concerned that a ruling for Snyder could be used to limit anti-abortion protests.
On the other side, all the states, except Maine and Virginia, and veterans groups say that the court should stand behind state laws that limit funeral protests and recognize that mourners at a funeral have a right to be left alone.
The church's lawyer said the outcome of the case will not affect the work of her father and his flock. "The Westboro Baptist Church will talk to the nation until the job is done," Margie Phelps said.
Snyder said he thinks a victory would "put a dent" in the Phelpses' ability to travel far and wide to other military funerals.
He wants other parents, having just been told a child was killed in action, not to have worry that the funeral might be disrupted. "I had one chance to bury my son and it was taken from me," Snyder said.
But he also struck a more ominous tone. "It has to be stopped," Snyder said. "If the courts don't stop it, believe me, someone is going to."
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Protestors, a hate crime, a ruined funeral/farewell, and now a father trying to cash in on this hurtful event after his son died. It's like a pot of bad stuff all mixed together.
I don't think the father's looking to cash in. I think I read somewhere that he's going to donate anything he gets to charity. What he's looking to do is financially break Fred Phelps and his cult.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
Ah.
That's a bit better for him then.
They certainly have the right to protest anything they want, but the constitution does not protect you from harming another person. While the first amendment is super important, I don't think this infringes on that right.
If I were to harass someone on the street yelling FAG and Queer at them I would be arrested, I don't think this is any different. i would also probably be liable for emotional damages caused.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
no they're just a bunch of pu**ys. it's good to hear about the riders,do you know if they are club members ?
Godfather.
Patiot Guard Riders
patriotguard.org
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
:evil:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the second you open up the gate to silencing them, you open it for other things as well, things like dissent.
on one hand, you're exactly right about it being a free speech issue. And that's the truly disgusting part of it. I want to fight Fred and Co. to the death, but the do have a valid argument in this case. It's tasteless and disgusting, but as long as they're on public property...
On the other hand, it could be argued that Fred's "speech" is an invitation to violence and shouldn't be protected. It's the whole "yell fire" argument.
I also agree with the father "that this isn't a case of free speech. It's case of harassment."
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8_aJcul6kk
mob justice ?......
Godfather.
you're actually more right than you think.
http://cjonline.com/life/2010-09-28/phe ... to_be_read
I went and saw this last night, very powerful stuff.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
But sooner or later, someone is going to end up dead. It's only a matter of time before a family member or former teammate takes matters into their own hands. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet. It's sorta like messing with sasquatch.
That being said... the First Amendments applies to both of these guys:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak- ... 9833_n.jpg
Hail, Hail!!!
I think you can probably differentiate between Fred's usual protests and his funeral thing, though.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
I agree... it is distasteful, disrespectful, indignant and a horrible, horrible thing to do.
But.. it is still legal and protected by the First Amendment. As are counter protests of these assholes. I wish more people showed up with signs like this kid's.
Hail, Hail!!!
is that a pearl jam shirt?>
These guys should all have baseball bats taken to their heads... However, they have a right to do what they're doing.
Just because we have the right to do something , doesnt mean we should.
Patriot guard seems to be an answer going forward.
However, in my eyes the plaintiff has a point about the harassment arguement. One thing to spew that shit at the funeral, quite another to post that shit about him and his wife in addition to disrupting them laying their son to rest.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If its a matter of free speech there's not much you can do, but I guess if we consider it harassment then its another story. If you start drawing lines in the sand on what free speech is acceptable, it would be a dangerous thing.
That said, Fred Phelps and his idiotic inbred followers are all sacks of shit, i don't care what anyone has to say.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
If we say this isn't freedom of speech because it is "hate" then anything considered hate can trump one's right to freedom of speech. What if they then start considering not liking the president's policies as spewing "hate"?
Hating the WBC is pertty much the ONE thing this board agrees on, i think its safe to say we all think those people are scum, but it is a quesiton of whether or not its freedom of speech or if it is considered harassment
I'm living in Topeka right now, and it's sad that whenever I say that, everyone says, "Oh, isn't that where that 'God Hates Fags' guy is from?" In an article I'm writing for the paper, I describe him as Topeka's own "mark of cain"
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
there's no "slippery slope" gray area here.
either you support free speech or you don't.
:oops:
I'd much rather be from here where everyone assumes you're a pot head.
The First Amendment protects us from our Government restricting what we say. People will argue, 'You cannot scream, "FIRE!" in a crowded theather'... which is true, unless the theater is on fire.
When it comes to Rev. Phelps, he is making an interpretation of what the Bible says... and who's to say who's interpretation is right and who's is wrong? The Bible does say homosexuality is an abomination... and that God will punish those who accept homosexuality. His claim is that God is punishing America for accepting homosexuals, instead of stoning to them as the Bible tells us to. That's the thing with religion... it is not law, it is all about interpretation. That is why there are so many denominations of 'Christianity'. Who gets to decide what makes a 'Good Christian' and who isn't?
Again, I am in no way supporting his interpretation, his message of hate or his tactics... I support his right as an American under the protection of our Constitution to speak in public what he believes. It is not up to law makers to decide who is a Good Christian and who is not.
...
To restrict his free speech... it means someone gets to decide what is 'hate speech'. Is the Tea Party inciting hatred towards our president? There are some that will argue, 'Yes... they are'. The First Amendment is the first right for a reason. because there are countries out there that decide what is good opinions and what are bad. That is for US to decide... as a free people.
Hail, Hail!!!