http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/wor...l_tab01_layout
A nice result , I hope it isn't overturned on appeal .
Printable View
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/wor...l_tab01_layout
A nice result , I hope it isn't overturned on appeal .
In all fairness to the bigoted defendants, I do not see how simply yelling hateful diatribes at someone can possibly cause $2.9 million in damage. Even if I experienced something that gave me a debilitating mental disorder I would probably not get that much out of a court here.
I really don't understand how people can get so much money from lawsuits...
Why do people allow it?
Never ceases to amaze me as well, but good for them. Scum.
"Why do people allow it?"
Well I suspect it has something to do with the fact that their chosen venue to protest was the funeral of a dead soldier. In America no less.
Yes. But 2.9 million...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Doing that when you are burying your 20 year old son will do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
The price tag was more punitive than anything, as this family will now live forever with the memory of their son's funeral and how horrible it was. $11 mil is an incentive to not protest this nonsense at a private setting. If they do it in front of a courthouse or public venue just like everyone else can, whatever, fine, who cares, but not in the midst of a grieving family.
Any amount that makes them go bankrupt is enough. ~;)
That guy is a hate filled arse. I really don't get what their game is.
fail to understand what the were trying to achieve by protesting at the funeral of a soldier...
Same. I'm happy they (the parents) got a nice chuck of money. These Scumbags.....Quote:
Originally Posted by atheotes
Also something I was thinking about earlier. We need to be careful here that we don't slide too far down a slippery slope.
Regardless of how much we hate these fools and their message of hate, they DO have a right to say what they think, just like everyone else. Obviously there are limits that apply to all, such as advocating violence, but they do have a right to free speech.
To me, the key is the venues. And I am still uneasy about this. Personally I think protesting a soldier's funeral is out of bounds and should be prohibited. But where do we draw the line? My thoughts are that funerals are intensely personal situations, which should not be open to "public" protest or whatnaught like these people are doing. However, how does one classify a "personal" situation? Further, we could just state that this should be left up to the individual courts to determine if there was a real tort inflicted, in this case I certainly think there was, and that the soldier's family really did feel extreme anguish because of this. But again, we need to be careful.
Just some food for thought.
"
Doing that when you are burying your 20 year old son will do it."
In all fairness, I don't think it will do it to an ordinary person. People may well temporarily lose self-control and even kill someone in response to such a grave insult, but to actually experience permanent psychological damage would be amazing. I can imagine it may well happen if someone has a pre-existing vulnerability, which depending on the law may result in them getting nothing (e.g. where I live a person who develops a mental disorder because they are psychologically vulnerable gets zilch). Also, even if someone did develop a mental disorder I find it hard to imagine that a court could quantify their damage at the gigantic figure of $2.9 million. But it seems to me that the decision was not based on the law and the facts of the case save that there was obviously an invasion of privacy, done in an extremely offensive manner, and by people who are likely to be despised by the jury, against people who are likely to have the jury's sympathy. I can hardly think of anyone more deserving of being bankrupted for a political protest, but I don't believe trials are a carte blanche for jurors to punish others based on their personal views of the parties.
You know, I think Phelps and company are horrible, disgusting people and whatever happens to them is probably better than they deserve....
BUT, I think this is a bad decision that could have far-reaching consequences and set a disturbing precedent of using legal chicanery to do an end run around people's rights to speech and assembly. In other words, it's good that it happened to Phelps, but it may be bad next time it happens to someone else.
@ Furious Mental -
I disagree completely.
Experiencing the death of someone very close to you is a horrific and traumatic event at best. Having a group of people maliciously come up and throw salt in a gapping wound can aggravate the situation enormously, and cause mental scarring. I can see that happening to that family and the action they took being justified completely.
As for the price tag, it was more a punitive thing, I'm indifferent to it because I don't know the situation, what real damages were assessed, or how it was decided. They may be able to get that reduced on appeal, but don't know how much, it's common that judges will often lower amounts awarded by juries based on "sanity".
@ Xiahou -
Agree about the precedent setting, which is why I'm still uneasy about this. I think in this situation it was justified, but perhaps in others it will not be. Where are the lines drawn? It would seem this is probably best left up to tort law, for a case by case basis.
But aren't civil cases like these around for the sole purpose of redressing grevances (real or imagined)? To me it's better than pistols at dawn. Or just letting it slide cause you have no recourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
More like 12.9, according to the report I read about this last night. The jury gave $2.9 mil right away then came back and award a further $8 mil. Then a final $2 milQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes and now the court has said that a protest you find to be upsetting is something that you can sue and seek compensation for. I find that really disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
"Experiencing the death of someone very close to you is a horrific and traumatic event at best. Having a group of people maliciously come up and throw salt in a gapping wound can aggravate the situation enormously, and cause mental scarring. I can see that happening to that family and the action they took being justified completely."
