Finally, some good news we can all agree on

[Partha]

That fucking idiot Phelps gets the bill:

BALTIMORE (Reuters) - A jury on Wednesday ordered an anti-gay Kansas church to pay $2.9 million in compensatory damages to relatives of a U.S. Marine after church members cheered his death at his funeral.

The jury in federal court determined that the Westboro Baptist Church based in Topeka, and three of its principals, had invaded the privacy of the dead man's family and inflicted emotional distress when they protested at his funeral last year.

I think applause is in order.

[Ddrak]

Awesome! You also left off the 6 million in punitive and 2 million for causing emotional distress. This is one case where I'm more than happy for a jury to stick it to someone.

Dd

[Finglefinn]

Too bad the defendants, even if they sold the church, their houses and everything they own could not pay for the award. I doubt if they could break a couple million.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Too bad the defendants, even if they sold the church, their houses and everything they own could not pay for the award. I doubt if they could break a couple million.

All I hope is that they break....

[Jarochai Alabaster]

All I hope is that they break....

That may very well have been what the jury is trying to do with the ruling.

I'm a little iffy on this one, actually. While I loathe WBC and their practices, couldn't this set a dangerous precedent that if you publicly speak in a manner insulting or offensive to others, you may face punitive consequences? Did they break any laws? Yes, it's abhorrent, but doesn't this fall under freedom of speech?

[Embar Angylwrath]

All I hope is that they break....

That may very well have been what the jury is trying to do with the ruling.

I'm a little iffy on this one, actually. While I loathe WBC and their practices, couldn't this set a dangerous precedent that if you publicly speak in a manner insulting or offensive to others, you may face punitive consequences? Did they break any laws? Yes, it's abhorrent, but doesn't this fall under freedom of speech?

I see your point Jaro, and to some extent, I agree. Freedom of speech should be sacrosanct. In this circumstance, the question is "Is the protest speech, or is it harassment?" In order to answer that question, one must ask themselves if the message could have been delivered just as forcefully without the harassing element?

The answer to that is, I think, yes.

The members of the church could have picketed any number of war memorials, or even the Pentagon itslef, and I would have sent money to their defense fund, if they were sued, even though I detest what they espouse. However, what they engaged in was harassment cloaked in hyperbole. They have no right to do what they did.

Having said that, I do think the jury awarded the amount they did to send a message. They awarded that amount to break the church. Too bad the church members will file for bankruptcy, the plaintiffs will never see a dime, and they'll still continue to engage in similar tactics, since its the only business model the "church" has. This will most likely continue until they get tossed in jail.

[Ddrak]

I feel the same as Embar here - Freedom of Speech is different to harassment, and going back to the old "Yelling fire in a theater" standard, this sort of thing was specifically designed to do far more than get a message out. They were trying to provoke a response, and that is outside any first amendment protection.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Ever watch The People vs. Larry Flynt?

His case that went before the USSC was basically the same thing.....the awarding of punative damages for emotional distress for running an ad in Hustler that asserted that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother in an outhouse. The only difference is that obviously Falwell is a public figure. So hard to say on where they would fall on this issue of a private funeral......even though you could argue that a soldier becomes a public figure when they die in a war.

[Finglefinn]

Beyond an appellate reversal, the steps the church will go through to follow the judgement decree or directive will be quite an undertaking. Dissolving this particular church (the entity and its assets) and forcing all responsible parties to give up everything they own, aside from what is protected under bankruptcy laws (which will not be very much), is a severe punishment.

It is clear that the jury wanted to send a message to the WBC. Stop what you are doing and go away. This country does not want to see you ever again. I agree that everyone should be protected by the 1st Amendment, but clearly, the WBC crossed the line. Assuming the jury was fully aware of everything involved and were properly informed of the law (1st Amendment rights) by the attorneys and the judge, they still chose to punish the WBC.

If I was on the jury, I probably would have come to the same conclusion. And I'm a huge supporter of personal freedom.

[Klast Brell]

I'm really conflicted about this. Part of me is thrilled that WBC took a kick in the nuts. But part of me is terrified that this will be used as a bludgeon against other forms of protesting.

[Finglefinn]

Most protests are done without too much trouble. Sure, some morons get arrested and hold stupid signs saying different derogatory things, but most people don't care. Rallys and protests are largely ignored. And some are even staged to coincide with the arrival of television cameras. There's more attention paid on tv than there really is at the scene.

In this case, the WBC clearly had it coming. You can protest anything in this country. Just do it in good taste. An anti-war protest at a soldier's funeral is acceptable. Americans who care passionately about protesting the war have every right to protest the war and display their disapproval of our boys dying. Celebrating a dead soldier and thanking God for their death because the USA is compassionate to homosexuals is just horrible. Especially at the funeral of a soldier at a Federal cemetary. That is crossing the line.

[Garrdor]

WBC 4 EVER