Reply With Quote
Hmmm. This is a hard one for a fan of the bill of rights. The WBC is a bunch of nutcases, but suit could have something of a chilling effect on free expression.
Hmmm. This is a hard one for a fan of the bill of rights. The WBC is a bunch of nutcases, but suit could have something of a chilling effect on free expression.
this wouldn't happen in Iran. they don't have gay people.
Yeah I don't think it will stand.
Agreed.
My hunch is that this will be overturned on an appeal, but I can't help but smile that Phelps lost.
I wouldn't be so quick to think it will be overturned. This is a civil case, not a criminal one. The first amendment does not cover tort cases.
Besides there are some forms of speech that not even the first amendment would cover (inciting riots for example), so this might have more legs than one might think.
I would love for this guy to end up with the deed to the church, just like the old black lady who sued the KKK ended up with the deed to some KKK Kompound. Poetic justice.
Now I agree with what you say. I think the suit will stand. I'm never one on such huge lawsuits awarded except when the damages truly are large. Still, it's nice to see those false prophets get kicked down a few notches. Maybe they will finally stop.
Actually it was $10.9M ($8M in punitive damages):
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...34225120071031
Defense attorney Jonathan Katz urged jurors not to award punitive damages because the $2.9 million in compensatory damages was already three times the defendants' net worth.
"It's enough already to bankrupt them and financially destroy them," Katz said.
Too bad.
I have RG on ignore but, just by looking at the last two posts in which he's quoted, it seems he somewhat confused about his position on the matter.
If the first amendment doesn't apply in the civil suit why would it have a chilling effect on free expression?
Anyway, I don't think it's such a big cons utional issue at all. Regardless of why the nutjobs were at that funeral, they caused harm to the deceased's father by disrupting a planned and paid private event at which it was reasonable to expect no intentional disturbances. Because of the disruption, the father suffered emotional harm and the event of his son's funeral was diminished significantly.
I too hope he ends up with the deed to the ranch.
I don't know. They had some pretty ing specific instructions and criteria to meet to find for the plaintiff. Reading through them is pretty much a description of a Phelps handbook, if such a thing exists.For the claim to be successful, the jury needed to conclude that the church's actions at the funeral -- and later, in a posting about Matthew Snyder on its Web site -- were "highly offensive to a reasonable person," according to the jury instructions.
Albert Snyder also claimed that the church's actions were an intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under the law, the five women and four women of the jury needed to find that the church's conduct was "intentional or reckless" to find for Snyder. Jury instructions also required that the conduct be "extreme and outrageous," leading to severe emotional distress.
Tort reform is great unless it benefits someone we support!!
So, care to compare and contrast for us?
it shouldn't be defined as "having someone on ignore".
it should be called "avoiding reality".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
