MA father awarded $11 million in lawsuit over his military son's funeral

[HardRCafé]

$6,000,000 of the verdict was strictly for invasion of privacy.  I don't see how that's even arguable against, but this place is special like that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

$6,000,000 of the verdict was strictly for invasion of privacy.  I don't see how that's even arguable against, but this place is special like that.

Huh?

[Emsworth]

So is it a statement of fact or one of opinion to be called a jerk? American Heritage Dictionary defines a 'jerk' as 'a foolish, rude, or contemptible person.'

The statement is one of opinion. Therefore, the use of such a term should not be punished as libel or slander.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Precisely because the bounds of the terms "foolish" and "contemptible" are so vague, using the term does not amount to making a statement of fact. The words inherently carry value judgments. On the other hand, saying "A killed B" or "X has AIDS" are clearly statements of fact rather than statements of opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The word "outrageous" is inherently subjective. It does not necessarily correspond to any particular chemical pattern. Sure, you might believe that if an action gives rise to a particular chemical pattern, then it is outrageous, but that's just your definition of "outrageous"--there is no reason to believe that your definition is in any sense "correct."

It's not that it's solemn; it's that it's a private event being crashed and ruined by these people.  What gives them the right to do that?

Obviously, if the Westboro Baptists were to trespass on private property, they would be guilty of a crime and a tort, and could be punished for doing so both criminally and civilly. However, just because individuals wish to participate in a "private event" on public property (such as a road), it does not follow that they have the right to exclude other people from that property.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who decides what event is solemn enough to warrant this?

Society? Common sense? Human decency? That sort of thing generally? I mean, for Christ's sake, it's a funeral.

If it is wrong to prevent people from holding thuggish demonstrations outside funerals, then clearly it is also wrong to prevent people from holding thuggish, and intimidating, demonstrations outside polling stations. Or outside schools. Or in front of people's houses. Or anywhere in fact.

Long Live King Mob.

[Alcon]

Who decides what event is solemn enough to warrant this?

Society? Common sense? Human decency? That sort of thing generally? I mean, for Christ's sake, it's a funeral.

Society.  Lovely.  No thanks.  I think I have less faith in humanity's willingness to tolerate things that make it uncomfortable at the polls, or in a jury, than you seem to.  By and by, "Christ's sake" is exactly why I might worry about that.

If it is wrong to prevent people from holding thuggish demonstrations outside funerals, then clearly it is also wrong to prevent people from holding thuggish, and intimidating, demonstrations outside polling stations. Or outside schools. Or in front of people's houses. Or anywhere in fact.

Long Live King Mob.

So, $11 million should be rewarded to anyone who is made upset by a protest, and whose cause a jury deems sufficiently worthy of not being annoyed?

I am not saying that I'm entirely comfortable with either end of the slope, nor do I understand the law and reasoning behind polling place restrictions enough to make a comment there.  But this is heading toward the end of the slide that discomforts me.

$6,000,000 of the verdict was strictly for invasion of privacy.  I don't see how that's even arguable against, but this place is special like that.

I've only read news articles and not the decision, but they mentioned that the jury found the church too "vulgar and offensive."  Why would that matter in an invasion of privacy case?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Society.  Lovely.  No thanks.

If you reject the idea that certain rules of decency, acceptable behavior and so on should be made by society, then you are either arguing for anarchy or a dictatorship. Which?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thuggish protests outside funerals are merely "uncomfortable"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're worried about an expression of exasperation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've made no comment on the financial penalty involved in this case. I'm just arguing that people who organise thuggish protests outside funerals should be prevented from doing so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it has something to do with the intimidation of the electorate being seen as a bad thing.

[Alcon]

If you reject the idea that certain rules of decency, acceptable behavior and so on should be made by society, then you are either arguing for anarchy or a dictatorship. Which?

I did not say that I reject the perception of society in all matters.  We already reject societal arguments in some matters of law.  Are juries in murder cases asked to decide whether the victim was worth killing?  No.

Thuggish protests outside funerals are merely "uncomfortable"?

Again, I was speaking to the lengths this precedent could easily be taken to.  I also meant "on a jury," not "at the polls"...which probably makes that statement make a little more sense.

You're worried about an expression of exasperation?

No, that was more a semi-sensical throw-off about the danger of determining which activities are worth sanctity by the vote of a jury.  Feel free to ignore it.

I've made no comment on the financial penalty involved in this case. I'm just arguing that people who organise thuggish protests outside funerals should be prevented from doing so.

Fair enough.  I'm not really as interested in the payout as the legality issue, either.

I think it has something to do with the intimidation of the electorate being seen as a bad thing.

Well, obviously I understand the reasoning behind them, but I'm not fluent in the law and history enough to speak to the consistency (or lack thereof) of polling place laws and free speech.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So one is never factually foolish? If someone selling drugs who has been robbed goes to the police who promptly arrests her for illegal dealing, this not foolish? If a drunk driver stops and asks a policeman for directions, only to be arrested for drunk driving, it is not foolish? Certainly one can say that anything that carries with it a subjective value judgment cannot be evaluated in the eyes of the law. Yet this would seem to place an awful limitation on the evaluative capabilities of the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that depends on your criteria for choosing a good reason. One might say that since any criteria might be theoretically chosen, the law should never attach any meaning to the concept of outrageousness. Yet this, it seems, would defeat the purpose of a great body of criminal law to begin with. For criminal law is, at its root, founded in great part of the notion of right or wrong, a notion that is itself, by those standards, inherently subjective.

