Father of slain Marine wins court judgment against Fred Phelps. Michelle Malkin has the background:
Father of slain Marine wins case against foul Phelps family
The normally rational Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters, leads a long list of bloggers who condon using the power of the state to suppress speech they deem offensive:
Free speech doesn’t absolve people of responsibility for the damage they do, and most reasonable people would consider what Westboro’s minstrels of misery do very painful and completely inappropriate. Perhaps this might convince a few other victims to follow suit, pun intended, and ensure that Phelps’ moral bankruptcy gets matched by his financial bankruptcy.
Ed’s comments as usual are very articulate, but sadly reflect the seeming dominate view of the media and bloggers that it is permissble to use the power of the state to surpress offesnive free speech. And nobody does offensive better than Fred Phelps.
Other bloggings, Memeorandum.
Kudos, to Pam, Pam’s House Blend, for the only voice of sanity I found on the Web this morning:
I have doubts that this will hold up; the question is whether picketing outside a funeral is free speech, and I can’t see how it isn’t — the hatemongers have a right to picket if they are in a public space.
The Reverend Phelps has no less of a right than any other citizen to express his beliefs in public. It is a principle on which we should all stand tall.
Addendum I: (Bit)
I was going to put this in comments, but then I noted the traffic we’re getting.
David, I’m a little concerned about Ed’s comments, as well. But I’m a little concerned you’re missing something kinda crucial. Give the man credit for drawing the fine line. This is not, Ed is contending, a free speech issue. Given the source of the suit, I tend to agree with Ed. Follow my logic, here. Ed Says:
Free speech doesn’t absolve people of responsibility for the damage they do, and most reasonable people would consider what Westboro’s minstrels of misery do very painful and completely inappropriate. Perhaps this might convince a few other victims to follow suit, pun intended, and ensure that Phelps’ moral bankruptcy gets matched by his financial bankruptcy.
Understand clearly, please, the line being drawn.. I share your concern for free speech rights… and I also share Becky Lourey’s point in voting against a law that makes Phelpsian style funeral protests illegal. Ed, again:
However, as Minnesota’s Becky Lourey insisted last year, Phelps has the right to engage in political speech in public venues. Lourey, who lost a son in Iraq in 2005 and had supported Cindy Sheehan in her summer protest in the same year, considers Phelps as detestable as anyone else — but she voted against a law that made funeral protests illegal. In fact, she cast the only vote against the law, telling the state Senate that it went against the Constitution for which her son sacrificed his life.
The fact is, nobody is preventing Fred Phelps from speaking his mindless. That is as it should be. However, I think I ought to point out, that free speech, as a concept was never intended by the founders to remove all consequences from speech, but rather to remove governmental consequences from it. By definition, Albert Snyder is not acting as an agent of the government, but on his own. As such Phelps, et al, v Snyder is not a free speech issue.
As such, I suspect and suppose the ruling will lose if it’s appealed on free speech grounds.
Addendum II: (David L)
Granted Fred Phelps et a made Albert Snyder’s life a living Hell. But the State does not get to invoke an Albert Snyder exception to persecute Phelps. The court is an agent of the State and has no power not granted to the State.
Even thou this is a civil action, it is the oppressive power of the State, and not Snyder, which will provide the heavy hand to enforce the court’s judgement.
I am sympathetic to the compensatory damages. However punitive damages are beyond the pale. It is one thing to compensate Snyder for pain inflicted by Phelps et al. It is quite another to use the Court to punish Phelps et al for their unpopular views.
Tags: articulate, BitsBlog, Blogging, BO, Che, Current events, Fred Phelps, Free Speech, hate, Iraq, Life, Men, Michelle Malkin, NFL, NY, POW, protests, senate, Social Issues, UN, W
November 1st, 2007 at 17:06
Imprecise. He’s not being punished for his views, but his ACTIONS. This is hardly a new position for Phelps and his fleas. He’s been preaching his hate on the subject for some time, now. Note, however, that being taken to court over it is a fairly new thing. That’s because his behavior changed. He wasn’t being taken to court for his views, then, nor is he now. Rather, he was taken to court for his ACTIONS.
As for the punitive damages, perhaps it’s useful to look at the description of them:
(emph is mine)
Without talking to the jury, I’d have to assume that they found in this case, that Phelps and his other knuckle-draggers were doing what they were doing because they KNEW it was, as you say, making the life of Snyder, hell. The jury must have found that it’s what they intended to do.
And just so we don’t push this out of scope, let me remind the readers that I’ve loudly argued against Hate crime legislation. If I thought for a moment that what we were talking about was THAT kind of nonsense, I’d be all over this one, too. And for the record, I’m not totally unsympathetic to what you’re saying here. But in the end, I see no real alternative for Snyder, and the other families.