Jury Awards Father Nearly $11 Million In Lawsuit Against Westboro Baptist Church

by frankiespeakin 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html

    The father of a fallen Marine was awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday in damages by a jury that found leaders of a fundamentalist church had invaded the family's privacy and inflicted emotional distress when they picketed the Marine's funeral.

    The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress to the Marine's father, Albert Snyder of York, Pa.

    Snyder sued the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified monetary damages after members staged a demonstration at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

    The defense said it planned to appeal and one of the church's leaders, Shirley Phelps-Roper, said the members would continue their pickets of military funerals.

    Church members believe that U.S. deaths in the war in Iraq are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

    Before the jury began deliberating the size of punitive damages, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the compensatory award "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

    Lawsuit against Westboro Baptist Church

    Main article: Snyder v. Phelps

    On March 10, 2006, WBC picketed the funeral of MarineLance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder, who died in combat in Iraq on March 3, 2006. [ 47 ] The Snyder family sued Fred Phelps for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [ 48 ] On October 31, 2007, WBC, Fred Phelps and his two daughters, Shirley Phelps-Roper and Rebekah Phelps-Davis, were found liable for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A federal jury awarded Snyder's father $2.9 million in compensatory damages, then later added a decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and an additional $2 million for causing emotional distress (a total of $10.9 million). [ 49 ] The organization said it wouldn't change its message because of the verdict.

    The lawsuit named Albert Snyder, father of Matthew Snyder, as the plaintiff and Fred W. Phelps, Sr.; Westboro Baptist Church, Inc.; Rebekah Phelps-Davis; and Shirley Phelps-Roper as defendants, alleging that they were responsible for publishing defamatory information about the Snyder family on the Internet, including statements that Albert and his wife had "raised [Matthew] for the devil" and taught him "to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery". Other statements denounced them for raising their son Catholic. Snyder further complained the defendants had intruded upon and staged protests at his son's funeral. The claims of invasion of privacy and defamation arising from comments posted about Snyder on the Westboro website were dismissed on First Amendment grounds, but the case proceeded to trial on the remaining three counts.

    Albert Snyder, the father of LCpl Matthew A. Snyder, testified:

    They turned this funeral into a media circus and they wanted to hurt my family. They wanted their message heard and they didn't care who they stepped over. My son should have been buried with dignity, not with a bunch of clowns outside. [ 50 ]

    In his instructions to the jury, U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett stated that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and that the jury must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection". See also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, a case where certain personal slurs and obscene utterances by an individual were found unworthy of First Amendment protection, due to the potential for violence resulting from their utterance.

    WBC sought a mistrial based on alleged prejudicial statements made by the judge and violations of the gag order by the plaintiff's attorney. An appeal was also sought by the WBC. WBC has said that it is thankful for the verdict.

    On February 4, 2008, Bennett upheld the ruling but reduced the punitive damages from $8 million to $2.1 million. The total judgment then stood at $5 million. Court liens were ordered on church buildings and Phelps' law office in an attempt to ensure that the damages were paid. [ 51 ]

    An appeal by WBC was heard on September 24, 2009. The federal appeals court ruled in favor of Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church, stating that their picket near the funeral of LCpl Matthew A. Snyder is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing the lower court's $5 million judgment. On March 30, 2010, the federal appeals court ordered Albert Snyder to pay the court costs for the Westboro Baptist Church, an amount totaling $16,510. [ 52 ] Political commentatorBill O'Reilly agreed on March 30 to cover the costs, pending appeal. [ 53 ]

    A writ of certiorari was granted on an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the oral argument for the case took place on October 6, 2010. Margie Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' children, represented the Westboro Baptist Church. [ 54 ]

    The Court ruled in favor of Phelps in an 8–1 decision, holding that their speech related to a public issue, and was disseminated on a public sidewalk. [ 55 ]

  • frankiespeakin
  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I don't think this is so newsworthy. Let us see what appellate courts do. First Amendment rights meet other equally important rights. Major clash. There are some bizarre distinctions in First Amendment law.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Good result, right decision. What normal person would argue against this on *any* grounds.

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    What normal person would argue against this on *any* grounds.

    Simon, you're talking about lawyers here. /ducking and running in case BOTR sees that/

    Seriously, there are some complications with first amendment rulings on stuff like this. The chuch has a right to practice its religion as it sees fit as long as its not doing anything otherwise illegal. People do all sorts of offensive things in public places that are permissible under the law. I hate to admit it but back about 1970 I was in on an anti-war protest that involved among other things, a dismembered and disemboweled pig.

    One of these days some one is going to beat the crap out of some Westboro people and we'll have an interesting court case about inciting violence.

  • LisaRose
    LisaRose

    that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and that the jury must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection".

    If this case does not meet the above criteria, then I have no idea what would.

  • Chaserious
    Chaserious

    The news story you linked to is from 2007. This verdict has already been overturned. The Supreme Court in 2011 ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to picket under the constitution. The case is Snyder v. Phelps.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Chas,

    Good catch I'm glad we got some legal eagles on here. I know the story was about 5 yrs old and I didn't bother to check if the verdict was over turn.

    I'm looking for trends where religion's are being made accountable for their actions of cruelty. Anyway it is good to see them lose the 1st round in legal action.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit