PHELP'S CHURCH HAS TO PAY 10.9 MILLION TO MARINE FAMILY

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3134225120071031

Awesome news!

*garnish*:D

This is a moral victory, but I doubt any actual money will change hands.

This "church" mainly consists of Phelps' family, from what I've seen and read. His demonstrations are usually him and his children and grandchildren (constituting child abuse, I'd say) standing around holding hateful signs and saying hateful things, hoping against hope that someone gets pissed enough to come after them, so they can sue.

It's because Phelps' extended family - with many lawyers among them - probably started their cockamamie protests at military funerals in hopes of provoking an attack upon them. They would have then sued the police department of the municipality in which the attack occurred, hoping to get awarded a tidy sum - nevermind that it could potentially bankrupt a small town in the process.

O Happy Day!

Hurray !!!!!

Compensatory damages: $2.9 million
Emotional distress: $2 million
Punitive damages: $6 million

Total: $10.9 million

it's a family cult

...supporting the troops!

I thought it was 2.9. In any event, this is Fantastic, probably the best news of the week.

Phelps is so despicable, and his entire family is deranged, mentally ill and in dire need of psychotherapy.

You'd think that would have happened years ago.

Anyway, I'm glad they finally got theirs. :rofl:

but this judgement is outrageous. Either we have freedom or we don't. This could easily be anti war protesters the next time.

I was wondering how to put it, but you said it perfectly and succinctly. Just plain outrageous.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3049415&mesg_id=3049457

It could be trouble for the free speech and the establishment clauses of our friend the First Amendment.

Flame suit on! (In case anyone thinks I'd defend Phelps.)

--IMM

but, it is not a First Ammendment issue...the government did nothing to impede his speech. This suit was brought because he targetted an individual (rather MANY, but this one's family fought back). He said, "YOUR son (I assume it was a son) was a fag enabler. YOUR son fought for a sodomite lovers army. YOUR son is burning in hell."

He was not protesting, he was attacking someone.

sP

And responsibility has to have some legal basis, right? The Constitution has to come into play somewhere?

I'm just asking questions here.

--IMM

If the case had no legal basis, it would have been dismissed a long time before it went to trial. The judge makes determinations of law, the jury makes determinations of fact.

--IMM

If the trial judge made an erroneous decision on a matter of law, that will be addressed by the appellate court. There may also be a process where the trial judge can reduce the size of the verdict - I don't want to get overly speculative about Maryland law.

Free Speech is not the issue. This idiot-Phelps-inflicted "emotional distress" and pain on this family. The Constitution protects us from idiots like this... and there is NO fine line.

No judge in his right mind would overturn this.

This guy is nuts and I'm so glad for this family.
:applause:

How about you? Doesn't bother you?

Where do I go to sue for my $11M?

--IMM

There isn't a clear line between free speech and "attacking someone".

If "You're going to hell" and "God hates you" is enough to be awarded damages, I should be a very wealthy man.

Granted, the article doesn't go in to a whole lot of detail but what I have read so far doesn't seem like enough to cross the line. It's more of a stupid religious opinion of a wacko - more of a wacko than most other religions. I guess I would have to see the specific complaints made by the plaintiff to make a decision if there really WAS any slander there. As far as invading privacy goes -How do you invade privacy by protesting on a public street? Sure it's repulsive, but that's the point.

The comments being made remind too much of O'Lielly and his charges of slander. Remember people - this shit can be turned on us too.

The comments above stating that it's not the government doing this are sad and almost laughable at the same time. Hint: When the government is going to help enforce a judgment, possibly at gun point, it IS the government impeding free speech.


Don't get me wrong, I hate Phelps as much as anyone. A fews years ago, he protested our pride parade and a few thoughts crossed my mind concerning the good view/line of sight I had from the roof of my building - but I figured he wasn't worth it.

a few other things.

I hope the pig is broke when this is over.

Otherwise how could this have been allowed to happen?

I hope that drives that fuck off the public sphere

Thanks.
Perhaps there is some justice left in the US?
Must say, this news gives me hope.
Guess Gonzales and Rove didn't get a chance to
rig this particular judicial precinct.
BHN

I think Phelps and his gang of thugs are slime, but I don't see how this can hold up.

or pledge assets to prevent the winners from executing on the judgment.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has used civil suits in the past to go after hate organizations for specific actions of those groups.

:cry: