Video: Fred Phelps Freaks Out at Rick Sanchez Over Losing Snyder Suit
Posted on October 31, 2007
Listen to this man’s insanity! Westboro Baptist Cult of Hate loses suit against the father of a fallen Marine, then displays the mind he has already lost!
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, Video, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
36 Responses to “Video: Fred Phelps Freaks Out at Rick Sanchez Over Losing Snyder Suit”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
What freaks like Phelps on both the right and left count on is our essential civility and reluctance to impose on them even as they shriek they’re being imposed on.
Perhaps it’s time to remind ourselves that docility does not always equal decency… even in our case.
Freaks like Phelps exist on the Left. Link me to the Right’s equivalent. Freaks.
Sick, certifiable, and spiritually bankrupt — the perfect way to describe Phelps and his horde of morally and spiritually blind fools.
He did express one coherent thought:
Jeff, They have their free speech and the consequences that come along with it when one expresses hate. No one said they can’t go back to the next funeral and protest again. What goes around comes around. They ran their mouth too much. Bottom line. No first amendment right was lost. They caused emotional distress to a family through their hateful expression of the first amendment, a man sued and won for that.
bwahahahaa
Fred Phelps might now fit the legal definition of insane. Anyone think of that?
Pardon for the cross post of a comment I made on STACLU but it’s pertinent here as well:
The Westboro cultists aren’t Baptist by any legitimate definition. They only continue to use the name in a desperate attempt to give them the appearance of legitimacy however with the national publicity of their attrocious actions, such an appearance has long dissolved.
In regards to the lawsuit itelf, many of Fred Phelps’ offspring and children-in-law are attorneys so expect this to be appealed, delayed, etc. so as to prolong any payment or payments they may be ordered to make. Furthermore, knowing their past behavior, I fully expect them to refuse to pay even if the SCOTUS upholds the lower courts rulings. This might bring about interesting confrontations when seizures are ordered on their properties. Again pointing out the devious attorneys who are blood-related or related by marriage to Phelps, expect all properties to be hidden as best as they can from legal inquiries further delaying any monetary gains by victims of their abuse.
Please note I intentionally use the plural (victims) because I also further expect more lawsuits given the successful nature of this intitial one.
The Westboro crowd isn’t finished by any stretch of the imagination but they are riding the downward slope of oblivion with failed brakes and oil-slicked tires.
Gentlemen:
Everyone is so eager to pounce on someone who insults your fallen brothers, that you are willing to over look the facts of the case.
Fact one: Phelps may be insane - that has nothing to do with the liberty issues involved.
Fact two: There is no guarantee in America to not be insulted or to not have ones feeling hurt. (”emotional distress” please I thought this site was run by a bunch of soldier, not a bunch of feminist.)
Fact three: We have the right to express hate. In fact, let me express the fact that I hate the actions by the Phelps group.
But I also hate a bunch of sissified ninnies who defend a private cause at the sake of my personal liberties. This has all the makings of a perfect ACLU case on the Snyder side, but because of the emotional attachment you soldiers feel, you can’t separate the two.
Sorry guys, I agree with most of what you do around here, and I disagree with Phelps. But your rejoicing over his lose can only be because of an emotional attachment to the war and your career. Because if you love liberty, then you know you cannot rejoice over one’s mans lose of liberty without mourning your own!
Oh and by the way, it’s a big bunch of bunk to say that an $11 million dollar judgement isn’t taking away a man’s liberty.
Jay, do you really think free speech can survive when a price tag can be applied to rudeness? “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” It doesn’t matter if the taxing agent is Congress of a jury of peers. This verdict coercively transfers wealth from one person to another and it does so soley because the defendant said some not nice things.
That is not the natural consequence of hateful speech. The natural consequences of hateful speech are the loss of respect, influence, friends, etc. The whole world sees this man as the pitiful weakling he is; that is the natural consequence.
This verdict is purely artificial.
This verdict is Perfect. I’m betting Jeff M. would be Applauding it
if they had been sued for protesting at a homosexual’s funeral.
Let me put it a better way:
Phelps is touted by the Left as an example of Christianity.
This is an Absolute LIE, of course.
However, because they want (everyone) to believe that, he serves their
purposes.
Therefore his Hate speech is ‘Free Speech!’ and he MUST be
allowed to continue.
Let him begin showing up at the funerals of prominent Leftists
of Any stripe and see how long it takes them to haul him into court.
Phelps has no FANS on the Right. One of his biggest detractors is Sean Hannity. Phelps is an enemy of all Americans. Left or Right
Sure, Otter. Google my name and see for yourself how wrong you are. Bring something more intelligent than, “I bet he’s a hypocrite!” or shut up.