Take the notion of 'murder'. If one is to say that murder is the intentional taking of a human life by another, then various things which society condones- war, abortion, capital punishment, the end of life support- all could arguably be called murder, and there are significant segments of society which make claims of all of these. The notion of what is and is not murder is then subjective. One can say as a matter of fact that person X was or was not intentionally involved in the chain of casuality that led to the death of person Y, but one cannot say as a statement of fact that X 'murdered' Y. Yet the law deals with murder. So why can the law not deal with outrageousness?

[HardRCafé]

So, $11 million should be rewarded to anyone who is made upset by a protest, and whose cause a jury deems sufficiently worthy of not being annoyed?

Yes, because all protests are scheduled as deliberate acts of malice at the same time and place as funerals; and because the natural reaction of the bereaved at the peak of their bereavement, to deliberate acts of malice, is "being annoyed."

Out of curiosity, is there anything you hold sacrosanct?  The environment?  Genuinely curious.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, $11 million should be rewarded to anyone who is made upset by a protest, and whose cause a jury deems sufficiently worthy of not being annoyed?

Yes, because all protests are scheduled as deliberate acts of malice at the same time and place as funerals; and because the natural reaction of the bereaved at the peak of their bereavement, to deliberate acts of malice, is "being annoyed."

Out of curiosity, is there anything you hold sacrosanct?  The environment?  Genuinely curious.

No, not all protests - but protests that invade privacy - especially at funerals, where they're insulting the dead.

[Ebowed]

Out of curiosity, is there anything you hold sacrosanct?

The right to freedom of speech.

[HardRCafé]

No, not all protests - but protests that invade privacy - especially at funerals, where they're insulting the dead.

I think it's funny the right to abortion is an extension of the right to privacy, yet privacy here is somehow not important enough.

And I missed where Ebowed was authorized to speak for Alcon.

[Ebowed]

And I missed where Ebowed was authorized to speak for Alcon.

Private agreement, sweetie.  Why does it bother you so much?

[HardRCafé]

It doesn't.  I just thought you weren't reading very carefully.

[bullmoose88]

Uhh, Hustler v. Falwell lends support to your conclusion only if the soldier in question is such a public figure that distasteful speech about that person is parody, high value speech.  Such speech towards private individuals doesn't receive that sort of protection.

Here, I think it would be hard to argue that the dearly departed is a public figure.

Whereas when malice or recklessness are present in low value speech (criminal/tort concepts, mens rea elements), then the first amendment doesn't stretch so far as to protect that sort of speech.  Even with public officials.  (NYT v Sullivan)

In this case, I think the soldier falls into the private person category, AND when the fact finder on IIED claim basically decides that the elements of the claim are met, then I can't see this type of speech being protected.

[Emsworth]

Uhh, Hustler v. Falwell lends support to your conclusion only if the soldier in question is such a public figure...

I think that he would qualify as a public figure, insofar as he was an employee of the federal government. In any event, the protests were not directed against him specifically; they were directed against the public policies of the federal government of the United States. He was simply cited as an example.

I don't see why speech needs to be parody to qualify for this higher level of protection.

[bullmoose88]

Uhh, Hustler v. Falwell lends support to your conclusion only if the soldier in question is such a public figure...

I think that he would qualify as a public figure, insofar as he was an employee of the federal government. In any event, the protests were not directed against him specifically; they were directed against the public policies of the federal government of the United States. He was simply cited as an example.

I don't see why speech needs to be parody to qualify for this higher level of protection.

So you're basically arguing that any employee of the federal government, no matter how insignificant, is public enough not to warrant the same protection from distasteful speech as the private citizen?

I'm not really saying that for speech to survive, it need to be parody of a public official, I'm saying high value speech generally gets protected, on the other hand, low or no value speech--advertisements, hate speech with a malicious or reckless mental state, remarks intended to incite a crowd--doesn't get, nor does it deserve extensive protection.

And I find it hard to argue that Westboro's speech had any sort of significant political value...I think its worthless...and thus, time place and manner (and any sort of Tort related claims) regulations are more than appropriate.

This isn't a heckler's veto as others have alluded to, this is hateful speech that deserves no protection in legitimate discourse.

[ag]

I guess, an argument could be made, that there is a distinction between a private and a public funeral.  It would seem that demonstrating during a ceremony at the Arlington Cemetery, where the top brass and the politicians are present, would be much more protected than demonstrating during a private ceremony to which nobody but the friends and family had been invited. To the extent that families consent to participation in public rituals, they necessarily forgo a degree of privacy and enter the domain of free speech.  To the extent they keep it all within the family, their right to privacy might take precedence.  I do not know enough details of this case to have a personal opinion on whether the former or the letter is the case. But, to recapitulate, I would be very concerned if anyone were punished for demonstrating during an Arlington Cemetery funeral, but could see reasonable limits imposed on demonstrating at village burial grounds

[J. J.]

I hate them just as much as the rest of you, but what kind of precedent does this set...?

Ah, one that respects the freedom of religion and assembly. 

As to a "public figure," I disagree that a run of the mill government employee is one.

[MODU]

While I abhor the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, I consider verdicts such as this one monstrous violations of free speech rights. I am not making a constitutional claim here, but rather a normative one. Individuals have, or ought to have, an almost absolute right to protest the policies of the government. That is precisely what the Westboro Baptist Church was doing here: it was protesting the policies of the government with regard to homosexuality, and was claiming that the death of American soldiers was a consequence of those policies. However outlandish and absurd the claim may seem, it is not the government's place to regulate it, whether through legislation or through the court system.

Protesting a government policy and protesting an individual who has nothing to do with creating said policy are two different things though.  Westboro is targetting private families, and therefore it can be considered harassment, assault, etc (whatever little personal grievance that can be brought up in court) while not being a first amendment case.  This is why Westboro lost.  Right?

[Friz]

If the Westboro nuts are the only ones getting into heaven, then it must suck.