Marine's father sues funeral protesters (Phelps)

GREENBELT, Md. - The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters from a fundamentalist Kansas church filed an invasion-of-privacy suit against the demonstrators Monday.

It is believed to be the first lawsuit brought by a soldier's family against Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., whose members routinely demonstrate at military funerals around the country.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, is seeking unspecified damages. The younger Snyder, 20, died March 3 after an accident in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was buried in Westminster, Md.

"We think it's a case we can win because anyone's funeral is private," Snyder lawyer Sean Summers said. "You don't have a right to interrupt someone's private funeral."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060605/ap_on_re_us/funeral_lawsuit

likely be laughed out of court!!!

But I wish the Marine's father luck. If I was on the jury I'd award him everything those sick f*cks own.

slobbing bible-thumping idiots all of them!

I hope they are sued by every family whose funeral they have picketed.

Not as hard as you might think.

This is doomed. Sadly, Phelps is well within his rights to do what he does. It sickens me, but as long as he just speaks, there is nothing that can be done.

1st amendment is a bitch.

There is a ton of precedence where there was emotional damage and no physical damage.

distress damages; and if an "evil mind" is shown, you can get punitive damages. I think this is opportunity to wipe out these idiots transportatation budget.

This is why I am not a lawyer.

Isn't that prosecutable? Also probably trespass. I saw this story a couple of days ago, but never dreamed it would be "invastion of privacy". What kind of penalty could that carry?

I hope there are more suits to follow.

Dismissed or not, this plays right into Phelps' hand. And if it actually does go to court, it's a windfall for Phelps and his family with the increased media coverage allowing him to more effectively spread his "message".

aware of this moonbat.

Actually, he's doing us a favor by just being himself. Anyone with a heart and half a brain (no trip to the wizard needed) can see just what a disgusting specimen he is. Even "respectable" fundies can't stand him because he makes them look bad.

If people want to support this sort of fundie zealotry, let them get a good, long, hard look at what's its grotesque face looks like; maybe it will give them some pause to consider the company they're keeping.

Phelps and his clan are not interrupting or "invading" the funerals. They are picketing in the public common area, which every American has the right to do. The funerals may be private, but the area surrounding them remain public.

A harrassment suit would have carried more weight.

It depends on the intent of the protests. If there can be shown evidence of intent to cause "emotional distress," then there is a case. In fact, evidence doesn't necessarily have to come down to having proof. There is a difference between evidence and proof. A jury could decide on the evidence.

Anyways, the case will serve to further expose Phelps. If publicity he wants, well, he's gonna get it.

If pro-military people claim they are "distressed" by anti-war protests, or if evangelicals claim "distress" from pride parades, this line of reasoning could be very damaging to free-speech. No one has the right to not be offended by something, and that's why this military father has no case.

Hopefully, though, the case will throw a cog in Phelps' sheenanigans, and keep him preoccupied for a while.

Anti-war protests and the Gay Pride parade are not targeting a specific family. Phelps is exploiting the sorrow and tragedy of individual families in an attempt to validate his protest cause.

Let me ask you, if it was a bunch of KKK members with burning crosses at an individual's funeral, how should the court rule?

Burning a cross in public is hardly an infringement on someone else's privacy (repugnant though it is).

I believe the Supreme Court ruled that cross-burning was not protected speech, as it represented intimidation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said."


I'm not sure I agree with that ruling, as "intimidation" could easily apply to any valid protest. However, the KKK members (without burning-crosses) have a right to picket in the vicinity at a funeral (though not in the funeral), just like anyone else does.

The father should sue Bush for allowing his son to be killed in a War for oil

the blame for the action of this bunch of mouth-breathers.

Yesterday I was listening to this author on a local talk show - After the Flag Has Been Folded : A Daughter Remembers the Father She Lost to War--and the Mother Who Held Her Family Together by Karen Spears Zacharias - and the host (Chris Moore-KDKA) had to tell her the people protesting funerals were not anti-war protestors but this religious zealots with their hateful anti-gay agenda!

And I've heard MSM carelessly attributing the protests to anti-war protestors.

Gawd people don't do their homework!

"God hates fags" doth one think anti-war? :D

war is gawd's just due for an America that tolerates gays. Therefore, the deaths are the fault of gay people. It is very sick. Reminiscent of Nazi Germany who put their devils in death camps.

The one thing they are doing is putting a spotlight on what are otherwise ignored funerals.

Statement of the Family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder as His Father Solicits Funds to Support Lawsuit Against Kansas Protest Group

We are fully aware that Al Snyder is planning to file a lawsuit against the people from Kansas who demonstrated outside of Matt's funeral.

Each member of Matt's family must respond to Matt's death in his or her own way. The members of his mother's family choose to grieve privately and to celebrate the gift of Matt's life and the lives of his remaining family.

While their behavior was despicable, nothing that the group from Kansas said or did has any power to diminish Matt's character or his contribution to the world. There is no point to a lawsuit that will only bring them what they most desire - attention. And, there is no amount of money that could ever compensate his mother and sisters for losing Matt. They have nothing to do with Mr. Snyder's actions and no involvement whatsoever in the lawsuit.

The entire family, including his mother, Julie, his sisters, and Julie's family, are especially adamant about expressing their deep dismay that Al Snyder is soliciting funds to support this lawsuit. Again, Julie, her daughters, and her family have nothing to do with this effort and would not wish to see anyone contribute to the "Al Snyder Legal Fund" on their behalf.
>snip<
full statement here:
http://wbal.com/news/story.asp?articleid=45600

own way." Case closed - no matter the outcome.

tough to drive around protesting at funerals on crutches in a body cast.

Several around here would be more than willing to help.

like it will fly. Particularly if the funeral notice gives all of the details to the public but fails to state it is by invitation only. :shrug:

My friends made a short film that pokes fun at these fundie nutcases:

http://birdshot.cf.huffingtonpost.com

There's a stellar appearance of the vice-president at the very end. Funny stuff.