Reverend Phelps has a point (sad to say). He has the right to hate, but not to hurt, as Morris Dees from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. When I went to church with my mom in Topeka a few months ago, the Phelps family was picketing the church–holding their usual signs and my favorite, “Your minister is a whore”, and in my country, they have the right to do that, just as I have the right to put signs in my yard and stand out on the street corner with the other members of the Cedar Valley United for Peace and Justice and hold signs protesting the war. How can anyone be rejoicing in the court’s ruling? Go ahead, attack me. I want to hear what you all think about how there should be limits to free speech.
Free Speech?
No. This is about civil damages. This is about activity (which happens to be speech) being designed to cause suffering and the persons who suffered seeking compensation. They have a “right” to say it, and the victims have a right to seek compensation for their damages.
This is the same as me suing someone for shooting you. Yes they had a right to bear arms, but you also had a right to seek compensation for how they utilized that right (be it negligently or intentionally).
And even if this action did outlaw this type of speech (which it certainly did not) “Free speech” has always been subject to time place and manner restrictions. If this type of speech cannot be banned during and at the funeral of a American Soldier. Then what type of speech can be regulated?
Jeff Molby (#14) says, “This verdict coercively transfers wealth from one person to another and it does so soley because the defendant said some not nice things.”
It beats hunting him down like an animal, which is what I would have been temtped to do in Mr. Snyder’s place.
You’re analogy is slightly off and thus, inaccurate.
They have the right to speak and they spoke. If you wish to compare that to the second amendment, the correct analogy would be “They have a right to bear arms and they bore arms.”
In case you’re not sure, the verb bear means “to carry”, not “to discharge”.
That regulation is already on the books and these individuals did not violate it. State law required them to be be something like 200 feet from the entrance and they complied. If the State doesn’t have the authoritative say in the matter, who does? Should they have stood 300 feet away? 500? 1000? 10 miles?
Grr, sorry… “your”
I like to think we still hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.
Jeff~ I see you make Hot Lunches, talk about a lot of IT
stuff and are a supporter of Truther ron paul. Good
enough.
The verdict was Perfect.
Otter, the inaccuracies of that statement show how little time you spend researching things that you’ve already formed an opinion on.
- I run a business that assists hot lunch providers.
- I haven’t posted about IT in several years
- Ron Paul has repeatedly denied the “Truther” conspiracies
- I have posted many times over the past couple years on this very site in regards to free speech and homosexuality, though I’m not sure if the topics ever merged.
Isn’t it amazing what you can miss if you only take a quick glance at the cover?
Jeff,
Are you arguing that the second amendment only protects the rights of citizens to hold and carry weapons (in other words, to ‘bear’)? Gee, and to think I thought the NRA wanted to be able to load and shoot them too.
The point is, Jeff, that you CAN shoot guns, but if you hurt someone with them, and a jury finds that you did it on purpose or negligently, you can be found liable for damages. Similarly, you can speak, but if a jury finds your speech hurt someone and that you did it on purpose or negligently, they can sue you for damages. Perhaps you can look into the concept of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
They can say whatever they want. But if their outrageous behavior causes someone suffering, that someone can sue for damages. If you are stupid enough to cause someone suffering in such a way in a state that allows punative damages, all the more stupid of you.
What about personal responsibility? These a**holes hurt this family. They did what they did knowing it was going to hurt this family. Shouldn’t they be held accountable for their actions? Is there simply no legal recourse these victims. They just have to accept it? Not in Maryland apparently.
Yes, that’s what it says and that’s what it means. But you’re forgetting the 10th amendment. The Constitution was never intended to be an enumerated list of our our rights. Instead, it is an enumerated list of what the federal government may and may not do.
In regards to the 2nd amendment, the federal government may not infringe upon “the right of the People to keep and bear arms”. They most definitely can infringe upon our right to load and discharge the arms, though I imagine they would be quickly ousted if they went too far.
Thank you. I did just that and it seems like quite a stretch in this case. To qualify as IIED or NIED, the emotional distress must be “severe” and it must be directly caused by the defendant. In this case, most of the plaintiff’s distress was caused by his son’s killer and the defendant just poured some salt in the wound.
The standards for IIED are intentionally very hard to reach because a low bar would open the door for endless frivolous suits.
We all do things to “hurt” people every day. Can I sue potential customers for bankrupting me by not subscribing to my service? Can I sue girlfriend for dumping me? What if I’m particularly vulnerable at the time because my mother just died?
Pain is an unfortunate part of life. There are some basic rules society can adopt to minimize it, but if you seriously try to eliminate it, you will destroy this country. That’s not hyperbole.
D’oh! Sorry. I said 10th, but linked to the 9th. I meant 9th.
“The Constitution was never intended to be an enumerated list of our our rights. Instead, it is an enumerated list of what the federal government may and may not do.”
No sh*t. Till the 14th Amendment passed that along to the States (but that is a different story). Either way, that’s why the “freedom of speech” isn’t involved. This happened in a State Court and was a civil remedy handed down by a citizen jury, not a government sanction or criminal prosecution.
Yes the bar for NIED is high. You getting dumped by your girl doesn’t even come close. Baselessly picketing at and celebrating a soldier’s funeral?
“In this case, most of the plaintiff’s distress was caused by his son’s killer and the defendant just poured some salt in the wound.”
No. Maybe. Doesn’t matter. The harm is measured as the difference between the the Plaintiff without the tort and the Plaintiff with it. Regardless of what the damage was prior to these idiots showing up. This (impartial) jury determined that difference was worth $2.9 million dollars. Then they punished the church (which they are allowed to do under law in Maryland) with an additional 9 mill. in punitives. That is the risk you take going in front of a jury. Surely Westborough Baptist moved to have the case thrown out (via summary judgment motion) long before the (opening) day of trial.
If I am already a quadraplegic, and you come up to me and punch me in the face, do you argue I get nothing because I was already so messed up? No. I get compensation for the amount of harm you caused.
You seem to mixing up two issues. 1. whether any compensation is allowed. and 2. whether the compensation awarded was in line with the evidence. The fact that these people were already greiving would influence part 2 but not part 1. At all.
And yes, your statement is hyperbole. Do you really think a precedent in Maryland which says that a Defendant may be liable for the emotion suffering caused by their willfull and wanton picketing and celebrating at the funeral of a non-public figure, in progress, for their own political agenda which is utterly unrelated to the deceased or the deceased’s family in any way will destroy the country? Really?
Hyperbole indeed.
Ok, let’s confine ourselves to Maryland law.
I’m no lawyer, so I’m sure there are nuanced differences between that and our national Constitution, but it seems to cover the same ground. And no, they can’t skirt the Constitutional limitation by blaming a jury. The jury is simply a proxy for the legislature.
Doesn’t matter? That’s all that matters. Without tort: Mr. Snyder is a grieving father. With tort: Mr. Snyder is a grieving father.
The only difference between the two is the degree to which he is grieving. Are you seriously suggesting that Phelps’ words caused more grief than did his son’s death?
That is a physical injury and a criminal act. Fix your analogy and try again.
I’m not the least bit concerned about part 2, so let’s focus on part 1.
I agree that the fact they were already grieving should not influence whether compensation is allowed. So let’s do a thought experiment. If Phelps had approach Mr. Snyder prior to his son’s deployment and said, “God hates fags and he’s going to prove it by killing your son”, would Mr. Snyder have deserved compensation?
It depends on the path of the appeals. If it stays within the state as you suggest, I withdraw my statement and instead speculate that it would ruin discourse in the state unless the courts go out of their way to limit the applicability of the precedent.
If SCOTUS puts a rubber stamp on the precedent that a plaintiff can receive damages whenever his feelings are sufficiently hurt, yes, I believe it will ultimately end with our descent into tyranny. It is historically rare for people to enjoy the freedoms our founders set out to protect. It is naive to assume we aren’t in constant danger of undermining them.
You are making no sense to me Jeff. Your ‘pouring salt’ argument is pointless. He sued for emotional distress directly caused by the Fred Phelps clan. They ran their hateful mouths off, and someone said, enough. They have a reasonably assumed right to a private and peaceful ceremony when grieving. In my opinion, the Phelps cult infringed upon those rights by going overboard practicing their’s. This isn’t equal to a political protester with proper permits on a public street. If someone protests silence in your front yard by playing loud music all night, the cops can jail them for disturbing the peace. That is a charge the Phelps crew should be charged with as well. They make about as much sense as my example.
That’s exactly it, though. They didn’t violate a single law. Every analogy that has been presented in these two threads assumes a criminal act of some sort. One person assumed assault with a deadly weapon, another assumed battery, and now your analogy assumes the violation of a noise ordinance.
Phelps and company didn’t attack anyone.
They didn’t threaten anyone.
They were on public property.
They were the required distance from the entrance of the cemetery.
They were no louder or more demonstrative than many permitted protests.
As far as I know, they didn’t even utter a swear word.
The only thing they did was hurt a man’s feelings.