Well I have encountered cases where the news of a person's death has been found to be something that could cause a mental disorder in an ordinary person, but that was stated to be exceptional by the court. I am sceptical that insults happening a substantial time later could cause a permanent and debilitating mental disorder in an ordinary person. No description of the case that I have read makes a reference to a recognised mental disorder in the plaintiff, only to distress. Feelings like distress, fear, and anger are valid heads of damage in American tort law; in my country they are not (either some has a mental disorder or they get nothing), which may well explain why I find the decision perplexing.
"As for the price tag, it was more a punitive thing, I'm indifferent to it because I don't know the situation, what real damages were assessed, or how it was decided. They may be able to get that reduced on appeal, but don't know how much, it's common that judges will often lower amounts awarded by juries based on "sanity"."
Well, the punitive damage figure was $10.9 million, the figure originally reached was already the staggering sum of $2.9 million. I am unable to understand how feelings of distress and anger, or violation of privacy, can entitle someone to so much money. This is part of why I bring up the point of someone contracting a mental disorder; in order to even get anywhere close to that figure here a person would have to contract a disorder that literally renders them incapable of working (or indeed doing pretty much anything) for the balance of their life. The mere fact that the plaintiff father is capable of bringing these proceedings at all says to me he didn't suffer that level of damage. So either the American legal system is, in this sort of case, lopsided hugely in favour of plaintiffs (people may disagree but I don't believe in awarding millions of dollars merely for suffering insults, even as hurtful as this) or the jury has let its personal views get out of hand.
Xiahou has a point. If the Westboro Baptist Church, and every active congregant, was afflicted with a pestilence of boils from head to toe, I couldn't be happier (and yes, I know, that is an incredibly unchristian attitude, and I humbly ask for God's pardon, as I know my heart won't change on this one).
But by the same token, just frame the outcome in one sentance:
A group of private individuals sued a church and won a 10 million judgement because they found the message the church preached to be offensive.
Hmm, i can see a LOT of lawyers taking that ball and running with it to the extreme limits of sane human judgement, the typical fashion of the American legal system.
Uhm, the judge found that their privacy had been invaded. Not that they were "upset".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If indeed the judge found that the privacy of the family had been violated, then Phelps deserves to be fined. He may say whatever he wants to of course, but he must do it without violating the privacy of other people, which is also protected by law.
Tort Reform. Tort Reform. Tort Reform.
It's not just about medical malpractice suits.
Punitive Damages have become an abused component of our legal system.
Of COURSE I think this church's protest behavior is excrable -- Don C's biblical plague on them would not be as unseemly as he thinks -- but Millions of Dollars for invasion of privacy and compounding grief? It boggles the mind.
Even if the award is reduced -- and that's likely -- it is still out of all proportion.
I thought punitive damages a more suitable outcome for a criminal court of law... isn't this a civil one?
So shouldn't the money be limited to restoration of the damage done inclusive of CPI for the period of time it will take to repair.
IF it was a criminal case then it is a matter of the state addressing the situation in a fair, transparent and speedy manner. The result should then include damage restoration and and punitive component. The damage restoration is to restore the current issue before the court, while the punitive component is to stop it occurring again.
For me punitive fines should be the power of the state not individuals as that way lies vigilantism.
While in general I am a supporter of free speach, I feel that jealously guarding it at all costs, in the face of any perversion can only weaken it.
Let me state for the record that I loathe Phelps and his brood. Biblical plagues upon them would be just, and possibly amusing. Let's hope that Don C's vision of boils would be followed by the classic symptoms: rain of frogs, loss of all worldly belongings, servants run off, and I alone lived to tell thee. You know, Job-style suffering.
However, I am also a bit of a free speech absolutist. Freedom of speech means the most hateful, evil people have a right to say what they like. Their free expression will, no doubt, evoke others' expressions of disgust and condemnation. That's how our system is supposed to work.
I see the jury came at it from a particular angle: "The jury found the defendants liable for violating the Snyder family's expectation of privacy at the funeral and for intentionally inflicting emotional distress."
I find this questionable. But then again, I find the idea that protesters at political events get squared off into "free speech zones" kind of outrageous as well. The United States is supposed to be a free speech zone.
The precedent-setting and slippery-slope worries are real, although I doubt many juries could summon as much distaste for a defendant as Phelps in the near future. But free means free. As that prophet of our age, Donald Rumsfeld, intoned: "Freedom is messy."
All fine and dandy. But you can't go into my house and play the freedom of speech card. When you're inside my house(private sphere), I decide the rules. A funeral is like that. My word is law there. Don't like it? Bugger off then, you weren't invited anyhow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
However under free speech I am allowed to say within certain conditions about anything I wish to say within the public property that probably passes right next to your house.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
As much as I loath the group - if their protest was not on private property - I am not sure what they are doing is warrant of a criminal charge, and since no criminal charge has been filed - as far as I know, I believe that the government is not addressing this loathsome examble of free speech by a hate group.
