Westboro Church Hammered

[guido911]

Looks like Free Speech ain't so free after all...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-westboro1031,0,7191706.story?track=rss

[rwarn17588]

It will be overturned. Invasion of privacy at a public place? I don't think so.

Phelps' bunch are turds. But I don't feel like overturning the First Amendment because they are.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

It will be overturned. Invasion of privacy at a public place? I don't think so.

Phelps' bunch are turds. But I don't feel like overturning the First Amendment because they are.

Don't be so sure. The Court addressed the issue you just raised and still let the matter proceed:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/carroll/bal-md.funeral16oct16,0,1389208.story

RW: Please do not start the alarmist "sky is falling" stuff. All speech is not protected. This decision is not about speech, it is about the intent to injure another. Just as you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, you cannot barge into my home uninvited and orate about the awfulness of the Iraq war, you now cannot go to another person's funeral for thje purpose of humiliating and "intentionally inflicting emotional distress" on grieving family members.

[Wingnut]

I don't know if they should have been found gulty of the invasion of privacy charge, but for sure on the others.
They are surely a very misguided group.

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

RW: Please do not start the alarmist "sky is falling" stuff. All speech is not protected. This decision is not about speech, it is about the intent to injure another. Just as you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, you cannot barge into my home uninvited and orate about the awfulness of the Iraq war, you now cannot go to another person's funeral for thje purpose of humiliating and "intentionally inflicting emotional distress" on grieving family members.

<end clip>

Guido, chill.

I'm not one to go to the wall for the Phelpses, but let's take your arguments one by one.

Of course you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. That's because it's inciting a panic, which is a crime.

You can't barge into someone's house to protest the Iraq War because that is trespassing and probably breaking and entering.

However, I'm certain the Phelps cult has staked out positions on public roads or sidewalks to protest the war near those funerals. They are not on private property. Therefore, they can protest as long as they're not physically threatening anybody. And, yes, hurtful speech is protected. In short, it's legal, and no crimes are being committed. There is no expectation of privacy out in the open.

I honestly can't see how this court decision can stand constitutionally.

[guido911]

RW:  I did not realize you were an appellate lawyer or constitutional scholar. I will defer to your expertise in this area

Silly me, I wasted all that learnin' in law skool...

[rwarn17588]

As you wish, Guido. [}:)]

[oasis812005]

I guess we should feel lucky Tulsa doesnt have a church here like Westboro, with all the churches here and all...

[cannon_fodder]

First, remember this is a state law case.  I have no idea how Maryland defines "Invasion of Privacy."  If they have a rule making a funeral a private affair and designating an area around it, then it is so in the state of Maryland.  Though, I admit, this is subject to review.

What really amazed me is the claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  That's near genius.  Clearly these people are carefully choosing their protest targets to inflict the most emotional distress as possible.  Clearly the primary target of this distress is the family of the fallen soldier.  Again, a state law issue but in Oklahoma the key is behavior aimed at creating distress that is beyond the bounds of decency and utterly beyond what a normal person should be expected to endure.

Specifically:

quote:Instruction No. 20.1
ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

For [Plaintiff] to recover from [Defendant] on [his/her] claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, [he/she] must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that:

1. [Defendant's] actions in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society; and

2. [Defendant] intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to [Plaintiff] beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.

Notes on Use

         The court should also give Instructions 20.2 through 20.4, and ordinarily also an Instruction (No. 5.5) on punitive damages.

         The Oklahoma Supreme Court decided in Kraszewski v. Baptist Ctr., 1996 OK 141, 916 P.2d 241, that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress could arise from a plaintiff's witnessing an accident, if 1) the plaintiff was directly physically involved in the accident, 2) the plaintiff was damaged from viewing the injury, rather than from learning of it later, and 3) the plaintiff had a familial or other cloase relationship with the person whose injury gave rise to the plaintiff's mental anguish.  1996 OK 141, 18, 916 P.2d at 250.  If any of these matters are in controversy and need to be presented to the jury, the trial judge should draft an appropriate instruction.

Comments

The Oklahoma Supreme Court first recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Breeden v. League Servs. Corp ., 1978 OK 27,  575 P.2d 1374. In the Breeden case, the Supreme Court adopted the standards in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965), and these are incorporated into this instruction. A previous version of Instruction No. 20.1, which required only that the defendant's actions were unreasonable, was held to be incorrect in Floyd v. Dodson , 1984 OK CIV APP 57, 8-12,  692 P.2d 77 , 79-80.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=413217

I think they would have a good case under Oklahoma law.  I appreciate the fight the Phelps put up for freedom of speech, but I'm damn glad they got smacked with the verdict.  I wonder if the statute has run on their Oklahoma protests?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

First, remember this is a state law case.  I have no idea how Maryland defines "Invasion of Privacy."  If they have a rule making a funeral a private affair and designating an area around it, then it is so in the state of Maryland.  Though, I admit, this is subject to review.

What really amazed me is the claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  That's near genius.  Clearly these people are carefully choosing their protest targets to inflict the most emotional distress as possible.  Clearly the primary target of this distress is the family of the fallen soldier.  Again, a state law issue but in Oklahoma the key is behavior aimed at creating distress that is beyond the bounds of decency and utterly beyond what a normal person should be expected to endure.

Specifically:

quote:Instruction No. 20.1
ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

For [Plaintiff] to recover from [Defendant] on [his/her] claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, [he/she] must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that:

1. [Defendant's] actions in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society; and

2. [Defendant] intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress to [Plaintiff] beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.

Notes on Use

         The court should also give Instructions 20.2 through 20.4, and ordinarily also an Instruction (No. 5.5) on punitive damages.

         The Oklahoma Supreme Court decided in Kraszewski v. Baptist Ctr., 1996 OK 141, 916 P.2d 241, that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress could arise from a plaintiff's witnessing an accident, if 1) the plaintiff was directly physically involved in the accident, 2) the plaintiff was damaged from viewing the injury, rather than from learning of it later, and 3) the plaintiff had a familial or other cloase relationship with the person whose injury gave rise to the plaintiff's mental anguish.  1996 OK 141, 18, 916 P.2d at 250.  If any of these matters are in controversy and need to be presented to the jury, the trial judge should draft an appropriate instruction.

Comments

The Oklahoma Supreme Court first recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Breeden v. League Servs. Corp ., 1978 OK 27,  575 P.2d 1374. In the Breeden case, the Supreme Court adopted the standards in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965), and these are incorporated into this instruction. A previous version of Instruction No. 20.1, which required only that the defendant's actions were unreasonable, was held to be incorrect in Floyd v. Dodson , 1984 OK CIV APP 57, 8-12,  692 P.2d 77 , 79-80.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=413217

I think they would have a good case under Oklahoma law.  I appreciate the fight the Phelps put up for freedom of speech, but I'm damn glad they got smacked with the verdict.  I wonder if the statute has run on their Oklahoma protests?

Well, as you know the SOL is two years from the date of, or discovery of, the injury. When was that protest? That's right, isn't RW?

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by oasis812005

I guess we should feel lucky Tulsa doesnt have a church here like Westboro, with all the churches here and all...

There are plenty of other scary 'churches' in Tulsa.

As for Westboro, its a good thing they keep getting more media/legal attention. It exposes them and persons like them for what they truly are.