I simply don’t understand how people can accept that precedent so lightly.
“They have a reasonably assumed right to a private and peaceful ceremony when grieving.”
The assumption here is that someone has special rights when they are grieving. Where does that come from? It’s an emotional argument. It is not based on fact or law…or for that matter a love for liberty. The ACLU would be proud. They have built their organization on emotional propaganda for years and that is what the majority of you so called conservatives are doing, when you rejoice over this tyrannical ruling. You get so emotionally worked up over the message and the messenger, that you can’t deal with the facts.
Jeff,
Are you suggesting that it is impossible to recover damages for words alone? (keeping lible, slander, threats, and extortion out of it of course)
Yes it is very very rare to do so, but under no circumstances? Ever?
Imagine I call Natalie Holloway’s (sp?) mom. And I tell her in an excited tone that I have found her daughter alive and well. Then I put a Natalie sound-alike on the phone and they share a joyous moment. Then I tell her that we will be arriving at her house in one hour. Then I hang up.
Of course this would merely be a cruel prank. So no damages? It isn’t a crime necessarily. I only spoke, and didn’t actually harm anyone. She certainly was already greiving, and I didn’t cause her daughter to go missing. Under these circumstances, no action?
Yet I cause her great suffering. Why is it difficult to imagine that I should be found liable for this suffering?
The standard for words alone causing emotional injury is a tough bar to pass. The behavior has to be outrageous and/or reckless. A jury could easily find that the behavior of these losers is outrageous. You might save yourself a lot of grief and look at the precedent in Maryland for IIED with words alone. If it has never happened before, you MAY have an argument. If it has, how does this behavior not qualify?
And no, the jury does not stand in the place of the legislature.
And you seem confused about the whole crime issue. Just because you commit a crime, doesn’t necessarily mean someone can sue you. At the same time, people sue for things that aren’t crimes all the time. Defaulting on a contract isn’t per se against the law for instance, but it is actionable in tort law. Most car accidents happen without a crime being committed. Generally negligence of any kind is not a crime. Take my punch in the face example and substitute you accidentally dropping a bag of flour on my face from a window. No crime, lots of preexisting injury. And yet, I can still bring a claim for the harm you caused. I used the punch analogy because this was not negligent behavior by the WBC cultists, rather it was intentional.
I didn’t mean for both of these to be posted. I took out that work I assumed was offensive and reposted.
Change “words” to “political speech” and my answer is yes. Your Holloway example could, in no way, be construed as discourse on an issue relevant to this country’s laws and beliefs, so free speech concerns wouldn’t be a factor. The standards for IIED would be the only concern.
Phelps was communicating his beliefs on an issue of morality that we regularly struggle with.
Did the legislature not create the court and the very rules under which it operates? Is the jury not instructed examine the dispute in light of the law? Yes, you could make a case that the legislature is not responsible for common law, but it wouldn’t be much of a case. The legislature can trump common law any time it wants and its failure to do so obviously in any particular instance is a tacit approval.
I readily accept that, but the analogies offered all have extraneous factors that could the issue.
Show me an analogy that rests solely on speech that is clearly protected by the 1st at a location that is clearly public in a manner that clearly complies with all local regulations. Then and only then, do you have any hope of making progress with me.
-
“Show me an analogy that rests solely on speech that is clearly protected by the 1st at a location that is clearly public in a manner that clearly complies with all local regulations. Then and only then, do you have any hope of making progress with me.”
I don’t need an analogy. The example is going to the funeral of a deceased soldier (who is not a public figure in any way) (at which there would be expected no media coverage) with large signs that say “Thank God for IEDs” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “Fag Troops.”
Several States have already enacted time, place, and manner restrictions on these idiots, so, if the legislature is going to step it, it should be to restrict this type of “pure political speech” not protect it.
“Then and only then, do you have any hope of making progress with me.”
Oh, I’ve already made plenty of progress with you big boy.
Umm, ok. So you care to cite a precedent, but you’re right because you’re right? I guess all I can say is that I remain unconvinced.
Including Maryland. They passed a law specifically to regulate such action and Phelps fully complied. I’m still waiting for anyone to explain why he was wrong for assuming the legislature and the governor spoke for the state.
I haven’t deduced your gender, so I’m not sure what your intent was, but if you were trying to get a rise out of me because you believe I’m a homophobe, you’ve got it all wrong. I’m one of the few people who supports most of the GLBT agenda. In fact, many of the people who agree with you aren’t the least bit concerned about the nature of the speech. They’re just pissed about the military tie. As for me, I just want to protect the right to peacefully dissent.
*So you don’t care to cite a precedent…