Now civil charges such as this are nowhere near my area of marginal understanding - the ruling does strike a note of un-easyness in myself as well, because it can open another round or irresponsible tort actions within the alreadly crowded judicial system of this nation, I don't believe that it in itself will bring about a lesser form of freedom of speech.
Now since the government did not bring about the civil case - it was private party suing private party, I am not sure that it violates the principle of free speech in that regards as well. Since with freedom comes responsiblity, one would have to demonstrate to me that one can not be held responsible for what they say.
While we have the ability to stand outside of your property and say what we will, we still have the responsiblity that comes with that freedom. I think that the civil case addresses that responsiblity, however I am still awaiting constitutional scholars take on this case as well.
No, you can't do that either, if it invades the privacy of my own home. You don't think you can legally put up a camera outside my property to film me, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Filming is not free speech, your arguement here is nothing more then an irrational strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Once again Free Speech allows me to state what I will with certain limitations within any public venue - to include the public property that passes in front of your house - ie the street.
(Limitations on free speech have generally be noted to be the advocation of violence against another.)
"When you're inside my house(private sphere), I decide the rules. A funeral is like that."
Not really. A person can "decide the rules" in their own house because they own it and can have people leave whenever they like. But private property rights are not a carte blanche to invent laws. You cannot delcare it a law that there will be "No Holocaust denials in my house" and then sue someone for denying the Holocaust when over for dinner. All you can do is exclude them from your house and, if they refuse to leave, sue them for trespassing; you cannot sue them for violating your rule as to Holocaust denial. But in any case the attendants of funerals do not own the cemetery, and the street where the protest takes place is public space.
Yes. You may state what you wish. But you can't state it in a way that invades my privacy, on my property or not. Like the judge found to be the case here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If you didn't like my camera example, here's another you; you can't legally stand just outside my property and yell things to me. That would still be an invasion of my privacy, even though you're not actually on my property. Where to draw the line however, is something that our politico's and/or judges have to decide. In this case, I'd say it's all very good. It's a funeral, not a street parade passing through his house, which would be something else.
Almost correct - this is a ground breaking decision that might hold up and might not. However your missing one key word about the decision - expectations of privacy. That is not a hard definition, its one that will have to be proven by each individual in each case.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
For instance if your a public figure - your expectations of privacy will be different in the eyes of the public and the courts then say a citizen who remains outside of the public scope.
Again look to the historical cases - this is the first case that has been ruled toward an expectation of privacy, and is primarily based upon the use of incorrect hate filled rethoric and that an individual soldier - who is not in the public eye expectation of privacy. Unfortunately as the case is reviewed - and the father just stated that he expected the service to have coverage on the news on the day of the furneral, would indicate that the family did not have an expectation of privacy as one would think from the court ruling. However that is just spectulation on my part right now.Quote:
If you didn't like my camera example, here's another you; you can't legally stand just outside my property and yell things to me. That would still be an invasion of my privacy, even though you're not actually on my property. Where to draw the line however, is something that our politico's and/or judges have to decide. In this case, I'd say it's all very good. It's a funeral, not a street parade passing through his house, which would be something else.
One does have an expectation of privacy as it regards their private property - however that expectation of privacy does not always include areas that are public even when its just outside of your home.
Now the reason that Phelps most likely lost the case is not just because of the location or the expectation of privacy, but because the speech was factually incorrect as it relates to the Marine's death. As the article clearly pointed out that there was two arguements present.
Location, impugnedment of reputation and expectation of privacy all were part of the reason for the verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
It shall be interesting reading to see how the courts eventually rule on this issue. However remember one thing civil tort actions does not necessarily equate to hard and fast law.
It's probably not a good thing for society when millions of dollars are routinely awarded in damages everytime someone feels hurt in whatever degree or fashion. Initially I was inclined to say that the defendents had it coming. 10 million bucks is an incentive to stop whatever it is you're doing, but since the article mentioned that their possessions are worth only a tiny fraction of that amount it's obviously overkill. And while the late soldier's relatives went through a terrible thing, it's a big stretch to say that they're entitled to become millionaires.
Actually, Virginia law would allow me to stand on the street in front of your home; to take pictures of the exterior of your home, and to talk to you (including insults). This behavior may be rude and/or suspicious, but is not illegal (of itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If I were loud and/or vulgar, I might be hauled off for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly behavior" but this would be as a public nuisance, not as a contravention of your property or person.
If I threatened you, that would constitute assault and would get me arrested. If I lead a mom-violent protest against you, marching up and down the street in front of your home, I am only in trouble if I have failed to secure the requisite permit.
Where did the money come from? that false church that praises death?
If they did pay up I hope they go bankrupt and drafted into the military, where they will be posted in the company with the most homosexuals in it.
:no: