Comments on: Albert Snyder, Father of Slain Marine, Wins Lawsuit Against Westboro Baptist Church

By: DavidBruno

DavidBruno — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:40:47 +0000

Thank goodness for this Maryland judgement. The Phelps have no cogent expression to make and their raison d’etre is purely to cause distress to the mourning families whose funeral services they try to disrupt. Arguing that the Phelps’ borderline insane activities (to which they drag their children: surely child abuse) should be protected by the First Amendment is an insult to the First Amendment.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:11:23 +0000

No one really cares if you do not think that is justification enough, the jury did and THEY made that determination legally within the court system.

Actually, about 10 different people cared enough about my opinion to discuss it with me. If you don’t wish to discuss it further, that’s fine… Move on.

What matters is that the court ruled in a legal manner.

The court ruled, yes. The “legal manner” part is yet to be decided. There will be at least a couple appeals and I may very well prove to be right, even if you don’t want to admit it.

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:29:51 +0000

Jeff, what you are not “getting”, obviously, is nobody has to justify it to you…THE COURT justified it in its ruling and with a jury awarding the father the win.

They caused undue pain and suffering for the father with invasion of privacy at their son’s funeral.

No one really cares if you do not think that is justification enough, the jury did and THEY made that determination legally within the court system.

You may not like it and that is your right, but it doesn’t make a difference if we agree or you do not agree.

What matters is that the court ruled in a legal manner.

My personal feeling is the award may be lowered a bit but that the ruling will withstand appeal.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:12:37 +0000

Michelle, I hear the emotional appeal, but that’s all I hear. I’m still waiting for someone to legally justify the ruling. The state passed a law specifically to cover these situations. That law created a 200 ft bubble around the entrance of the cemetery. How is it that a jury can retroactively increase the size of the bubble?

It’s not my litmus test, Michelle. The state didn’t charge him with harassment, so clearly his actions didn’t meet their standard.

By: spree

spree — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:14:57 +0000

Very well said Michelle.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:47:15 +0000

Apparently you didn’t catch the part where they were saying “God hates the soldiers” “God hates their families” “Their families hate him (the Marine that was killed)”…saw it on the news, right along with their dumb signs.

Hey, if you have a problem with someone’s love or sex life, find another venue. The only reason they do what they do is that nobody will pay any attention to them if they did it anywhere else. Plainly put: they are attention seekers, however:

Jeff, this was a funeral for someone’s son. That Marine died to protect the freedom that these jackasses hide behind. The Marine’s family, who paid for the funeral, had it destroyed by these jackals. The family deserves the protection from the same judicial branch that protects them.

If that doesn’t pass your litmus test as harrassment, then I don’t know what does.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:57:09 +0000

P.S. <blockquote>This is how you blockquote</blockquote>

This is how you blockquote

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:55:59 +0000

Putting aside the law, it is my view that harassing grieving families,

Define “harrassing”. They were on public property 200+ feet away from the entrance of the cemetary. What would have to change for it to no longer qualify as “harrassment”? Should they have moved farther away? 400 feet? 1000 feet? 10 miles?

They were in accordance with with state law. What is the point of these laws if we’re just going to retroactively apply subjective judgement anyways?

By: brat

brat — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:47:29 +0000

“They found that people should not be allowed to hide behind the free speech right to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.” (because I don’t know how to block..lol)

Okay – I’ll bite In MY books, and from where I sit, doing what they did, that group most clearly degraded the solemnity of Matthew Snyder’s funeral. And yes, a military man and his family.

With great freedom comes great responsibility. EVERY freedom comes with a responsibility. Those people are free to express themselves and the courts have the freedom to exercise THEIR responsibility to uphold HR 5037 (I think it is.

Putting aside the law, it is my view that harassing grieving families, as well as disrespecting the flag of America, is morally repugnant. Yes, those people live in a land of freedom of speech, but that gives the rest of us the freedom of speech to say:

NOT ON MY WATCH!

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:35:20 +0000

No, Susan, you cited a full paragraph that contained a number of components which I think we can all agree don’t apply. I do see how certain components may apply, but I was first trying to understand your perspective. When I asked you, you cited only the “sexual orientation” phrase and then proceeded to berate me for not assuming.

I figured there was more to your position, so I asked the question in #36 to give you an opportunity to clarify your position so we could move forward without assumptions.

I’ll keep an eye on this thread in case you wish to do so.